Computers & Technology


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Computers & Technology

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 25 · Next
Author Message
Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32142
Credit: 13,920,326
RAC: 24,980
United Kingdom
Message 1291968 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 9:54:12 UTC

On the software side of the house we got our first lesson with Y2K.

A choice was made to store the year as two digits. The was a choice made to repair it or replace it.

In the 1970's and 80's computer memory was at a premium, programmers had by necessity to save every byte they could, so years were coded as two digits. 14/11/79 obviously meant 1979 not 1879, and programs were written accordingly. They all knew at the time that come the year 2000 there would be a problem but they judged they'd be long gone by then so it they wouldn't have to fix it.

Along comes Y2K, and 1999 turns over +1 into 2000, so the year is displayed as 01/01/00 and programs would automatically take it as being back to 1900 again. Demands for unpaid bills 100 years old would be generated etc. So all these old programs had either to be scrapped or rewritten to encode the year with 4 digits. They had to be repaired or scrapped.

Of course everyone made a lot of money out of Y2K, papers sold copy on the basis that aeroplanes would fall out of the shy, nuclear power stations would blow up, traffic light would go bananas, all railway signals would default to red etc etc. No board of directors would refuse money to make their company Y2K compliant, so IT directors updated all their old kit overnight, and freelance programmers and IT contractors made a small fortune.

I have my cynical suspicions when products are named very prominently with a year or date as part of the product name... So they are no good for the next year?

For home use, Office 2000 provides everything that you could reasonably need. Only high end commerce needs the extra functionality inbuilt in Office 2010.

And when you get emailed a ".docx" to your trusty old Win95 + Office95 ".doc"-only system and your customer can't understand why you don't know what they want?...

That is usually the result of sheer laziness or inadequate training. MS Word and other Office suite programs have always had the ability to save documents in a compatible earlier format.

The power of Marketing should not be underestimated!


I agree 100%. To this day I still believe that Microsoft should be prosecuted for mis-selling Windows Millennium and ripping off the public. It was not a new OS at all. The MS marketing boys saw the the year 2000 approaching and decided to make as much money on the back of it as they could. At the time they only had Win98SE and Win 2000 and a fledgling Win XP in development. So they cobbled together the best bits of 98SE & 2000 plus the bits of XP that so far worked, and marketed it as Millennium to make a quick buck.

It was the worst OS that MS has ever produced. The technical guys were aghast and embarrassed, but the Marketing people were allowed to over-rule them.

It's your choice to buy into the marketing or your choice to keep what you have.

Not always. I still remember the time when my College IT Manager decided arbitrarily to upgrade from Office 2003 to Office 2007, on the basis that he had some spare cash and we ought to keep pace with the latest software developments for our students didn't we. What he hadn't appreciated was that the 2007 version introduced the ribbon menus in place of the drop down menus. That meant that all of our handouts, technical notes, homework assignments, mock exams etc had to be rewritten including new screen dumps for the diagrams.

I lost count of the hours I and others spent updating everything. I wrote officially to the Principal complaining and said that the man should be reprimanded for his cavalier actions. Nothing ever happened. But he did take early retirement 2 years later when a re-organisation removed his job title. Typical result of promoting people beyond their ability.



Horacio
Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,274,307
RAC: 35,959
Argentina
Message 1292037 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 14:24:49 UTC - in response to Message 1291882.

You can choose to take it to a third party, or hire outsourced IT to assist you.

That's the point. You may have lots of options, but you will be always forced to choose one (not doing anything is also choosing one option)... and you will suffer (or enjoy) the consequences.
If I want to have the latest stuff, Ill be forced to spend money, I can choose to not spend the money but then Ill be forced to not have the latest stuff. If there are other options every one will force me to deal with its consequeces...

Everybody reading this post, will have to choose if they will reply me or not, and no matter if you reply or not, you have been forced to choose... ;D
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32142
Credit: 13,920,326
RAC: 24,980
United Kingdom
Message 1292054 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 15:13:11 UTC

Everybody reading this post, will have to choose if they will reply me or not, and no matter if you reply or not, you have been forced to choose... ;D

I have decided not to reply to you, so I won't. I haven't "chosen", just taken your advice. :-))

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8947
Credit: 36,231,711
RAC: 46,146
United States
Message 1292055 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 15:13:42 UTC

As I think I started this choice stuff, I wish I handnt of. But that was my choice. Now you all are stuck with it:)
____________

Old James

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13632
Credit: 31,156,366
RAC: 20,184
United States
Message 1292153 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 18:42:51 UTC - in response to Message 1291968.
Last modified: 6 Oct 2012, 19:00:08 UTC

On the software side of the house we got our first lesson with Y2K.

