Personal computing discussed
whm1974 wrote:As I said before, I'm referring to PCs not embedded. And there is no reason why tablets can't be 64-bit.
localhostrulez wrote:You know, speaking of old CNC machines and the accompanying software... imagine if cars on the road were all smart. And keep in mind what smartphones looked like in 2005 (the iPhone came out in 2007). Yet most of those cars are still on the road, driving quite happily, with many years ahead of them. Man, what a mess that would be... and I worry that some newer cars might be headed that way.
Flatland_Spider wrote:just brew it! wrote:On the Windows side of the house, cutting backwards compatibility means a lot of legacy third-party software just ceases to function.
So a bunch of unmaintained software would stop working, and companies would be forced to migrate to something this is supported? That would be beautiful, and it may be my new happy place.
Flatland_Spider wrote:I've seen it with Linux too. A business built a critical piece of infrastructure on top of Fedora Core 2, and they never bothered to think about what happens when it needs to be upgraded. Consequently, eleven years after supported ended for FC2, the stupid thing is still in production, and they can't replace it without lots of downtime. They're not to worried about it, so they keep running it.
whm1974 wrote:But what about finding people to who know how to use old systems? I have long forgotten how to use DOS myself.
just brew it! wrote:whm1974 wrote:But what about finding people to who know how to use old systems? I have long forgotten how to use DOS myself.
If it is being used for a mission critical business function, then obviously someone in the business knows how to use it.
just brew it! wrote:As an aside, it's actually interesting that I could run the current Debian Stable (Jessie) if I decided to resurrect my old K6-III+.
just brew it! wrote:As an aside, it's actually interesting that I could run the current Debian Stable (Jessie) if I decided to resurrect my old K6-III+.
just brew it! wrote:whm1974 wrote:But what about finding people to who know how to use old systems? I have long forgotten how to use DOS myself.
If it is being used for a mission critical business function, then obviously someone in the business knows how to use it.
bthylafh wrote:just brew it! wrote:As an aside, it's actually interesting that I could run the current Debian Stable (Jessie) if I decided to resurrect my old K6-III+.
But not the next version. Debian just announced that 32-bit x86 builds will require at least i686 compatibility in the future, and the K6-III+ doesn't qualify.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-a ... 00001.html
Concupiscence wrote:bthylafh wrote:just brew it! wrote:As an aside, it's actually interesting that I could run the current Debian Stable (Jessie) if I decided to resurrect my old K6-III+.
But not the next version. Debian just announced that 32-bit x86 builds will require at least i686 compatibility in the future, and the K6-III+ doesn't qualify.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-a ... 00001.html
Aww, hamburgers. I was beginning to think they'd keep i486 compatibility around forever. At least there's still Slackware...
srg86 wrote:Cool, maybe I'll switch my i586 machine to Slackware. I might even attempt a non-X based install on my 486, just for fun.
just brew it! wrote:srg86 wrote:Cool, maybe I'll switch my i586 machine to Slackware. I might even attempt a non-X based install on my 486, just for fun.
You may not have a choice. I think a modern GUI on a 486 would be exceedingly painful (if it'll even fit into RAM).
just brew it! wrote:srg86 wrote:Cool, maybe I'll switch my i586 machine to Slackware. I might even attempt a non-X based install on my 486, just for fun.
You may not have a choice. I think a modern GUI on a 486 would be exceedingly painful (if it'll even fit into RAM).
Deanjo wrote:just brew it! wrote:srg86 wrote:Cool, maybe I'll switch my i586 machine to Slackware. I might even attempt a non-X based install on my 486, just for fun.
You may not have a choice. I think a modern GUI on a 486 would be exceedingly painful (if it'll even fit into RAM).
Pffft, Tandy Deskmate ran on an 8088!
Deanjo wrote:just brew it! wrote:whm1974 wrote:But what about finding people to who know how to use old systems? I have long forgotten how to use DOS myself.
If it is being used for a mission critical business function, then obviously someone in the business knows how to use it.
I wouldn't say that. I know of a bunch of small businesses running discontinued software on ancient hardware where if the system goes down, they're screwed. Heck for a few years in the late 90's I used to maintain an ILS system for a small airport that was ran by a Trash 80. I was pretty much the only one around that used to be able to fix it. Only when I was leaving the area, only then could they be convinced that they needed to upgrade their system and that didn't happen for another three years.
just brew it! wrote:Flatland_Spider wrote:just brew it! wrote:On the Windows side of the house, cutting backwards compatibility means a lot of legacy third-party software just ceases to function.
So a bunch of unmaintained software would stop working, and companies would be forced to migrate to something this is supported? That would be beautiful, and it may be my new happy place.
...and if the software is mission critical and has no supported equivalent (say, the developer has gone out of business), what then?
just brew it! wrote:Flatland_Spider wrote:I've seen it with Linux too. A business built a critical piece of infrastructure on top of Fedora Core 2, and they never bothered to think about what happens when it needs to be upgraded. Consequently, eleven years after supported ended for FC2, the stupid thing is still in production, and they can't replace it without lots of downtime. They're not to worried about it, so they keep running it.
At that point, it is really more of an appliance anyway. As long as it is not directly exposed to the Internet I don't see a big issue with this.
whm1974 wrote:I can understand trying to get your money's worth out of costly computer setups, but some people take this to the point of absurdity.
Flatland_Spider wrote:just brew it! wrote:At that point, it is really more of an appliance anyway. As long as it is not directly exposed to the Internet I don't see a big issue with this.
I don't remember where it was in the chain, but it was pretty close to the edge. I want to say it was a router servicing their webcluster.
cheesyking wrote:localhostrulez wrote:You know, speaking of old CNC machines and the accompanying software... imagine if cars on the road were all smart. And keep in mind what smartphones looked like in 2005 (the iPhone came out in 2007). Yet most of those cars are still on the road, driving quite happily, with many years ahead of them. Man, what a mess that would be... and I worry that some newer cars might be headed that way.
Yeah I think pretty much all car makers have already show they don't have the faintest idea how to make computer systems:
- Keyless entry / start has allowed thousands of cars to be stolen.
- Companion phone apps have been found to be massively insecure (EG Nissan only using the VIN number to authenticate connections)
- Internet connected cars being hacked into.
Plus a lot of the electronics on modern cars is just duplicating what we're already carrying around on our phones anyway. Why would I want a crap, slow, poorly updated satnav system built into my car when I've already got something better in my pocket. The life cycle for electronic gadgets like phones and tablets is somewhere between 2-4 years. The life cycle for cars should be somewhere between 10-20 years so it doesn't make any sense to fill a car with stuff unless you're a car maker hoping to sell more cars.
Krogoth wrote:[rant]It doesn't really make any real sense. A car is meant for transportation. It is not a bloody portable computer. Stupid gimmicks just open more attack vectors and create more points of failure. [/rant]