Would it need to have 32 or 64 members?
University of Vermont
Phone: (802) 656 2013
"You are nestled in our hearts forever"
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Victor Rossi intoned:
VR:Perhaps we should form a 64bit Task Force to deliberate and give a
VR:recommendation to the Standards Committee who will vote on it and then seek
VR:rubber stamp approval from all of the interim administrators..?
VR:On 1/11/11 4:01 PM, Geoffrey Duke wrote:
VR:> I realize that the CDC and distributed IT staff bear the brunt of the
VR:> frustration of clients with older equipment, and Iím sensitive to
VR:> creating [more] unreasonable expectations. I know that clients come to
VR:> you expecting you to /just make it work/. However, we have limited
VR:> resources, and have to set some boundaries around what we can and canít
VR:> do for people.
VR:> If we imagine the rate of use of a technology as a bell curve, then the
VR:> leading edge of that curve is always moving. If the trailing edge
VR:> doesnít also move, then the area under the curve ó that is, the total
VR:> support burden ó will quickly outpace our resources. (That train already
VR:> left the station, you say?). Itís an untenable situation.
VR:> When new technologies are released, we spend time developing expertise
VR:> with them before adopting them as part of our routine. We invite
VR:> colleagues and adventurous clients to experiment with us. We accept a
VR:> responsibility to support ourselves, to be resourceful in working
VR:> through problems the solutions to which arenít yet part of our
VR:> collective knowledge.
VR:> I think thereís a similar responsibility on the part of the folks at the
VR:> other end of the curve. As software and device vendors move forward with
VR:> new products ó or donít, which often is the problem ó those folks have a
VR:> responsibility to be aware of when the supportable life of their
VR:> solutions is ending. If those folks choose not to move forward
VR:> óreplacing or eliminating out-of-date items ó then they need to bear
VR:> some (most) of the responsibility for maintaining their situation.
VR:> I realize that, in contrast to the leading edge, the trailing part of
VR:> the curve is populated with folks who are the technically sophisticated
VR:> and folks with fewer resources for replacing old technology. Iím not
VR:> sure thereís a quick fix for this situation. However, since these folks
VR:> are dependent on others for support, they will be better served by
VR:> staying with the herd than they will be wandering off on their own.
VR:> And the herd (meow <http://youtu.be/Pk7yqlTMvp8>) needs to keep moving.
VR:> Changing default configurations is the way we nudge the curve forward.
VR:> We arenít talking about making 32-bit Windows unavailable. Weíre talking
VR:> about making 64-bit Windows the default.
VR:> *From:*Technology Discussion at UVM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
VR:> Behalf Of *Carol Caldwell-Edmonds
VR:> *Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2011 12:28 PM
VR:> *To:* [log in to unmask]
VR:> *Subject:* Re: Moving to 64-bit Windows as our standard?
VR:> [Ö] Therefore, if ETS determines that all of the possible default
VR:> printers, scanners, and other devices on campus used by default users,
VR:> not just those who are up on which drivers work with which OS, then and
VR:> only then should 64 bit Windows become the campus UVM system default,
VR:> IMHO. [Ö]
VR:Victor Rossi, B.S., M.B.A.
VR:Lecturer, Senior Information Technology Professional
VR:College of Engineering & Math Sciences
VR:University of Vermont
VR:Burlington, Vermont 05405
VR:[log in to unmask]