thedba

IreneW said:

thedba said:

GeorgeBMac said:

thedba said:

GeorgeBMac said:

lkrupp said:

Rayz2016 said:

This happens every five years. 

They announce that they’re going to break with the past, release something that points to a legacy-free future. 

Then a chap from marketing reminds them that if they do that, then they’re going to have to build market share from scratch. 

And then the whole idea gets binned … for another five years. 

Microsoft is trapped in a legacy hellhole they cannot escape. As time marches on Windows gets ever more bloated because of this captivity. Apple has the luxury of just telling the legacy luddites to fuck off. Every Apple blog and every Apple discussion forum is loaded with outraged users livid because their legacy hardware and software no longer perform. The dropping of 32bit compatibility is just one example. Microsoft could never do that. Apple simply tells the legacy crowd too bad, so sad. The kicker is all those outraged legacy types stay with the platform anyway.

That may be one of the reasons why MacOS is an "also ran".

Support for older hardware is one of the strengths Windows has.   We saw that with WIndows 7 as well as with IE:  Microsoft wanted to move on but its users, particularly corporate users had too much invested in those so called "legacy systems".  Currently the 14 year old Thinkpad I use for financial work is running Windows 8.1.  But, when I get a break from yard work and tutoring my grandson, I plan to stick in an SSD and upgrade it Windows 10.   Why not?  It runs fine, the upgrade will cost almost nothing and will stop me from having to sink money into a new machine for a few more years.

Another example is COBOL, the business language the proliferated in 30-40 years ago.  Today many businesses still run on business critical systems developed with it.  

The truth is:  while hardware can continue to move forward, it is the software that businesses rely on and where the investment lies.  They aren't going to walk away from that investment quickly or easily.  And, in some cases, like COBOL, they can't.  The resources to replace it aren't available.

See my reply to "crowley" about legacy software and security holes. 

While many businesses may still run COBOL programs, I'm pretty certain that IBM has upgraded their mainframe hardware and OS, is it still called 360?
I'm also pretty certain that the COBOL compiler of old (70's, 80's) isn't the same as the COBOL compiler of today which runs on much more modern architecture.

Think of SQL Server 7 meant to run on Windows NT systems and  SQL Server 2019 meant to run on todays's modern systems. 
At a most basic level they're just DBMS's but I can assure you, they're quite different.  

As an IT person I can tell you it is irresponsible of IT departments hanging on to older versions of their software. 
But often we do get trumped by accountants and budgets and we find ourselves scrambling to make massive upgrades from SQL Server 2008 --> 2019 or Oracle 10g --> 19c.  And the more bean counters wait, the more it costs. 

 

Yeh, I get the "newer is better" stuff.

But, those old systems were built like battleships to be solid, reliable and to dependably get the the job done.  And many of them still do.  It's not about "accountants".  It's about executives who want systems that "just work" -- year, after year, after year....
And, in a mission critical system, that trumps "new" -- even if it is "better".

And, your example of going from a crappy DBS to another crappy DBS shows you likely have likely never seen a quality application system.

What is crappy about SQL Server or Oracle DBMS’s? Or are you one of those mainframe is king DB2 guys?
Also keeping up with modern versions of OS’s and software isn’t just change for the sake of change. 

It’s also about security. 

Would you recommend to your users to stick to with the old 32 bit versions of their software because they still work?
Would you recommend that they stick with Windows NT? Lotus Notes? 

What would be the problem with running 32 bit software that work? There's nothing "secure" with 64 bits. A lot of mission critical systems are 32 (or even 16) bit. Ever worked in automotive or aviation?

No one ever said that 64 bit is more secure. 

GeorgeBMac said:

thedba said:

GeorgeBMac said:

lkrupp said:

Rayz2016 said:

This happens every five years. 

They announce that they’re going to break with the past, release something that points to a legacy-free future. 

Then a chap from marketing reminds them that if they do that, then they’re going to have to build market share from scratch. 

