On 5/11/04 9:16 am, "Tom Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part):
> I think that's an unfair comment. There are a lot of things we don't > know about this procurement, including a lot of technical things. For > instance, compatibility with existing bespoke apps? There's a huge > legacy environment of NHS apps - Mainframe-based, mini-based, lan-based > - probably all currently running on a collection of weird and wonderful > PCs. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some Windows 3.1 machines > still lurking round, used solely to access a bespoke app via some form > of terminal emulator. Access to these old apps has got to continue, and > my guess would be that the various NHS techies have plumped for safety. Some points that come to mind...It is true that the previous systems were older wintel types and no doubt that there were custom written apps for that set-up, however, I personally have two big concerns with this change... 1. Security: the older Wintel systems (95 and earlier) were no where near as bad as the current XP generation for viruses, security holes, etc (and lets face it, very few use them anymore so there is little interest to start and create new viruses for these legacy systems)...I consider my health information completely personal and confidential and the upgrade to XP will mean that I will have zero confidence my data will be private. Just today there is a new hole in IE (even after SP2)...and to top it off not only does the win OS have more holes in it than the new G5's alu, the staff will (at least initially) NOT be aware of the issues with the security and no doubt make some changes that will further reduce the security just trying to get it to work and learn it. 2. I would suggest that to clean the slate and start from new would be better for a few reasons; -no legacy issues would remain to 'brake' any further advances and limit hardware or software upgrades and we all know that there is a time when there remains no choice but to rewrite software to newer standards due to compatibility problems. -the cost of support staff (IT) and software (can you say show me the money!) from Redmond alone would scare me away from the current path and surely the costs for a new system from scratch would be cheaper over the long run. (not to mention the legal costs involved IF/WHEN someone can prove their data is not secure and available to third parties, such as insurance companies!) and lets not forget that all of us as tax payers are footing these costs. Every time I turn around another agency or government body in the US or mainland EU are switching to other OS's due to costs...to be fair it is mostly Linux but again this week even the US NSA (National Security Agency or secret police to you and I) have released documents showing other US agencies how to make their Mac OS X systems secure after they decide to make the change (the document is available to anyone at:) <http://www.nsa.gov/notices/notic00004.cfm?Address=/snac/os/applemac/osx_cli ent_final_v.1.pdf> -No software is perfect, so there are surely still features that are not implemented in the legacy software that will now never be made/implemented because of the software upgrade choice they have made, whereas if they went with a new start they could ask the all important question of what do you need / want instead of here is what you get (can you still use it?). My .02, Richard -- -- Mac UK is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... 123Inkjets.com <http://lowendmac.com/ad/123inkjets.html> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Mac UK list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/mac-uk.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/mac-uk%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