A choice was made to store the year as two digits. The was a choice made to repair it or replace it.

In the 1970's and 80's computer memory was at a premium, programmers had by necessity to save every byte they could, so years were coded as two digits.


Yes, I'm well aware of what the Y2K issue was. However, I think the Y2K36 issue could be worse. ;-)

I have my cynical suspicions when products are named very prominently with a year or date as part of the product name... So they are no good for the next year?

For home use, Office 2000 provides everything that you could reasonably need. Only high end commerce needs the extra functionality inbuilt in Office 2010.


Agreed. And my former company decided they wished to stay with Office 2000.

And when you get emailed a ".docx" to your trusty old Win95 + Office95 ".doc"-only system and your customer can't understand why you don't know what they want?...

That is usually the result of sheer laziness or inadequate training. MS Word and other Office suite programs have always had the ability to save documents in a compatible earlier format.


Agreed again. You can request any partners you work with to save in older formats if they wish to work with you.

The power of Marketing should not be underestimated!


I agree 100%. To this day I still believe that Microsoft should be prosecuted for mis-selling Windows Millennium and ripping off the public. It was not a new OS at all. The MS marketing boys saw the the year 2000 approaching and decided to make as much money on the back of it as they could. At the time they only had Win98SE and Win 2000 and a fledgling Win XP in development. So they cobbled together the best bits of 98SE & 2000 plus the bits of XP that so far worked, and marketed it as Millennium to make a quick buck.

It was the worst OS that MS has ever produced. The technical guys were aghast and embarrassed, but the Marketing people were allowed to over-rule them.


I know this doesn't help my forum reputation as trying to be as objective as I can while denying re rejecting any accusations of being an MS Fanboi, but I have to disagree with you on Windows ME. Yes, it was garbage, but as I'm trying to point out, no one was forced to upgrade to it. If you bought a new computer with it pre-installed, you had the choice to buy Windows 98SE and install it on there or have someone do it for you.

To blame marketing forced you to do anything against your own will is such a weak position that I cannot support. Marketing's job is to market products to make people want to buy them, and the rules for marketing are different for most countries. However, no one is forced to buy an upgrade because of a marketing claim.

It's your choice to buy into the marketing or your choice to keep what you have.

Not always.


No, always. I'm starting to get amazed at the number of people on these forums who doesn't understand the choices they have and the choices they make every day. I'm beginning to think that by my pointing out the choices we have, it is upsetting the status quo because most everyone has rationalized themselves into believing that they had no choice when it comes to certain decisions, which is of course untrue, but few people like to be confronted with the alternative options that they easily or off-handedly dismissed.

I still remember the time when my College IT Manager decided arbitrarily to upgrade from Office 2003 to Office 2007, on the basis that he had some spare cash and we ought to keep pace with the latest software developments for our students didn't we.


So there was a choice made to spend money available without researching the upgrade first. This initial choice required you to:

What he hadn't appreciated was that the 2007 version introduced the ribbon menus in place of the drop down menus. That meant that all of our handouts, technical notes, homework assignments, mock exams etc had to be rewritten including new screen dumps for the diagrams.

I lost count of the hours I and others spent updating everything. I wrote officially to the Principal complaining and said that the man should be reprimanded for his cavalier actions. Nothing ever happened. But he did take early retirement 2 years later when a re-organisation removed his job title. Typical result of promoting people beyond their ability.


This is merely an example of not having the foresight to see what each choice can mean to the future. We've all made that mistake, myself included, but there was still a choice to be made somewhere, and that choice had a cascading effect on other choices. I mean, you could have easily removed Office 2007 and reverted back to Office 2003 instead of re-writing all of your existing forms and macros. If that decision wasn't within your job responsibilities or function, you could have chosen to leave the company and work elsewhere.

There are always choices.

[Edited to fix quotes]

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13632
Credit: 31,156,366
RAC: 20,184
United States
Message 1292155 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 18:46:09 UTC - in response to Message 1292037.

You can choose to take it to a third party, or hire outsourced IT to assist you.

