Studying the combined effects of corporate size/reach and complexity of software products being developed may give scholars many happy hours. Complexity of software relates not only to increasing ambition for what it can do but also to how Microsoft Windows, its office suites and similar large packages from other vendors, accrete rather than being redesigned each time innovation is added: a 'legacy' of now avoidable inefficiencies, and outmoded ways of doing things, must make fitting in each additional feature ever more difficult, possibly perilous to company reputation and well being. Understanding how huge corporate size and complexity can lead to deleterious effects is the province of management theorists however, little trust is owed to management school academics proclaiming the sole intent of good management is profit maximisation. Microsoft would be a suitable case-study for someone wishing to develop with rigour this thesis. Interaction between the two may lead to adverse effects rather than synergy. In fact, two types of 'bigness' need distinguishing between: company size, and software complexity. This seems not so in the case of software development. In traditional production of goods and services greater size may be accompanied by economies of scale. The result of all this being fewer major market players and some becoming monolithic. Numerous small companies didn't collapse but lost their identity through being gobbled up by others keen to develop nascent technology. It turned out to be one of several winners emerging from market competition most outright business failures (hardware and software vending) resulted not so much from technological deficiencies of products on offer as them arising in the wrong place and time. Microsoft was among many small companies springing up at that time. It was an exciting time when electronic computation began its transition from being exclusively a task for mainframe and mini-computers into a utility, almost as vital as electricity itself, and present in nearly every home and office. Software becoming too convoluted for reliable maintenance? However i suspect it would be easier to start from scratch, not that Google did a particular good job of that with Android, make some pretty basic design errors in its rush to get in to the market still they will have removed all the crap in 10 years time. The world needs a cutdown version of Windows that has all the fripperies removed, also all the legacy 8, 16 and 32 bit code it is what Windows 10 should have been. but teh training would kill a lot of compaanie and getting teh right level of local access and central management. MacOS in a working environment can be troublesome to support unless you go all in Apple everywhere, which is not possible for most companies, Linux is also difficult for LOB apps and also for support, ChromeOS web interface only solution would not work with most companies as it stands though may fit for 80% of users needs. Other Security solutions have been affected, McAffe I believe is one However most home users that are likely to have bought are more than likely runnig Windows 10 not windows 7 or Server 2008 Plus enterprises like subscriptions for accounting purpose and cash flow while home users are the opposite. Fewer but much more lucrative customers who will buy more than just a box and Orifice. Slurp looks to be trying to ditch home users and focus on enterprise users. Even if the training time is relatively minimal per person, it is still time lost and money spent on the staff.Įach situation must be evaluate on its own and while many can easily ditch Bloat not all can. Most users are not nerds and do not really know how computer works so switching the software and OS will involve some retraining and loss of efficiency while they learn the new stuff. Doable but not cheap and somewhat to very risky. Some companies have a lot of custom code written that would be royal pain to rewrite and revalidate to switch OSes. Primarily computers are tools to get a job done and you use the tools available and if those tools pin you to an OS you are stuck. And how expensive would it be to retrain the staff who are largely just users not nerds. Another is how much custom code has been written that would need to be rewritten in a new language. One what applications are used and are there suitable replacements for them on another OS. As far as whether to use Bloat in the future there are few things to consider.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |