6 ms·

The older I get, the more sympathy I have for companies that that stuck with older but working systems that don't come with a mouse and monitor. Sometimes I fe

by voidz 11y ago

The older I get, the more sympathy I have for companies that that stuck with older but working systems that don't come with a mouse and monitor. Sometimes I feel like we're building a prison for ourselves the way things are headed in the digital world. Where I live, some schools require kids aged 5 to own iPads so they can do homework. It as fun when it was optional, but I really don't want to continue digitizing and feeding the machine my own kids. I worry about this every day, so my first reaction and general feeling with this article was, cool. Reminds me of walkmans and roll skates. I'm old fashined and have no problem admitting it. I also don't think everyone should feel the same way, it's just how I see things.

stevetrewick 11y ago
I'm the opposite. As a callow youth I favoured functional brutalism in UI. After a lifetime of interacting with actual users, a bunch of HCI classes and having watched those kinds of legacy systems become productivity vampires in too many settings I have no sympathy with my former viewpoint.
- laumars 11y ago
  It's a common misconception that newer systems bring productivity improvements, but that's not always the case in reality. While there are undoubtedly occasions when newer systems do bring vast improvements, there are also occasions when newer systems are just trying to reinvent the wheel and ultimately end up little better - or sometimes even worse - than the old system (and that's before you factor in training your staff to use the new systems). There are also occasions when the newer system is trying to change a process in ways that meet modern fashions yet fail to meet a company's core business requirements. Both of the last two points are things I've unfortunately seen a few times in previous jobs. There are generally three points that need to be considered before upgrading an older system: 1. Is the older system still fulfilling the needs? (often jobs change over time and some systems are rigid thus require users to perform additional steps in the modern era to continue to make use of the older system). 2. Is support still available for the older system (eg if it breaks, is hardware available to replace it? Are engineers still available to maintain it? etc) 3. Will the new proposed system fix the aforementioned issues? Often you'll find that the first two points are still or that the 3rd point isn't true. Sadly it's all too common that the reason someone pushes to upgrade older systems is either down to agism ("it's old. Old is bad!") or because someone needs to justify their own job / bulk out their CV ("I was responsible for migrating Company xyz from product a to product b."). With the greatest of respect to yourself, as you get older I think you too will start to notice just how often upgrades go wrong and how some businesses would have been better off sticking with the old system. So there does need to be a carefully considered pragmatism with regards to just how robust some older systems can be and whether the upgrade is actually offering any benefit or whether the older system is genuinely just bad / no longer fulfilling the job requirements.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    Cassette tapes and fax machines seem to be prime examples of obsolete and unsupported tech that has been mostly replaced with objectively better solutions.
    - laumars 11y ago
      Even there, it's not so clear cut. For example, backup tapes are anything but obsolete and unsupported. It may not be the de facto standard any more, but it's still commonplace and the hardware is still manufactured and thus easy to buy new. I also don't agree with your point about fax machines as they are still commonplace in the UK. Granted less so in tech companies, but you see them a lot in governments and legal offices as they're often used for sending legal / official correspondence such as signed contracts. While other mediums do exist that can act as a direct replacement in many instances, some require additional steps (eg sending signed correspondence via e-mail would require an electronic signature, photocopier with SMTP support or another means of scanning the document to PC); or offer little benefit for the additional migration costs (eg backing up to removable HDD over tape doesn't offer any significant improvements. Backing up to the cloud does, but it also offers some significant drawbacks as well, which might mitigate it's practicality for a specific business).
      - mhurron 11y ago
        > I also don't agree with your point about fax machines as they are still commonplace in the UK. They're common in the US too. They're not unsupported equipment.
      - ryanlol 11y ago
        Backup tapes and cassette tapes are obviously a completely different thing, lets not even go there. Yes, fax machines are still used. That doesn't make them not obsolete. Fax is ridiculously slow, requires both participants to have fax machines (so you can't even realistically not have another solution implemented) and on top of all that super insecure.
        11y ago
- xorcist 11y ago
  Productivity vampires? Is that really legacy systems you refer to, or is it just yesteryear's fad that's starting to show its true colors? Some time ago I worked on a modern travel reservation system frontend, to replace an aging 5250-based one. When I finally spent a day with the customer's end users to validate some things and learn how they worked (those things never shine through the specs) it was like a punch to the stomach. They were happy to see me and happy for the system replacement, but they worked with such lightning speed in the old system (where all 24 F-keys were bound and known by heart) they could keep up a conversation with the client while contantly pulling out the information they needed. Just reaching for the mouse in that situation would have incurred noticeable latency for the customer. A snowball's chance in the proverbial hell would constitute much better odds than my web based system would have to improve their productivity. I didn't stay on that project until the end (for other reasons) so I don't know how it turned out, but it was my first real encounter with "legacy" systems and it humbled me like nothing since. There are still high cost to maintaining these systems, and their batch-orientedness makes modern always-online mode very difficult. But productivity for end users should be very hard to match, especially since they were built for kilobit lines and megahertz computers in mind.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    That brings to mind the comments surrounding a blog post about Norwegian doctors getting their updated patient lists via floppy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10287889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10287889
Eliana 11y ago
Couldn't agree more. I love new gadgets and innovation but I too get nostalgic for those items.
adamio 11y ago
When I hear older but working systems I think Mainframe. These are many times patched endlessly, by increasingly less skilled people. The most skilled tend towards the new. Implementing new features slows, things break more, and good development practices are lost.
why-el 11y ago
Every time I see a sentiment like this (with which I agree completely), I am reminded of this fascinating essay by Bertrand Russell on the virtues of idleness. [1] [1] http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

by voidz 11y ago

stevetrewick 11y ago

I'm the opposite. As a callow youth I favoured functional brutalism in UI. After a lifetime of interacting with actual users, a bunch of HCI classes and having watched those kinds of legacy systems become productivity vampires in too many settings I have no sympathy with my former viewpoint.

