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 óreplacing or eliminating out-of-date items ó then they need to bear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