3 ms·

The sad reality is that some businesses use old equipment and software because its more reliable than some of the built-to-fail junk you buy nowadays. I've stil

The sad reality is that some businesses use old equipment and software because its more reliable than some of the built-to-fail junk you buy nowadays. I've still got a Commodore 64 complete with tape deck and more games than I can count, I'll probably never part with it and to this day it still works better than any console or computer I've owned since. It's outlived everything. My partner worked for an insurance company and a lot of their infrastructure is from the late 80's so is the software and it's always worked for them. Their reason for not switching to modern equipment is that it is more reliable and their business centers around data. If the software or data were to fail them in anyway that's potentially a lot of money or worse credibility and trust lost. I think they saw it as being cheaper to maintain the current system and I can't blame them, a lot of banks are the same too.

jader201 14y ago
> I've still got a Commodore 64 complete with tape deck and more games than I can count, I'll probably never part with it and to this day it still works better than any console or computer I've owned since. Is built better, maybe. But "works better"? It would take that thing 20 minutes just to load Ghostbusters. That in no way could be considered working better than today's computers/consoles.
- derleth 14y ago
  > It would take that thing 20 minutes just to load Ghostbusters. That in no way could be considered working better than today's computers/consoles. The solution to this is simple: Pick some arbitrary point in the past, and declare that every feature which became common after that point is 'bloat' that 'nobody really needs'. Obviously, a good program doesn't have bloat, and a good system can't be expected to run well unless it is given good programs, so all good systems run well, which means better than anything that will run bloat.

jader201 14y ago

> I've still got a Commodore 64 complete with tape deck and more games than I can count, I'll probably never part with it and to this day it still works better than any console or computer I've owned since. Is built better, maybe. But "works better"? It would take that thing 20 minutes just to load Ghostbusters. That in no way could be considered working better than today's computers/consoles.

derleth 14y ago
> It would take that thing 20 minutes just to load Ghostbusters. That in no way could be considered working better than today's computers/consoles. The solution to this is simple: Pick some arbitrary point in the past, and declare that every feature which became common after that point is 'bloat' that 'nobody really needs'. Obviously, a good program doesn't have bloat, and a good system can't be expected to run well unless it is given good programs, so all good systems run well, which means better than anything that will run bloat.