Nathan, << upgrading new systems for y2k >>
Maybe this thought is what's holding Y2K back. It sounds good on the
surface, but is a far cry from reality. I'll try to give an unlengthly
and hopefully an understandable analogy.
When working for TXN, I was heavily involved with computer aided
design for a number of years. Called CAD systems. Many of our systems
were and still are SUN work stations. Functions of these work stations
were to simulate designs, do the chip architecture layout, extract
the complex architecture and compare to the design schematics, make
sure all wafer fab processing rules were in compliance, and look for
parasitic ( unwanted electrical parameters) that could be adverse to
the design functionally. Extremely complex and very often a year or
more in design.
My analogy. Along comes SGI, the 3-d movie company deciding to
blow their way into this market. They have some of the best engineers
in the industry, unfortunately for me and others, good engineering
has nothing to do with management vision. Their systems were superior
to SUN. IMHO on all this. Now their short-sightedness!
It takes a couple years to train even the best engineers to become
effecient with these work stations for them to reach the skills of
being able to compete with leading edge designs. To switch to another
vendor for some 10% or 20% improvement in performance would be
suicide while retraining 300+ designers in our analog mixed signal
department. Sun will easily match SGI's performance in short order
if it hasn't already. The SGI internal ego was something to behold,
but their vision and execution was very weak.
To think someone who's used any software system over the years will
be able to suddenly switch to new concepts is going to smash every
company with this attitude. It's far more complex than going from WIN95 to WIN97. Those who've grown with the new technology will be
fine, but all those old institutions are in for a rude awakening.
Sorry I couldn't relate in fewer words, and who knows, maybe I'm
wrong! :-)
Larry
|
