Why Update Software?

[BgMstr4u]

This is in no way a comment or on or criticism of HooBoy's well-chronicled problems, but it is prompted by them.

 

Why are people so tempted to upgrade software? Almost every time I do it, it lands me in trouble.

 

I use older versions of Quicken, Address Book, WordPerfect (I detest Word!), Scansoft, PhotoShop, etc., etc., with no big issues and they work fine. I get constant invitations to upgrade, all costing not only money but also time -- big-time time sometimes to do all the work to get them installed. The few times I have upgraded, I have had to put my life on hold to work things out. The last upgrade was to AOL 8.0, and it actually knocked out the capacity of one of my laptops to function on the internet at all. It boots and starts and then won't connect....

 

So I repeat my question: What is this compulsion to upgrade software, when what one has is (was) working just fine, thank you?

[Boston Guy]

To keep software companies and programmers in business.

 

BG

[+ Hoover42]

To paraphrase Picasso, no piece of software is ever perfected, it is merely abandoned.

 

As software is used, design flaws and area for improvement are recognized and incorporated into future versions.

 

In other words, after being released into the wild, the software organism, through its developers, responds to pressures in the environment and mutates into something (hopefully) better able to survive the requirements of the changed environment.

[phage]

>The last upgrade was to AOL 8.0, and it

>actually knocked out the capacity of one of my laptops to

>function on the internet at all. It boots and starts and then

>won't connect....

 

You have pretty much answered your own question. There is no reason to be the first to jump on the bandwagon, but if you don’t remain reasonably current, you will be left behind. Then when something comes along that you really want, it will be out of your reach.

 

I’ve read some interesting articles about the future of the PC being nothing more than a simple device (like a telephone or a dumb terminal) that is used to access the internet where all of your applications will live. All of the upgrading and resulting headaches will be handled by the providers for some kind of subscription fee.

 

It’s an interesting concept and my company has moved heavily in this direction over the last couple of years. I can never remember which is a thick client and which is the thin client, but virtually all of our corporate applications live on the company intranet and there is nothing to install on you PC.

[+ deej]

The primary reason to upgrade is for support. If what you're running is sufficiently old, you won't be able to get support for it. Of course, if you don't need support that's not much of a reason, is it?

 

A secondary reason is file exchanging with others. If someone is running a newer word processor than you are and sends you a file, you may not be able to open it. Again, if that's not an issue for you then it's not a reason to upgrade.

 

It's actually a problem for the industry. Upgrades are a major revenue stream for the vendors but more and more consumers have learned to Just Say No. Corporate installations are even worse. It can take so long to upgrade an entire enterprise some companies will only install every other upgrade.

 

If what you have works for you, stick with it. Techies can come up with tons of reasons for upgrades but they usually boil down to the coolness factor of running the latest and greatest.

[Huey]

>

>So I repeat my question: What is this compulsion to upgrade

>software, when what one has is (was) working just fine, thank

>you?

 

Backward compatibility is limited with each new OS release. Plus sometimes the newer version have the bugs worked out and offer new features that are important for some of us . Even at work we use computers in a way ... I no longer load a cart or use a CD to play a song; if I have to play Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit, I punch in number 221941 :7 .

[Guy Fawkes]

Well considering what I've been working on, I can come up with about four reasons:

 

1) Over time software users report bugs, as they get fixed the product gets more stable. After a certain point the only bugs that show up are bugs related to ever changing hardware environment (i.e. That doesn't work on a Pentium 4) and enhancements.

 

2) Software tends to get faster. Slow software causes complaints, so it's a big item for software developers. Case in point, the new database version and O/S update planned for this week, should be about 50% faster. This means that more people will be able to use the Message Center at the same time.

 

3) Hackers are forever find security holes that need to be closed. If a hacker gets in and starts eating 100% of CPU, the computer is useless for the real users.

 

4) To take advantage of new hardware features. For example: The difference in speed between a IDE device and a IDE device with ultra DMA is significant.

 

Now mind you I don't advocate blindly upgrading just because a new version is available. Basically, I wait a few days for people to work with them and give their thoughts.

 

In our case, I've spend a considerable amount of time to test, benchmark, and validate the new versions of MySQL (and Operating Systems) to determine what was Fast, Stable, and the best feature set for us.