> I think people seem to forget that newer does NOT mean better, and that an old, slow computer which is reliable is infinitely better than a new, fast computer

> I think people seem to forget that newer does NOT mean better, and that an old, slow computer which is reliable is infinitely better than a new, fast computer which is either unreliable or idiosyncratic (or both). In this case, though, I think there's a good case: the existing code is written in IBM mainframe assembler and needs to be regularly updated. IMO, your argument really only works when the system needs little maintenance. If the system requires regular active development, then there's a strong case for staying aligned with the workforce's skillset. > The article made no real case for the replacement of the IRS' computers. Sure, there's a case for updating their software, but this isn't the same thing as what the title says. I think the headline was badly written, and the software problem is what it's really talking about: >> Though the IRS has periodically upgraded its computing system, today’s system is still running the same code, which was written nearly 60 years ago. Most of it is in the Assembly programming language, which the IRS itself has described as “antiquated” and “inflexible.” [emphasis mine]. They've actually replaced the computers several times, but they never replaced the software with something that was easy to maintain.