That's the point. You may have lots of options, but you will be always forced to choose one (not doing anything is also choosing one option)... and you will suffer (or enjoy) the consequences.
If I want to have the latest stuff, Ill be forced to spend money, I can choose to not spend the money but then Ill be forced to not have the latest stuff. If there are other options every one will force me to deal with its consequeces...

Everybody reading this post, will have to choose if they will reply me or not, and no matter if you reply or not, you have been forced to choose... ;D


No one forces you to make one of the decisions though, and that's my point. Yes, even not making a choice is technically choosing to not make a choice. But no one can force you into making any particular choice.

So yes, we rationalize our choices by saying, "I want to have the latest stuff" and we know along with that comes spending money. You're not forced to spend the money. You made that choice.

Even choosing to respond, no one forced me to make a post or to not make a post responding to you. There was absolutely no force involved.

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11633
Credit: 1,733,936
RAC: 1,440
Syria
Message 1292165 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 19:19:10 UTC

Ain't technology grand?

Cardless ATM's

Bank suspends "Getcash" app

Natwest refused to explain how thieves were able to access one customers account who did not sign up for mobile banking. Probably too afraid to admit that their security sucks!
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12805
Credit: 7,378,657
RAC: 18,087
United States
Message 1292247 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 22:44:42 UTC - in response to Message 1291818.

Good question to ask the FAA on their vacuum tube ATC computers and Radar. Oh wait. They were forced to upgrade. Seems they ran out of people able to make new spare parts.


Sounds like someone made a choice in regards to training or hiring people to make new parts. <snicker> Yeah, I can see how they were forced.

That is what happens to old tech. Unless there is call for it the artistry of manufacture is lost and every part that was ever made will fail. Or do you deny that they will all fail? Suppose they got some smart guy to build a transistor replacement for that vacuum tube. Wait, that is an upgrade itself. Forced.


So now we're calling replacement parts "forced upgrades"? That's an interesting view.

If it no longer exists and someone has to engineer it out of something that does, I think you can call that an upgrade. I think everyone does tend to agree that a transistor is an upgrade for a vacuum tube, but I could be wrong.

On the software side of the house we got our first lesson with Y2K.


A choice was made to store the year as two digits. The was a choice made to repair it or replace it.

Who had the choice to repair or replace ... end user? Oh, you answered that below when you say you wouldn't suggest they patch it.

However I suppose you are going to say the user could have patched it himself.


No, I wouldn't suggest such a thing. But the user does have a choice to fix it or ignore it. Again, a non-practical choice is still a choice.

If you view suicide as a choice ...

____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13632
Credit: 31,156,366
RAC: 20,184
United States
Message 1292260 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 23:12:36 UTC - in response to Message 1292247.
Last modified: 6 Oct 2012, 23:41:11 UTC

If it no longer exists and someone has to engineer it out of something that does, I think you can call that an upgrade. I think everyone does tend to agree that a transistor is an upgrade for a vacuum tube, but I could be wrong.


But you're not forced to buy the upgrade. You can choose to leave it broken or choose to find an alternative solution.

On the software side of the house we got our first lesson with Y2K.


A choice was made to store the year as two digits. The was a choice made to repair it or replace it.

Who had the choice to repair or replace ... end user? Oh, you answered that below when you say you wouldn't suggest they patch it.


An end-user doesn't have to be Y2K compliant. I know an older gentleman in my neighborhood who is still using a non-Y2K complaint installation of Windows 95, and it works well for him. No one has forced him to upgrade.

However I suppose you are going to say the user could have patched it himself.


No, I wouldn't suggest such a thing. But the user does have a choice to fix it or ignore it. Again, a non-practical choice is still a choice.

If you view suicide as a choice ...


Yes, I do view suicide as a choice that one makes. Including the suicide of one's data or career or business. If one doesn't make the best choices, one will effectively commit suicide. Are you suggesting that professional suicide isn't a choice, even one no one wants to make?

Horacio
Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,274,307
RAC: 35,959
Argentina
Message 1292300 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 3:06:54 UTC

I think that this whole thing about having or not options and whatnot has gone too far and has nothing to do with this thread...
So, if there is people still interested in this topic then it would be better to start another thread... (Just an opinion, not judgement intended)
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12805
Credit: 7,378,657
RAC: 18,087
United States
Message 1292319 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 4:33:36 UTC - in response to Message 1292260.

