From: huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= wrote in
news:10ecgp5$3hi5o$1@dont-email.me:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 06:18:02 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 04:56:39 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 04:41:48 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the tech builders weren't forced to use upgraded technology the
>>>> support could stay stable for many generations of products. Often it
>>>> was suggested/demanded by the developers because some tool in the
>>>> newer cycle eased the job of the developer.
>>>
>>> Even if the developers of the product didn’t want to use Windows 11,
>>> what are they supposed to do once Microsoft says it’s not going to
>>> support Windows 10 any more?
>>
>> You first need to know what your products depend on in say Win 10.
>> Then use only those Win 10 features or older that are supported going
>> into Win 11.
>
> Doesn’t matter what features you do or don’t use, you still have to
> test everything just as thoroughly. Which, in heavily-regulated, safety-
> critical fields like industrial control and healthcare, can be a pretty
> expensive business.
>
> Which brings us right back to where we came in: the companies offering
> these upgrades want to charge hefty fees for them.
>
> The users could have seen this coming, decades in advance, given this is
> not the first time such a situation has occurred with some version of
> Microsoft Windows. And plan their long-term support contracts
> accordingly. That’s the way to cushion the blow.
Testing should always include everything possible. Including some portion
of the developers spending time activiely trying to hack/disable/interfere
with the products to find issues that can be addressed/mitigrated by
development. With small teams you sometimes need to focus on this for a
while.
Most of my career has been with companies whose products are mission
critical and must be reliable for 20 years or more at a minimum. Such
systems should never fail. At worst they should fail and recover so
silently and quickly that users can't even observe issues during the
failures. It takes a huge amount of testing effort too. It is
challenging work and quite enjoyable if you can work under such pressure.
Yes such products can be expensive to maintain when you are dependant on
limited resources or timespans. Minimize costs where you can. Hardware
and software improvements should only be used if they really help the
product. Such products require 95+% testing to actual development time.
The public or end user might see different products but the underlying
support hardware and software is usually reused in all the products or
even across many industries.
Such reliability costs the developers who pass that cost on to the end
user. If supporting the next generation of anything worries you think
about ways to minimize the impact. Sometimes we do have to pay Microsoft
for longer lifespans when they are embedded in our products. There are
always options. Think of the product as multiple systems and then remake
your product to fit it. Perhaps the engine inside your product can be
reused or left unchanged. Then it is just the user side of the system
that needs to upgrade to the latest (or perhaps multiple levels of) the
user interface (in Windows).
Think outside the current box you or your company are in. How would you
improve things? Can a simple example be made to try out your ideas?
Pitch the good stuff to appropriate people in your company.
I can't really count the number of times I've done this. Some companies
are blessed with wonderful managers. Others you might need to go higher.
Just be ready for rejection or (sometimes worse) acceptance that can
really force you to up your game.
Have fun!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