And then the whole idea gets binned … for another five years. 

Microsoft is trapped in a legacy hellhole they cannot escape. As time marches on Windows gets ever more bloated because of this captivity. Apple has the luxury of just telling the legacy luddites to fuck off. Every Apple blog and every Apple discussion forum is loaded with outraged users livid because their legacy hardware and software no longer perform. The dropping of 32bit compatibility is just one example. Microsoft could never do that. Apple simply tells the legacy crowd too bad, so sad. The kicker is all those outraged legacy types stay with the platform anyway.

That may be one of the reasons why MacOS is an "also ran".

Support for older hardware is one of the strengths Windows has.   We saw that with WIndows 7 as well as with IE:  Microsoft wanted to move on but its users, particularly corporate users had too much invested in those so called "legacy systems".  Currently the 14 year old Thinkpad I use for financial work is running Windows 8.1.  But, when I get a break from yard work and tutoring my grandson, I plan to stick in an SSD and upgrade it Windows 10.   Why not?  It runs fine, the upgrade will cost almost nothing and will stop me from having to sink money into a new machine for a few more years.

Another example is COBOL, the business language the proliferated in 30-40 years ago.  Today many businesses still run on business critical systems developed with it.  

The truth is:  while hardware can continue to move forward, it is the software that businesses rely on and where the investment lies.  They aren't going to walk away from that investment quickly or easily.  And, in some cases, like COBOL, they can't.  The resources to replace it aren't available.

See my reply to "crowley" about legacy software and security holes. 

While many businesses may still run COBOL programs, I'm pretty certain that IBM has upgraded their mainframe hardware and OS, is it still called 360?
I'm also pretty certain that the COBOL compiler of old (70's, 80's) isn't the same as the COBOL compiler of today which runs on much more modern architecture.

Think of SQL Server 7 meant to run on Windows NT systems and  SQL Server 2019 meant to run on todays's modern systems. 
At a most basic level they're just DBMS's but I can assure you, they're quite different.  

As an IT person I can tell you it is irresponsible of IT departments hanging on to older versions of their software. 
But often we do get trumped by accountants and budgets and we find ourselves scrambling to make massive upgrades from SQL Server 2008 --> 2019 or Oracle 10g --> 19c.  And the more bean counters wait, the more it costs. 

 

Yeh, I get the "newer is better" stuff.

But, those old systems were built like battleships to be solid, reliable and to dependably get the the job done.  And many of them still do.  It's not about "accountants".  It's about executives who want systems that "just work" -- year, after year, after year....
And, in a mission critical system, that trumps "new" -- even if it is "better".

And, your example of going from a crappy DBS to another crappy DBS shows you likely have likely never seen a quality application system.

What is crappy about SQL Server or Oracle DBMS’s? Or are you one of those mainframe is king DB2 guys?
Also keeping up with modern versions of OS’s and software isn’t just change for the sake of change. 

GeorgeBMac said:

lkrupp said:

Rayz2016 said:

This happens every five years. 

They announce that they’re going to break with the past, release something that points to a legacy-free future. 

Then a chap from marketing reminds them that if they do that, then they’re going to have to build market share from scratch. 

And then the whole idea gets binned … for another five years. 

Microsoft is trapped in a legacy hellhole they cannot escape. As time marches on Windows gets ever more bloated because of this captivity. Apple has the luxury of just telling the legacy luddites to fuck off. Every Apple blog and every Apple discussion forum is loaded with outraged users livid because their legacy hardware and software no longer perform. The dropping of 32bit compatibility is just one example. Microsoft could never do that. Apple simply tells the legacy crowd too bad, so sad. The kicker is all those outraged legacy types stay with the platform anyway.

That may be one of the reasons why MacOS is an "also ran".