laumars 11y ago
It's a common misconception that newer systems bring productivity improvements, but that's not always the case in reality. While there are undoubtedly occasions when newer systems do bring vast improvements, there are also occasions when newer systems are just trying to reinvent the wheel and ultimately end up little better - or sometimes even worse - than the old system (and that's before you factor in training your staff to use the new systems). There are also occasions when the newer system is trying to change a process in ways that meet modern fashions yet fail to meet a company's core business requirements. Both of the last two points are things I've unfortunately seen a few times in previous jobs. There are generally three points that need to be considered before upgrading an older system: 1. Is the older system still fulfilling the needs? (often jobs change over time and some systems are rigid thus require users to perform additional steps in the modern era to continue to make use of the older system). 2. Is support still available for the older system (eg if it breaks, is hardware available to replace it? Are engineers still available to maintain it? etc) 3. Will the new proposed system fix the aforementioned issues? Often you'll find that the first two points are still or that the 3rd point isn't true. Sadly it's all too common that the reason someone pushes to upgrade older systems is either down to agism ("it's old. Old is bad!") or because someone needs to justify their own job / bulk out their CV ("I was responsible for migrating Company xyz from product a to product b."). With the greatest of respect to yourself, as you get older I think you too will start to notice just how often upgrades go wrong and how some businesses would have been better off sticking with the old system. So there does need to be a carefully considered pragmatism with regards to just how robust some older systems can be and whether the upgrade is actually offering any benefit or whether the older system is genuinely just bad / no longer fulfilling the job requirements.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  Cassette tapes and fax machines seem to be prime examples of obsolete and unsupported tech that has been mostly replaced with objectively better solutions.
  - laumars 11y ago
    Even there, it's not so clear cut. For example, backup tapes are anything but obsolete and unsupported. It may not be the de facto standard any more, but it's still commonplace and the hardware is still manufactured and thus easy to buy new. I also don't agree with your point about fax machines as they are still commonplace in the UK. Granted less so in tech companies, but you see them a lot in governments and legal offices as they're often used for sending legal / official correspondence such as signed contracts. While other mediums do exist that can act as a direct replacement in many instances, some require additional steps (eg sending signed correspondence via e-mail would require an electronic signature, photocopier with SMTP support or another means of scanning the document to PC); or offer little benefit for the additional migration costs (eg backing up to removable HDD over tape doesn't offer any significant improvements. Backing up to the cloud does, but it also offers some significant drawbacks as well, which might mitigate it's practicality for a specific business).
    - mhurron 11y ago
      > I also don't agree with your point about fax machines as they are still commonplace in the UK. They're common in the US too. They're not unsupported equipment.
    - ryanlol 11y ago
      Backup tapes and cassette tapes are obviously a completely different thing, lets not even go there. Yes, fax machines are still used. That doesn't make them not obsolete. Fax is ridiculously slow, requires both participants to have fax machines (so you can't even realistically not have another solution implemented) and on top of all that super insecure.
      - 11y ago
xorcist 11y ago
Productivity vampires? Is that really legacy systems you refer to, or is it just yesteryear's fad that's starting to show its true colors? Some time ago I worked on a modern travel reservation system frontend, to replace an aging 5250-based one. When I finally spent a day with the customer's end users to validate some things and learn how they worked (those things never shine through the specs) it was like a punch to the stomach. They were happy to see me and happy for the system replacement, but they worked with such lightning speed in the old system (where all 24 F-keys were bound and known by heart) they could keep up a conversation with the client while contantly pulling out the information they needed. Just reaching for the mouse in that situation would have incurred noticeable latency for the customer. A snowball's chance in the proverbial hell would constitute much better odds than my web based system would have to improve their productivity. I didn't stay on that project until the end (for other reasons) so I don't know how it turned out, but it was my first real encounter with "legacy" systems and it humbled me like nothing since. There are still high cost to maintaining these systems, and their batch-orientedness makes modern always-online mode very difficult. But productivity for end users should be very hard to match, especially since they were built for kilobit lines and megahertz computers in mind.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  That brings to mind the comments surrounding a blog post about Norwegian doctors getting their updated patient lists via floppy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10287889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10287889

Eliana 11y ago

Couldn't agree more. I love new gadgets and innovation but I too get nostalgic for those items.

adamio 11y ago

When I hear older but working systems I think Mainframe. These are many times patched endlessly, by increasingly less skilled people. The most skilled tend towards the new. Implementing new features slows, things break more, and good development practices are lost.

why-el 11y ago

Every time I see a sentiment like this (with which I agree completely), I am reminded of this fascinating essay by Bertrand Russell on the virtues of idleness. [1] [1] http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html