Why create e-waste and spend money you don’t have to when your existing retro hardware not only works fine but gives customers something to talk about?
I wish more people thought this way.
No, I’m all against e-waste, but the whole “if it ain’t broke” mentality is asinine, that’s how we end up with bullshit like the entire financial system of the country being underpinned by an ancient mainframe program written in COBOL and is a huge reason we STILL need to wait DAYS for transactions to process because it can’t handle Real-time transactions. That’s the result of a generation or 2 of executives going “If iT aINt BrOKe”
Retired that shit and repurpose it to teach kids the BASICs of programming or something.
The quote should be changed to “If it ain’t broke, evaluate the modern options available and determine if it will truly improve things and switch to that if so”
That’s not an example of working fine, now is it?
I hope whatever put you in such a foul mood gets better.
That’s not an example of working fine, now is it?
Try convincing non-IT executives of that who absolutely LOVES that stupid phrase when trying to get funding approved to update some 20 year old system sometime
Exec:“Why update and spend money, when the old system works fine?”
Well it technically works, but our customers expect a modernized system that doe—
Exec: “So it works then, iF iT AInT BrOkE…”
Well it technically works…
Nope. There’s your problem. You don’t start with any version of “it works.” You begin with “here’s how the old system is costing us money, and here’s how much more money the new system will increase profits.” Tech debt is the catchphrase of the moment, and you can describe it in financial terms executives understand. Tech debt charges interest, and the interes of delaying payments into infrastructure will outpace the money saved by a significant margin. That’s why spending the money now will decrease friction, reduce churn, and streamline onboarding of new accounts. This is what our competitors are doing, and this is how we can do it better.
That’s the pitch. If your argument is “it works, but we can do better,” that makes it sound like you’re putting extra padding in the first class seats. The real answer is it works because IT is working in a constant state of panic and the job of 10 engineers is being done by two interns and a roll of duct tape. To an executive, that sounds like efficiency, because they don’t give a shit about you. Number goes up, that’s their focus.
Damn! You really know this game!
^ This is how you sell IT.
the reason transactions take so long is because of compliance. COBOL, CICS (the tramsaction manager) and mainframes themselves are constantly being updated and optimized because no flavor of the week in the last three decades has been able to handle the throughput needed by the companies that still use them. if anything in the tech stack at banks is slowing down your paycheck getting cashed, it’s the small army of nodeJS servers whose entire codebase gets rewritten every six months because some exec thinks COBOL isn’t sexy enough and we can get rid of it we say the word “agile” enough. the fortune 500 has been planning on being “off the mainframe in the next 3 years” since the 90s
Yes. COBOL instructions map nearly directly (something like 1:4) to machine language instructions on the mainframe chipsets it was built for. It strongly encourages stateless procedures with its design, and has some other benefits that align closely with the financial sector. You can drop down to assembly as a hot spot optimization if you really need to.
The industry could replace COBOL, but its replacement would wind up looking a lot like COBOL at the code structure level, or a slightly nicer language would have an intermediate transpile step into COBOL or something similar. Probably no performance gains. Perhaps some usability gains. Not enough to sell it as a rewrite.
Reality is its use will probably outlive us all.
In the meantime let’s fire up some AS400 (yes I know, it’s called IBM i or whatever now nobody cares)
My last company was selling IBMi’s and writing the code for them. Customer’s didn’t like our GUI product. They wanted rock-solid, green screen menus.
This post is so out of touch it’s laughably absurd. You’re obviously not in QE
What are those symbols printed on the side of the keycaps?
What do you suppose is the name of the point-of-sale software they’re using?
That’s amazing—talk about old-school tech standing the test of time! It’s a reminder that sometimes simple, reliable tools are all you need to keep things running smoothly. Speaking of timeless classics, Sonic foods offers a menu that balances retro vibes with modern tastes, much like Hilligoss Bakery’s blend of tradition and functionality. Both prove that sticking to what works can still deliver something fresh and satisfying!
How do they save transactions reliably? To floppy? Or tape?
What if the disk/tape is full.
I love it, but seems a bit flakey
They probably don’t and it’s just for pricing and printing receipts…
I guess they could record the sales using carbon copy receipt paper.
Realistically it only needs to hold info for the day. It’s a bakery. They just need to know how much money should be in the cash drawer.
They make user port carts with SD cards that basically function as hard drives these days (though I doubt they would be using them). There is also paper as a record which may meet any requirements they have.
The C64 Mini and C64 Maxi are readily available today and affordably priced, making spare parts easily accessible.
If those work well enough for them, I cannot see any benefit of upgrading.
I know north American c64s had power supply issues and I think capacitor issues. I imagine the latter is true there as well, though not sure about the former
