Rudedog, the primary reason I find the "harebrained Windows shop" environment so reprehensible is because I know it is not necessary. I was instrumental in a decade-long successful Windows implementation, first 3.1 then NT ( we didn't even waste our time on 95, our desktops were 3.51 at first ). This included pretty much the whole range of server functionality and cross-platform integration, minis, mainframes, databases, etc. The whole 9 yards. By successful, I mean that I've never seen one better in terms of stabilizing and managing Windows. However the environment was still a huge PITA and had other consequences in terms of poor choices being made for application components, for example, use of MS Access.
What I found in doing so is that to create such a success required skill sets gathered on other platforms that just aren't found in most Windows environments.
In the last 20 years, I've had my hands on just about every environment you can name in multiple industries. Some are simply much better to operate and come with a culture and common base of knowledge that addresses *all* the tasks one might want to do with your systems. Others come with gaping holes in their practical value, for example, windows in implementing certain common types of batch processing in a reliable and restartable way.
You offer that you have "done some designs" in the late 80s. Did you then have the opportunity to live with these implementations or did you transition the support to the customer? It seems to me you cannot really comment on the economics unless you were in the environment long-term. |
