[ale] OT: Re: posting to Linux mail list

[walter Sams]

I have another reason people upgrade, older equipment fails.  You go out
and buy new equipment (computers) and oops, the os is newer than what
you have in the rest of your office, your older software doesnt work
right on the new machine.  then new machine is faster which you like so
billy goats laughs all the way to the bank.  This scenario is exactly
why I am now a linux user.  I was looking at having to upgrade the os in
6 machines, office 2000 in 7 machines, upgrade a fax program, and
upgrade the accounting program.  All of the new upgrades came with the
new type licensing where it is done online and you cannot install on
more than one computer, all of the new software came with new
requirements for support packages also done online.  

I have talked to people using linux accounting programs who have been
using the same program for 20 years and are able to avoid the equipment
upgrade circus because they have found it unnecessary.

If you run windows stuff you will have to upgrade. 

 I also managed to lose one of my program disks for office and was
having trouble with the networking of outlook, when I tried using other
program disks from a tech support person it wouldnt load, something
about not correct version. after several hours of tech time trying to
correct the problem, I was left with buying 7 copies of office.

Enter OpenOffice  end of story

Thank you
Walter Sams

On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 17:28, Geoffrey wrote:
> Greg wrote:
> > 
> >> Geoffrey
> >>
> >> We've all seen
> >> the continuous upgrade merry-go-round Microsoft tries to force on
> >> people.  You can't ignore those costs.  Further, you can't just 
> >> upgrade your OS.  If you upgrade to XP, you'll have to upgrade
> >> Office as well.  That's quite expensive.
> > 
> > 
> > I am currently running Office 97 on Windows 2k at home and I don't
> > have any reason to change. The wife runs Windows 98 and Office 97.
> > We will not upgrade.  I don't know if XP would force Office users to
> > upgrade or if you can run old Office's on XP, but I dont' know why
> > you would want to run XP anyway.  I would suggest not upgrading
> > unless there is a reason - and a really good one at that.
> 
> As I understand it, the older Office products will not run on XP.  Also,
> you can't compare your usage to the generic office drone.  You're much
> more knowledgable, whereas corporations seem to be on the "upgrade cause
> it's there" path.
> 
> >> What?  All companies have historically done this.  It's just of
> >> late that companies are starting to question the upgrade
> >> merry-go-round. With Microsoft dropping support for their older
> >> OS's companies have little choice.
> > 
> > 
> > True, but I would really examine the reason to upgrade at all.  What
> > is it that is different from business yesterday than today or
> > tomorrow ?
> 
> Agreed.  But then why did people ever leave Windows 3.11??
> >> 
> >> http://www.activestate.com/Products/Visual_Perl/
> > 
> > 
> > .NET ? ackkkkk sptteee. ok, it is nice in some respects from a
> > developers perspective (more object based, nice easy greasy little
> > ways to do many things that were choresome before) but I think it
> > will change much in the next 4 years or so.  Can't perl be run with
> > nice little windows and such so that the "write once run forever" can
> > be true ?
> 
> perltk
> 
> The 'write once run forever' is a spin (I guess?) off the Java 'write
> once run everywhere?'
> 
> > True.  But if you do the same stuff day in and day out and you have a
> > static environment and change to anything is not needed.  There is a
> > state agency still running on Windows 3.1.  It runs a system that
> > basically is all they do (store docs). No change needed here.  I
> > think Linux is only an option when you change due to a systemic
> > reason - a new required functionality that is OS oriented (or you can
> > just use Perl/Java/VB/whatever) to the old Windows 98 system.
> 
> I would disagree.  It makes sense to move to a platform that is more 
> secure and more stable.
> 
> >> And do some research.  Access is so easily corrupted it's
> >> ridiculous to even consider it a db.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, and I had a boss who spent many hrs fixing it (after work) -
> > despite the company having a huge Oracle db and many db's that could
> > have converted it, as well as a web developer to put a nice front end
> > on it.  I dunno - I guess it was the control thing. *I* couldn't
> > explain it.
> 
> I think I call that stupidity.
> 
> 
> > Well, if you are not connected to outside sources, then the security
> > thing is moot.
> 
> True, but who isn't connected in some way?  Who will still be standalone 
> in the future?  Very few if they want to survive.
> 
> > I think that for "write once run forever" apps irrespective of OS
> > perl, java, tcl/tk, and now even KDE's stuff could be an answer.
> 
> Agreed, although I don't know how much kde brings to the game.
> 
> > But for niche users, their app has them MS bound.  A good example is
> > CAD. AutoCAD is only run on MS and now requires Win2K or XP.  I think
> > someone in the early parts of the thread mentioned OCR stuff.  Some
> > others gave other examples. I am sure that there are many apps -
> > medical, financial, and such where the user is application (not OS)
> > bound and would use Linux if it would run on Linux.  My architect
> > friend had to install Win2K since the newest AutoCAD won't run on
> > Windows 98 - and he needs to be able to read the latest AutoCAD
> > formatted files.
> 
> Understood, but these are unique needs.  The general office complex can 
> get buy with a Microsoft-less environment.