DWUTKA at marlow.com
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Wed Feb 11 16:49:24 CST 2004
<snip> >We work in a dynamic industry that is constantly changing. Some of us seem >to refuse to adapt or accept change and others look to the future. >Cheers, >Andrew <Snip> I actually agree with you, with a few exceptions. I was just getting 'techie' with the DOS/Win 9x thing, I understand what the actual comment was about. However, the DOS example is actually a prime example of where I AGREE with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' issue. Take DOS 6.22. Nice OS. Reliable, quick to boot, etc. Now, why should a company (take these agruments from a business perspective), implement Windows 3.1, over DOS? Windows 3.1 didn't provide multi-tasking capability. It actually didn't provide any real functionality that DOS didn't already provide. Yes, it provided a GUI interface, but that was about it. Now, Windows 95 comes out. What advantages did Windows 95 have over DOS 6.22. Lots. First, multi-tasking. Sure, not true, because that requires multiple processors, but it could run multiple tasks on the same machine, without having to do them one at a time. Windows 95 provided plug and play capabilities. Instead of having your DOS based software ask what type of video card you had, or what type of sound card, etc, you could now write software that allowed Windows to handle the drivers, and you could let the API's do the walking. Then came Windows 98. What advantages.....quite frankly, the only one worth mentioning was the upgrade from FAT 16, to FAT 32. But, later versions of 95 also had FAT 32. Then came Windows NT. All of the advantages of Windows 95, but on a MUCH more secure, and far more reliable platform. Then Windows ME. Almost a step down from 98. No real advantages. Then Windows 2k. Provided a lot of flexibility that NT 4.0 didn't have. Got pretty close to merging Windows 98 looks/feel/ease of use, with the rock solid NT platform. Windows XP. More glitz and glitter on Windows 2000. No real performance increases, major 'new items' were more inline with personal use, versus corporate use (firewall, etc.). So, over all, Starting from DOS, we could have the following chain: DOS 6.22 (or earlier)-->Starting Win 3.1 --> No Windows 95 --> Yes Windows 98 --> No Windows NT 4.0 -->Yes Windows ME --> HECK No Windows 2k --> Yes Windows XP --> No That is 3 understandable upgrades, out of 7 available. (I think I am missing NT 3.51, but I'm not sure where that came out, nor do I have any experience in it....but I am mentioning it.). So, if a company followed that path, of 3 end user upgrades, are they going with a 'don't fix what ain't broken' attitude? Or are they simply not jumping on the upgrade bandwagon, every time something gets put out the door from Redmond? I believe in the same philosophy with Office products, and programming languages. However, I must admit that I am pretty new to the Access/VB world (in relative terms). I started with Access 97, in July of 1999, and I started playing with VB, in December of 1999. Since then, Access 2k has come out. Initially, it was a buggy upgrade, but even with the bugs fixed, the ONLY, and I mean ONLY reason I will use 2k over 97, on a project (not influenced by customer requirements), is when I need to use raiseevents. Can't do it in Access 97. Then Access XP (2002) came out. Again, no REAL improvement on what they built for 97. Haven't seen Access 2003. As for other Office compononents, FrontPage went through vast improvements from 98, to 2k, to 2002 (haven't seen 2003). The scripting editor that comes with it is wonderful in 2002. Office in general gets better with each version, in creating HTML files to represent the original file formats. However, with every office upgrade, would it be cost effective for a company to upgrade, on each one? Doubtful. It's not a matter of if it ain't broke, it's a matter of what's actually new, and improved, versus what is just a little more fluff, and slightly better capabilities. Does that make sense? Drew