Support for older hardware is one of the strengths Windows has.   We saw that with WIndows 7 as well as with IE:  Microsoft wanted to move on but its users, particularly corporate users had too much invested in those so called "legacy systems".  Currently the 14 year old Thinkpad I use for financial work is running Windows 8.1.  But, when I get a break from yard work and tutoring my grandson, I plan to stick in an SSD and upgrade it Windows 10.   Why not?  It runs fine, the upgrade will cost almost nothing and will stop me from having to sink money into a new machine for a few more years.

Another example is COBOL, the business language the proliferated in 30-40 years ago.  Today many businesses still run on business critical systems developed with it.  

The truth is:  while hardware can continue to move forward, it is the software that businesses rely on and where the investment lies.  They aren't going to walk away from that investment quickly or easily.  And, in some cases, like COBOL, they can't.  The resources to replace it aren't available.

See my reply to "crowley" about legacy software and security holes. 

While many businesses may still run COBOL programs, I'm pretty certain that IBM has upgraded their mainframe hardware and OS, is it still called 360?
I'm also pretty certain that the COBOL compiler of old (70's, 80's) isn't the same as the COBOL compiler of today which runs on much more modern architecture.

Think of SQL Server 7 meant to run on Windows NT systems and  SQL Server 2019 meant to run on todays's modern systems. 
At a most basic level they're just DBMS's but I can assure you, they're quite different.  

As an IT person I can tell you it is irresponsible of IT departments hanging on to older versions of their software. 
But often we do get trumped by accountants and budgets and we find ourselves scrambling to make massive upgrades from SQL Server 2008 --> 2019 or Oracle 10g --> 19c.  And the more bean counters wait, the more it costs. 

 

crowley said:

slurpy said:

Microsoft have always been cowards when it comes to taking even the tiniest risks, and moving things forward, and dropping legacy. Its why the newest surface laptops still come with USB-A ports. They're just so fucking terrified of losing customers if they drop them, and thus they're slowing down the full adoption of USB-C and extending the transition indefinitely. Thats how little confidence they have in the merits of their products. They lean on ancient tech as some kind of competitive advantage. 

It's not cowardice, it's commitment to backwards compatibility.  There are files and software created decades ago that still work on modern Windows machines.  That's admirable in a sense, though it does limit their ability to deliver something new that rocks the boat.  But it means that business and customers are assured that things won't break if they stick with Microsoft, which is a large part of why they're so successful, they've willingly tied themselves to legacy.

Having different priorities to Apple is not a weakness, it's just different.

Also, I would like a USB-A port on my Mac.  It'd be very useful.

It's also a commitment to security breaches. 
That legacy software isn't always being updated with security patches and even if it is, not at the same frequency as the more modern versions of said software.

As an IT professional, I will not recommend that as soon as a service pack or update comes along we immediately apply it but within a period of 6-12 months we have to start looking at staying with the times.

KITA said:

thedba said:

After the M1 power bombed everyone in the legacy Wintel world, Microsoft announced that they had started working on their own custom ARM chip. 
Not surprised that many Windows projects are being relegated to the back burner. 

Microsoft's custom Arm chip development is aimed at Azure to compete with Amazon's AWS.

Graviton2, based on Neoverse N1, is already around 15% of AWS instances and offers customers up to 40% better price performance than a traditional x86 instance.



Meanwhile, Graviton3 will likely be based on Neoverse N2 (Armv9) cores later this year.



To top it off, other server Arm CPUs, such as the Ampere Altra (80 core) already offer some compelling performance compared to x86 offerings from Intel/AMD.



If anything, Microsoft is waiting for Qualcomm's NUVIA based Arm chip for high performance laptops in 2022.

While I have no doubt that they’re working on it for their server farms, I’m talking about this
https://goodereader.com/blog/tablet-slates/microsoft-working-on-custom-arm-chips-to-power-surface-devices-in-future

Taking a cue from Apple, Microsoft too is designing its own custom ARM chip to power its future server devices. This will make for a watershed moment in the history of the Redmond based software behemoth that has for decades largely relied on Intel chips for its hardware endeavors.