5 ms·

Interesting that Siemens seem to still be willing to support a Win 3.11-based system for at least one operator. That said, this looks like it's a third-party do

by NamTaf 3y ago

Interesting that Siemens seem to still be willing to support a Win 3.11-based system for at least one operator. That said, this looks like it's a third-party doing that work but Siemens must be tacitly allowing the third party to try to do so, as they'd have a complete stranglehold on the design, software and hardware underneath it. I worked for a rail operator and the driver interface systems of our locos (from other suppliers) were running on WinXP. We wanted some changes and feature upgrades, but the supplier said it was obsolete and they would not do any code changes to the WinXP software. Instead, they were telling us to move to a QNX-based version of it (which came with all of the fun joys of ensuring feature and interface equivalence for both the system and the human-computer interfaces). This was even for old locos, where moving to the QNX-based system wasn't just about running the same front-end software on a different OS, but in some cases was a fundamental hardware design upgrade (i.e. moving from a dumb terminal with a rack of hardware in a cupboard to fully integrated computers in the dash), which then meant making it interface with other hardware systems that may not be designed to talk to it. In some cases, those additional systems had to be upgraded. It was well in to 8 figures of work to do. I am surprised that Siemens have, in some degree, allowed ongoing support for this. Whichever operator uses it must be fairly big in order to bend them to still actively manage it.

petee 3y ago
I'd argue that if everything generally worked fine, and it is an estimated 8-figure upgrade, that I would only be surprised if they bothered an upgrade at all.
tauchunfall 3y ago
>I am surprised that Siemens have, in some degree, allowed ongoing support for this. Whichever operator uses it must be fairly big in order to bend them to still actively manage it. The ICE 1 and ICE 2 trains use this for their internal system. Deutsche Bahn will keep them running until at least 2029 (ICE 1) and 2030 (ICE 2). A co-worker showed me a video of a display of the passenger information system that boots in MS-DOS and then restarts after it fails to load network drivers. BIOS from 1996 (166 MHz, 8 MB RAM). I guess they also need some people to maintain network drivers (and serial/parallel port drivers and the applications using it). SIBAS is also used in Japanese and Swiss trains.
_ugfj 3y ago
Oh Win 3.11 is a modern system compared to support PDP-11 until 2050. https://web.archive.org/web/20161022133810/https://vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?37827-Greetings-from-GE-Canada https://web.archive.org/web/20161022133810/https://vcfed.org... (GE Canada tried to headhunt me for that but I don't want a job where a typo turns Toronto into a parking lot. Thanks but no thanks. I will stick to web pages.)
- jgilias 3y ago
  Oh man… PDP-11. It’s scary to ponder how much critical infrastructure runs on obsolete systems that a vanishingly small number of people understand.
  - chx 3y ago
    Contemporary with the PDP-11 is the IBM Series/1 which runs the nuclear forces of the USA. The 8" floppies were retired in 2019 though. Progress? I guess. Much older than that are the IRS Master files: the US tax system runs on IBM 7074 assembler although I think the actual 7074 hardware is long gone.
    - swores 3y ago
      Presumably for something as expensive as the US nuclear weapons program, they could afford to hire and fully train 10x as many people as they need to be experts in externally-obsolete software/hardware and it just have the effect of a rounding error in their overall budget? If that were cheaper, or considered more reliable or less hackable, than upgrading the systems to run on more modern technology then why not, as long as they look ahead far enough to make sure they fund the required tutoring to get the knowledge being passed down a generation or two, and do it before getting to the point where not having enough young experts actually has become a problem.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - 3y ago

by NamTaf 3y ago

petee 3y ago

I'd argue that if everything generally worked fine, and it is an estimated 8-figure upgrade, that I would only be surprised if they bothered an upgrade at all.

tauchunfall 3y ago

>I am surprised that Siemens have, in some degree, allowed ongoing support for this. Whichever operator uses it must be fairly big in order to bend them to still actively manage it. The ICE 1 and ICE 2 trains use this for their internal system. Deutsche Bahn will keep them running until at least 2029 (ICE 1) and 2030 (ICE 2). A co-worker showed me a video of a display of the passenger information system that boots in MS-DOS and then restarts after it fails to load network drivers. BIOS from 1996 (166 MHz, 8 MB RAM). I guess they also need some people to maintain network drivers (and serial/parallel port drivers and the applications using it). SIBAS is also used in Japanese and Swiss trains.

_ugfj 3y ago

Oh Win 3.11 is a modern system compared to support PDP-11 until 2050. https://web.archive.org/web/20161022133810/https://vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?37827-Greetings-from-GE-Canada https://web.archive.org/web/20161022133810/https://vcfed.org... (GE Canada tried to headhunt me for that but I don't want a job where a typo turns Toronto into a parking lot. Thanks but no thanks. I will stick to web pages.)

jgilias 3y ago
Oh man… PDP-11. It’s scary to ponder how much critical infrastructure runs on obsolete systems that a vanishingly small number of people understand.
- chx 3y ago
  Contemporary with the PDP-11 is the IBM Series/1 which runs the nuclear forces of the USA. The 8" floppies were retired in 2019 though. Progress? I guess. Much older than that are the IRS Master files: the US tax system runs on IBM 7074 assembler although I think the actual 7074 hardware is long gone.
  - swores 3y ago
    Presumably for something as expensive as the US nuclear weapons program, they could afford to hire and fully train 10x as many people as they need to be experts in externally-obsolete software/hardware and it just have the effect of a rounding error in their overall budget? If that were cheaper, or considered more reliable or less hackable, than upgrading the systems to run on more modern technology then why not, as long as they look ahead far enough to make sure they fund the required tutoring to get the knowledge being passed down a generation or two, and do it before getting to the point where not having enough young experts actually has become a problem.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - 3y ago