Re: Accelerated legacy code

On 2009-12-09 15:59:20 -0600, Cydrome Leader <presence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Paul <paul-nospamatall.raulerson@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-12-06 18:01:30 -0600, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Cydrome Leader wrote:
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Howard Brazee wrote:
We tend to associate "legacy" with "mainframe". But it ain't
necessarily so.

From my limited exposure, the large new systems I have seen have
lots of code which doesn't fit new standards, but is kept around
because redesign and replacement is much more difficult when
anything can touch anything.

I'm calling it "accelerated legacy code".

I used to think "legacy" only applied to mainframe until I was given
a task to "keep legacy running while we develop and implement a new
solution" for a major Utility in the U.K.

heck, there can be legacy code and applications from even a few years
ago.

One example is a CRM/ticket system that only works with IE6. Users
can't even access it as the desktop build is beyond IE6. It simply
doesn't work, even with IE7 or IE8 in legacy mode. It doesn't work
with other browsers at all.


That's a pretty bad situation and a lesson to us all. I think most
responsible web developers check for at least SOME fundamental cross Browser
capability, or issue a disclaimer on their sites. With modern tools it isn't
TOO hard to check things across Browsers (although it is definitely extra
work)... 5 years ago such tools did exist (MacroMedia have had this
capability in Dreamweaver for more than 5 years, just as one example).

It's looking like some windows 98 machines will have to be kept on
hand to use the thing, and it the data on it has to be accessible for
X more years, even if nobody knows how to run it and it's on hardware
with no more support. It has to be less than 5 years old too.

I have to wonder why anyone would take delivery of such a system. I guess
they saw functionality they needed and decided the tech stuff didn't
matter...

I would have thought it would be pretty easy to replace a CRM system; there
are dozens of very good packages around that provide that functionality.

Pete.

In general, I would find myself questioning the facts in this case.
Five years ago, in 2004, XP
would have been the standard build. Windows 98 was at that point,
around six years old.

I'd love to share more facts, but cannot do it on usenet. This is only one
of several nonsense applications I've had to work with.

There's even current sofware out there that only works with IE6. There
really is SAN management software from Hitachi that cannot be used to add
storage to a host as it it can't detect that you checked checkboxes in a
web based form, in anything other than IE6.


And even if the facts supported the idea of the necessity of keeping
Win98 machines around,
in 2009, those "machines" would be virtual machines running on top of
Windows Server 2003,
Windows Server 2008, Linux, or MacOS.

Any organization clever enough to have such junk in the first place isn't
going to spend the money on virtualized browsers on some 2003 mega server.

Well, I would not be so sure.


Getting IE6 will involve finding half broken machines in some forgotten
pile of office equipement that nobody remembered to throw away.

Or just load Windows 2003 server. We still have IE6, because a great deal of
South America still uses it, and we have to support it.



There's sometimes a huge gap in the right way to do something and how it
actually gets done inside an organization.

Sure. On the other hand, most organizations want to do things the right way,
and the least expensive way. The two desires are usually not in opposition.

-Paul

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IE8 got me too :-( Sorry Jeff.
    ... So I went back to IE6. ... Safari can't do that, but Safari is better ... It is very good to follow the standards. ... I was talking about things like what browsers handle and not ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: IE8 got me too :-( Sorry Jeff.
    ... it was blurrier on the monitor. ... So I went back to IE6. ... It is very good to follow the standards. ... It is compliance in the browsers that matters. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: What a sad newsgroup this has become.
    ... This is because those who are running IE6 are not having any problems. ... several other, BETTER alternatives, such as firefox and opera. ... Neither Firefox nor Opera are good browsers IMHO. ... standards, forcing websites to host web-code specifically for IE6. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser)
  • Re: MS vs Mozilla, Netscape
    ... My site is mostly CSS and looks identical in all browsers (at least those I ... > It hardly seems worth the effort to make everything work ok in Netscape ... Netscape/Mozilla is interpreting according to the Standards ... >> Over and above the standards issue, IE6 is also much more forgiving than ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.client)
  • Re: langua= vs type=
    ... no 'correct' MIME type to accept). ... current browsers will have no idea what to make of the new official MIME ... >>> depending on the script. ... > My gander is raised by those that scream "STANDARDS" and beat their ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)