Like this article? We recommend
Like this article? We recommend
Like this article? We recommend
Hurts So Good
So why won't this company upgrade their technology? I think this organization, at least the decision makers, can't see the benefit of moving from something that is tolerable to something that is superb. Can you see the logic? What we currently have in place is working with limited support and maintenance, why should we change?
Certainly, I can understand their position on this issue. It worked in 1996: Everyone was thrilled to get a new Acer workstation on their desktop and to have the ability to save to this thing called "a server." And it has worked, off and on, for years and it works today. The trouble with this argument, however, is that the old adage of "if ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply to technology. Or does it?
Why have technology at all if the typewriter and the abacus worked just fine? Is technology, like the hit music of each decade, just a fad? Or is technology a gimmick to pry open the checkbook of businesses around the world? What's the value, not the cost, of not upgrading?
Is newer always better? I think much of the music of the 1980s (and today) proved that newer doesn't always equal better. I think there are instances of why and when a technology upgrade is needed—just look at this client. But I also believe that we as technophiles are blindly in love with the latest and greatest tech release. Or, more likely, we get hungry because of the sizzle rather than the steak.