On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:47:17 +0100 (BST), Howard Winter wrote: > Bob, > > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:02:53 -0500, Bob Ammerman wrote: > > > I large suite of DOS applications that I developed starting in 1984 is still > > being used today by one of my customers. It is a very critical part of their > > business. I have several times provided them with the potential of upgrading > > them to a Win environment, but they are happy with them and see no reason to > > spend the $$. However, they have had a in-house development project going on > > since 1999 to build a replacement for my system, but delivery of that system > > is now 4+ years late! > > Ah, I know that feeling! I've had two systems that I've designed and built (with a team working for me) which > were later (for political reasons) said to be "old technology" and projects to replace them were put in place. > Estimates of 6 months to implement the system using "the latest technology" (how we laughed!). I know that > one had failed to be implemented after 5 years, I never did hear what happened to the other (I moved on) but > it was at least 18 months late, if it ever did go live. Both of these were line-of-business systems, > basically running the companies that used them, and were designed for exactly the way they work. I think the > problem is that some people in our business get too tangled in the technology, and forget that the requirement > is to do what the users want, not to get clever with the technology! Or worse, to try to make the problem fit > the solution that they like... > > ...for example one system (distributed around the country in a number of branches) used ISDN for comms, > dialing between the centre and each branch twice a day to swap data. The Brave New Solution proposed by the > new people used a central database (I forget which, but one of the big names) so had to have leased lines > installed to each location, and each transaction had to refer back to the central. This was before ADSL so > we're talking a *lot* of money! The users didn't need live data for each location, just for their own, so > having a central database rather than one at each site wasn't needed, but they had to pay for it anyway > because the new IT people wanted to use the solution they had used before. I don't know if it ever worked, > and I know it would have been slower than the system I put in. > > It sometimes disgusts me the way some IT people seem to see their job as using the technology, rather than > solving the problem! (/rant) How about the local restaurant that replaced their completely usable propretary system (which they picked up used) with a system based off of... wait for it... Windows 98. And poorly implemented to boot. Windows 98, surely operating as designed, would crash 4 or 5 times per day--usually when load was high. In addition, the installers had one of the order entry stations plugged in under a table where customers would kick the plug out of the wall several time a day. All of this because the owner's son, who figured himself tech-savvy, was duped by the company hawking their state-of-the-art/oooh-it-uses-Windows-98 system. I also seem to recall that you have/had to navigate 5 menu levels to put onions on a hamburger--this being a burger and malt restaurant where 80% of the burgers have onions. Of course, they talked to no one who actually worked in the restaurant when developing the "business logic." I find this to be a very common problem and not limited to IT. Specifications are king. Bradley -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist