https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/supercomputers/nasas-old-supercomputers-are-causing-mission-delays

NASA want`s all next gen GPU`s tell the Gamers to take a hike the government has deep pockets.👀

 

One example of this type of thing is at 11:30 in this video. It's about the Boeing 747, not NASA, but the same critical reason holds for example at NASA and nuclear power plants: old technology is more reliable. And so still used in critical situations.

Floppy discs. Windows XP. These are more reliable than modern tech.

 

Yes it makes you wonder why NASA and Musk build new rockets when the V2 worked OK.

...and those Abacus computers worked fine for the Apollo project

6 hours ago, Fielder said:

One example of this type of thing is at 11:30 in this video. It's about the Boeing 747, not NASA, but the same critical reason holds for example at NASA and nuclear power plants: old technology is more reliable. And so still used in critical situations.

Floppy discs. Windows XP. These are more reliable than modern tech.

More reliable?  I think not.  Unlike a floppy disc, I've never had an optical drive like a CD/DVD drop a sector because it got too close to a magnet or got dust/dirt in it.  And the massive increase in capacity in optical and flash storage devices allows for redundancy and built-in error detection and correction.  And allowing a developer like M$ to impose mandatory, untested and quite often unstable software changes is patently antithetic to the mission of a critical system.

Old tech is still in use in many critical applications because it is available, stable and does work for the intended purpose.  Re-engineering, testing, and validating critical systems (which would almost certainly end up more reliable and capable) requires money and time, and often lots of it.   If Windows XP is more reliable, it's not because older is better--it's simply because Microsoft finally stopped screwing with it.

"Mo-faster-better" is the arch-enemy of "good enough".

The fact a large organization or company still use old software is more down to the cost of upgrading. banks could make account`s much more secure, but the cost is greater than the loses so they charge you for the loses.

2 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

The fact a large organization or company still use old software is more down to the cost of upgrading. banks could make account`s much more secure, but the cost is greater than the loses so they charge you for the loses.

Long ago I was at a briefing in West Virginia with multiple server vendors meeting with multiple Federal agencies. The guy from Social Security summed up the trip perfectly: "You could give is the hardware for free and it would still cost us a  ton of money". 

Bob is right.  Organizations like the govt. and military are very slow to upgrade their hardware and software for mission critical systems because they are, well, *critical*.  It's preferable to stick with an old system because it is stable and it works.

At one observatory where I worked we were still using an HP1000 computer with a big disc platter drive in 2001.  We had actually just started testing an IBM PC with Windows OS when I left.

At another observatory we used a Modcomp minicomputer system(consisting of two 5ft tall racks of computer boards) with dumb monochrome terminals and 9-track tape drives until 2010. 

Bottom line is that the stuff worked and personnel were familiar with it.  There does come a time, though, where systems must be updated due to loss of knowledgeable staff, scarcity of spare parts, or a desire for more capability and performance.

Dave

Edited March 17, 20242 yr by dave2013