Do you think someone would buy a console application (no GUI) if it still has an innovative or unique idea? This doesn't relate to me but I am curious.
Absolutely. You'd be surprised how many businesses still use software with text mode interfaces. I've seen them in insurance companies, banks, stores, small businesses, tax services, and even on older handheld devices used in warehousing.
You might also want to remember that a good portion of the time those programs were written in assembler or cobol 20-30 years ago and haven't been replaced because they still work.
Are You still sure, that someone would buy an console app if he got a software with an attractive, easy-to-use UI to the same price, next to it?... I don´t think so...
What kind of innovative or unique ideas are You thinking about?...
Never change a winning horse...: The laboratoy a girlfriend is doing a practical in got an very very old and slow computer which has to be there to use old floppy disk´s and some old dos-like-program which many many parts of the laboraty are based on... They got a second one for backup issues...
But when those 2 get broken, they are eally fucked and got to think about a new solution...
Absolutely. You'd be surprised how many businesses still use software with text mode interfaces. I've seen them in insurance companies, banks, stores, small businesses, tax services, and even on older handheld devices used in warehousing.
This is not correct. No one will pay for a text interface program simply because the analyst will never propose the solution... I sure as hell won't and I can't think of a single solution I've come across where a text interface was an option. The only reasons those old systems are still around is the company doesn't want to pay for the new system, the "it works don't change it" mentality even if it's a highly inefficient system, and lack of qualified resources to make the change. You will find that 90% of the companies that have these old systems are in the process of moving off them.
Never change a winning horse...: The laboratoy a girlfriend is doing a practical in got an very very old and slow computer which has to be there to use old floppy disk´s and some old dos-like-program which many many parts of the laboraty are based on... They got a second one for backup issues...
But... If the solution they're using now is so unstable, how is that a "winning horse"? How does that compare to systems that have been running for years with very little downtime?
Return 0:
The only reasons those old systems are still around is the company doesn't want to pay for the new system
Not necessarily. Quite often, the system needs high reliability, and the risk of lossage arising from the migration far outweights any benefits it could offer.
You will find that 90% of the companies that have these old systems are in the process of moving off them.
90% of statistics etc.
Go into any bank and try to find out what kind of infrastructure they use. They will almost certainly have a dinosaur running something written in COBOL.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. There's plenty of situations where a GUI would be undesirable. Any situation where responsiveness or low memory usage have a high priority will prefer lightweight interfaces over superfluous graphics.
[...] There's plenty of situations where a GUI would be undesirable. Any situation where responsiveness or low memory usage have a high priority will prefer lightweight interfaces over superfluous graphics.
This. Take Linux servers as an example. They are still marketable today, still being developed, and its not hard to find one running without a GUI. Of course the context of the application would be a factor but it is possible.
90% of statistics etc.
Go into any bank and try to find out what kind of infrastructure they use. They will almost certainly have a dinosaur running something written in COBOL.
That's correct, but as I stated, quite a few of them are moving off the platform due to numerous dependencies on other systems. This is also the case with the automotive and insurance industries in particular, current examples are Assurant, which is currently flipping their systems from Cobol to .net, JM Family/Toyota is rewritting their Cobol manufacturing app to .net to break the dependency with Toyota's old system. Sure there are some draw backs, but because of the nature of these ancient systems they create dependencies and prevent streamlining efforts which result in additional operational costs.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. There's plenty of situations where a GUI would be undesirable. Any situation where responsiveness or low memory usage have a high priority will prefer lightweight interfaces over superfluous graphics.
I have no idea what I'm talking about eh? Give me a break helios. Yes I'm sure there are many situations where a GUI MIGHT be undesirable, but I can't think of a single modern Business Application where this rings true. It's the older home grown systems that tend to be the problem.