Yes, I do view suicide as a choice that one makes. Including the suicide of one's data or career or business. If one doesn't make the best choices, one will effectively commit suicide. Are you suggesting that professional suicide isn't a choice, even one no one wants to make?

I'm suggesting that suicide being a choice is a different world view than a fair fraction of people hold. Similar in nature for a profitable business to file an asset sale bankruptcy. An irrational choice.
irrational:
1) Not consistent with or using reason

Is it a choice if it isn't reasoned? Is it better than a random pick? Is a random pick a choice? Has the element of choice been surrendered to something else in a random choice? (Watch out before this gets mixed in with the evolution thread)

In any case I think we agree to disagree.

____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13632
Credit: 31,156,366
RAC: 20,184
United States
Message 1292327 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 5:02:48 UTC - in response to Message 1292319.
Last modified: 7 Oct 2012, 5:22:39 UTC

Yes, I do view suicide as a choice that one makes. Including the suicide of one's data or career or business. If one doesn't make the best choices, one will effectively commit suicide. Are you suggesting that professional suicide isn't a choice, even one no one wants to make?

I'm suggesting that suicide being a choice is a different world view than a fair fraction of people hold. Similar in nature for a profitable business to file an asset sale bankruptcy. An irrational choice.
irrational:
1) Not consistent with or using reason

Is it a choice if it isn't reasoned? Is it better than a random pick? Is a random pick a choice? Has the element of choice been surrendered to something else in a random choice? (Watch out before this gets mixed in with the evolution thread)

In any case I think we agree to disagree.


I have stated that some decisions are considered less practical than others, including ones many would deem irrational. Regardless if you believe those choices to be irrational or "random", doesn't make them any less of a choice than anything else we do in our lives. Study up on psychology and you'll quickly let go of your simple misunderstandings between rational and irrational choices or decisions. This is the very reason why when someone does something very terrible, you always hear things like, "I can't understand what was going through their mind" - and you never will so long as you don't accept the full scope of choices to be made.

Yes, Gary, reasoned, rational decisions are far better than impractical or irrational decisions, and are often the sign of a healthy mind. But the main focal point I've been trying to drive home is that none of the choices are made through force.

It is, of course, your choice to disagree with me. No one is forcing you to agree with me. ;-)

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11633
Credit: 1,733,936
RAC: 1,440
Syria
Message 1292383 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 12:20:38 UTC - in response to Message 1292300.

I think that this whole thing about having or not options and whatnot has gone too far and has nothing to do with this thread...
So, if there is people still interested in this topic then it would be better to start another thread... (Just an opinion, not judgement intended)


Agree. Over 25% of the posts so far have been to do with choices. I think we get the message, so time to move on.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8518
Credit: 4,202,497
RAC: 1,666
United Kingdom
Message 1292405 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 15:02:16 UTC - in response to Message 1292153.
Last modified: 7 Oct 2012, 15:05:41 UTC

I have my cynical suspicions when products are named very prominently with a year or date as part of the product name... So they are no good for the next year?

For home use, Office 2000 provides everything that you could reasonably need. Only high end commerce needs the extra functionality inbuilt in Office 2010.


Agreed. And my former company decided they wished to stay with Office 2000.

... And for 'image conscious' users, naming products with a 'sell-by date' as part of the product name is rather a cynical ploy to keep the date of product name in mind rather than the functionality. That can become a problem when a monopoly has been perpetrated.


And when you get emailed a ".docx" to your trusty old Win95 + Office95 ".doc"-only system and your customer can't understand why you don't know what they want?...

That is usually the result of sheer laziness or inadequate training. MS Word and other Office suite programs have always had the ability to save documents in a compatible earlier format.


Agreed again. You can request any partners you work with to save in older formats if they wish to work with you.

Backed up by deliberate manipulation (breakage, incompatibilities) of document/data formats to bug the hell out of everyone and waste time for anyone who has not 'upgraded' (at a cost) to the same versions...

Strange that the 'defaults' don't work for older installations by default?... Backed up by 6-monthly or yearly 'upgrades' that again change the 'defaults' and file formats... Just for the sake of Marketing?...


There are indeed choices. There are also costs. When is it that Marketing moves over the margin to become 'unfair' and coercive/bullying?

When any monopoly is achieved, is that when Marketing becomes a dictatorship?...

All in the name of business?...


IT is what we make it...
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13632
Credit: 31,156,366
RAC: 20,184
United States
Message 1292417 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 15:34:17 UTC - in response to Message 1292405.

I have my cynical suspicions when products are named very prominently with a year or date as part of the product name... So they are no good for the next year?

For home use, Office 2000 provides everything that you could reasonably need. Only high end commerce needs the extra functionality inbuilt in Office 2010.


Agreed. And my former company decided they wished to stay with Office 2000.

... And for 'image conscious' users, naming products with a 'sell-by date' as part of the product name is rather a cynical ploy to keep the date of product name in mind rather than the functionality. That can become a problem when a monopoly has been perpetrated.


It's the user's choice to be 'image conscious'. Marketing is going to try to take advantage of whatever it is the buyer's 'image' is. You learn the three or four basic forms of marketing when you take an intro to business class. I find it highly interesting that you wish to blame marketing for people's decisions, as if advertisements make people do things they didn't want to do. Do you really believe people are that gullible or naive?


And when you get emailed a ".docx" to your trusty old Win95 + Office95 ".doc"-only system and your customer can't understand why you don't know what they want?...

That is usually the result of sheer laziness or inadequate training. MS Word and other Office suite programs have always had the ability to save documents in a compatible earlier format.


Agreed again. You can request any partners you work with to save in older formats if they wish to work with you.

Backed up by deliberate manipulation (breakage, incompatibilities) of document/data formats to bug the hell out of everyone and waste time for anyone who has not 'upgraded' (at a cost) to the same versions...


Your own cynicism aside about certain companies (again, interesting that you always turn any technology discussion into something anti-Microsoft, though you throw Apple in there for good measure these days), I've seen little real world evidence to support your claim here. I know of several companies that are still using Office 2003 and using the older ".doc" or ".xls" formats without issue.

Strange that the 'defaults' don't work for older installations by default?... Backed up by 6-monthly or yearly 'upgrades' that again change the 'defaults' and file formats... Just for the sake of Marketing?...


So a company that tries to get people to use a newer format, and thus makes the newer format the 'default' is somehow a marketing ploy? The extent of your cynicism knows no bounds.

There are indeed choices. There are also costs. When is it that Marketing moves over the margin to become 'unfair' and coercive/bullying?


So the discussion has moved from Computers & Technology to "choices" to anti-marketing/anti-MS/Apple. You have some serious hang-ups about companies trying to make money, and you seem to have little respect for an individual's ability to discern marketing from fact. Most every citizens who has grown up in a capitalistic society knows that marketing holds very few facts, and most consumers tend to either educate themselves or go to people they trust.

When any monopoly is achieved, is that when Marketing becomes a dictatorship?...


I don't know, let's ask the government. They're the only ones that have the ability to create or own a monopoly. In the meantime, marketing will continue to do what marketing needs to do to create revenue to appease the shareholders.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12805
Credit: 7,378,657
RAC: 18,087
United States
Message 1292425 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 16:18:56 UTC - in response to Message 1292417.

Do you really believe people are that gullible or naive?

"There's a sucker born every minute."

____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13632
Credit: 31,156,366
RAC: 20,184
United States
Message 1292426 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 16:22:22 UTC - in response to Message 1292425.
Last modified: 7 Oct 2012, 16:22:42 UTC

Do you really believe people are that gullible or naive?

"There's a sucker born every minute."


Only if they choose to be.

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8947
Credit: 36,231,711
RAC: 46,146
United States
Message 1292430 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 16:36:16 UTC

I agree with the OP its time to move on, If anyone wants to start a new thread to continue pleaee do so.


____________

Old James

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13632
Credit: 31,156,366
RAC: 20,184
United States
Message 1292435 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 16:46:21 UTC - in response to Message 1292430.

So discussing whether people have a choice to upgrade or not is not on topic? I admit that the choice discussion started going a bit off the rails, but I think it was still on topic.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12805
Credit: 7,378,657
RAC: 18,087
United States
Message 1292440 - Posted: 7 Oct 2012, 17:01:39 UTC - in response to Message 1292426.

Do you really believe people are that gullible or naive?

"There's a sucker born every minute."


Only if they choose to be.

What a WASP world view. I suppose they chose their parents and to be raised in a place where teachers lives are threatened and where schools are bombed so they never learn that there is a choice to be made. I get you live in a perfect little box. Glad it works for you.

OP is right this has gone far afield.

____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Computers & Technology

Copyright © 2014 University of California