[mso] Re: exe files
- From: "Greg Chapman" <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <mso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 23:55:40 -0500
Oh no!! That wasn't my point in this latest exchange at all. The intent =
was
to highlight that the loss from not advancing the software has nothing =
to do
with the productivity increase the new software might provide. I have =
many
reasons to believe that for nearly all of those 'reporters' there will =
be no
increase in productivity at all. That's especially true if we bow to the
pressures presented by the long, gradual learning curve of the human =
mind.
They'll be lost for weeks if not months but their productivity loss will =
be
fairly minor!! Bear in mind as you read this that the perspective I'm =
using
is from that of a corporation of at least 150 employees. Whenever I =
attempt
to place value on these quanta, it always seems to break over at that =
head
count. I'm pretty sure that's what MS marketing people are aiming at as
well.
No, the pressure to move ahead here stems from one mighty and expensive
problem: losses incurred in the battle against this week's worm!! Evil =
plot
or not, whether you want to join the software purchasing merry-go-round =
or
not, once you've bought the first piece and installed it in your office =
you
have bought a non-stop maintenance problem. And remaining behind the =
product
upgrade cycle is much more expensive than to plan on being only one =
version
behind, or, expressed differently, no more than 24 months behind the =
last
release. Those numbers are based on the rate at which hackers learn the =
new
system for truly effective exploits which just happens to coincide =
nicely
with the rate at which administrators can learn to manage the new =
package,
that a company can plan to spend money and that software companies can
produce meaningful upgrades.=20
The field really is level and that hack ain't no smarter than you. He or =
she
merely has less need to spend time actually producing something that =
someone
else will pay for. The folks at Microsoft are working on things much =
more
complex than you or I which offsets any vast differences in their IQ's =
when
placed against the scale of time. And given that they are normal humans =
in
that they would prefer to work on the 'next new thing' instead of the =
last
old thing (Oh yeah! The next new thing also means new revenues. The old
thing isn't paying the rent anymore)you can see they are also much more
likely to produce fixes against flaws an exploits in the new things =
instead
of pumping steroids into that old, dieing horse, right?<g>
So, reiterated, failing to upgrade your software is extremely expensive =
and
the decision about when to upgrade should not be based on feature set =
unless
you'd like to say that one of the features is that it's a new beast to =
hack.
At this point in computing history, the real basis for the decision is =
to
consider the cost of recovery if you don't invest in upgrading. I'm =
pretty
sure that at the rates IT people are paid, the value of the data =
generated
at the company under seige and the cost of telling all those reporters =
to
hang it up for a day or two while the systems are repaired you'll =
quickly
exceed the costs you would have experienced from merely upgrading. Yes,
upgrading tools for MS apps are normally shipped with the product and =
they
really are less labor intensive than quarantining laptops as they pass
through the door.
Greg Chapman
http://www.mousetrax.com=20
"Counting in binary is as easy as 01, 10, 11!
With thinking this clear, is coding really a good idea?"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mso-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
> [mailto:mso-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Katherine=20
> Driskell Felts
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:20 PM
> To: mso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [mso] Re: exe files
>=20
>=20
> The thing of it is, Greg, my debating friend, just a few days=20
> ago you said
> that computers (and or increases in tech) were not going to=20
> make the average
> user more efficient. Now you're talking about this company=20
> missing out
> because they haven't kept up (out of a desire to not=20
> constantly having to
> train people on new programs) I know August of 1995 was eons=20
> ago computer
> wise, but how much less efficient can those secretaries be with an old
> version of Word?
>
*************************************************************
You are receiving this mail because you subscribed to mso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or
MicrosoftOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To send mail to the group, simply address it to mso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To Unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
mso-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) in
the subject line.
Or, visit the group's homepage and use the dropdown menu. This will also allow
you to change your email settings to digest or vacation (no mail).
//www.freelists.org/webpage/mso
To be able to use the files section for sharing files with the group, send a
request to mso-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and you will be sent an invitation with
instructions. Once you are a member of the files group, you can go here to
upload/download files:
http://www.smartgroups.com/vault/msofiles
*************************************************************
Other related posts: