RE: Microsoft thwarted again

[Jim Damato <jdamato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Walden-

I agree that folks are confusing their many pet peeves about Windows
software.  Upgrading to meet the demand for new functionality is much
different than upgrading while keeping an applications functionality
constant.

You're right that if you're willing to stick with text mode Windows doesn't
go out of date.  This may be beside the point.

Let's suppose you want to keep an app constant because requirements have not
changed, because your business does not require new functionality, or
because your business might like new functionality but does not see a
cost-justification.  Let's suppose, however, that you want to keep your
platform current and supportable, because your external auditors require it,
because you occasionally have to buy replacement hardware, or because the
burden of finding and supporting old PCs and old Windows versions becomes
prohibitively difficult.

In a Windows environment you're more often likely to be unable to run your
old app as you upgrade the OS -- because the old OS has been de-supported,
or new hardware requires the new OS version.  You're also less likely to be
able to port your app from desktop to desktop or server to server at the
same hardware and OS level.  You better have hung on to the installation
software.  Unless your software is extremely primitive you won't be able to
just copy it from place to place.  And you may never know if the app ports
seamlessly from one Windows version to another if the installation software
itself is incompatible with the next version of Windows.  I'm sure you'll
get your text mode-based Windows app running again, but it may or may not
require reengineering just to get it loaded on new hardware and a new OS.
Even if the interface remains constant the underlying platform changes may
break the app.

A text mode-based AS/400 5250 app by comparison is far more likely to port
from hardware model to model and OS version to OS version with minimal
effort.


But while we're also on the subject of changing business requirements, how
many of the past ten years of changing technology have been business
requirements?  It seems to me that so many major rewrites address stability
and deployment, not usability.  I've seen a fair number of honest functional
improvements, but I've also seen a lot of treading water in a new swimsuit.
How many rewrites of new technology apps have been responses to development
platforms that have fallen from favor?  I've watched single products go from
fat-client proprietary techniques to fat-client Powerbuilder or VB, or to
proprietary app-server concepts, to various iterations of web-deployment --
all without improving the overall interface.  Heck, some of the first
conversions from client/server to web-based have been a functional step
backwards.  The applications improvements in the same time frame could have
been written on the original technology stack had it not become yesterday's
news.  (This is a rant about our industry in general, not the superiority or
inferiority of any one platform.)

Still, I think that the ability to easily maintain a stable, reliable
application from System 38 to AS/400 to iSeries has been a great asset for
the platform, and a great liability.

-Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Walden H. Leverich
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 1:12 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Microsoft thwarted again


But both you and Paul are adding new requirements into the mix. That's
no different that saying that I want to use WAS so I can't run V3R2
anymore. 

I still stand by my statement, if you're willing to stick w/text mode
simplicity windows doesn't go "out of date." If you want to say how good
5250 green-screen is it's not fair to contrast it with the changing
business requirements handled by Windows.

Now, if you want to say that the fact that 5250 CAN NOT HANDLE the more
modern requirements of users and the public, and that because of that
you can tell your users that they "can't have" some new feature, that's
a different story. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either
your users don't need more that 5250 can deliver, in which case DOS is
still an option, or they do and 5250 isn't.

-Walden


------------
Walden H Leverich III
President & CEO
Tech Software
(516) 627-3800 x11
WaldenL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.TechSoftInc.com

Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.)