30 Oct
2011
30 Oct
'11
5:05 p.m.
On 30/10/11 6:39 PM, arcarlini at iee.org wrote:
Toby Thain [toby at telegraphics.com.au] wrote:
True, but as you go on to say, it hasn't worked.
On 30/10/11 12:09 PM, arcarlini at iee.org
wrote:
My solution is in the bit you conveniently quoted above :-) ...
I agree that *testing* an end-user application on the least capable
acceptable hardware is a good idea. Even there though, I
don't see how
forcing the developer to use that hardware for
development achieves
anything other than slowing them down.
Then how would *you* solve the perennial problem of software whose
pointless sloth and bloat won't allow it to run well on
anything but the
latest hardware?
Despite being the consensus here, it doesn't appear to work that well.
Maybe because nobody does it. The norm is forced upgrades?
--T
If this were a problem for the majority of customers,
then the market
would solve the issue
(i.e. someone else would release a competing product that didn't have
this issue but otherwise
worked at least "well enough").
...
Antonio
arcarlini at iee.org