I was having a rather interesting chat with someone about our experiences and views about upgrading software. In particular, the feelings and views we've had about both the approach to an upgrade as well as the aftermath.
On the approach, it's really a philosophical aspect. Some people like the idea of keeping up with the current goings-on. Some like the bleeding edge (that would be me). Some avoid it like a root canal and prefer to stay on the old stuff because "it just works" or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I can understand those sentiments very well, but for myself, personally, I prefer to see what's around the corner rather than wait for it to run me over. There are also more diverse views within that area, such as rationale for "staying ahead", but I'll leave that stuff for Dr. Phill.
The "afterwards" part was most interesting. The question was/is this:
Of all the upgrades you've been involved with, which were the most rewarding and which were the most painful?
Rewarding:
- Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 (workstation and server)
- Microsoft SQL 7.0 to SQL 2000
- AutoCAD R13 to R14
- Windows XP to Windows 7 (and Server 2008 R2)
- Novell to Active Directory
Painful:
- Windows 95 to 98
- Windows XP to Vista
- AutoCAD R14 to 2000 (mainly the plot feature changes)
- Novell to Active Directory
Notice any repeats?
1 comment:
Rewarding? NT 3.51 to NT 4 and Exchange 5 to 5.5.
Painful? a poorly planned upgrade from Office 97 to Office 2000. Access DB issues, file version incompatibilities. If it had been planned better, then no problem.
MS Mail to Exchange 5.5 was both very, very rewarding and a super PITA.
Post a Comment