U.S. government agencies are still using Windows 3.1, floppy disks and 1970s computer

[:eek:]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3075...dows-31-floppy-disks-and-1970s-computers.html

Amazing...

 

[Cobblepot]

At Amsterdam Schiphol airport they still use 3.1 on age old computers because they are so damn reliable.

 

[Immortalfire]

You mean you're not?

 

[Iron_Stark]

I wish they would bring back floppy disks and cassette tapes.

 

[Teelie]

That's nothing. Some of the oldest system (run by the IRS naturally) are from the 1960's... although not all of these cases are actually as bad as they sound some are just as bad or worse. They literally had to get retired IT people to come in and work on some of these systems because no one else in IT knew how to work with them anymore.

That's government for you.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Pretty sure most of the nuclear armament relies on all this dated tech too which is mind-blowing.

 

[Greens]

Don't fix what ain't broke. If these systems work, why spend the money to replace them and risk ****ing it all up?

 

[Teelie]

Mostly because of security concerns and the fact there aren't people capable of running them anymore? A system that isn't broke but no one can operate is not particularly useful.

 

[Chesterfield]

I keep a spare Nokia 3210 which I use regularly. Sometimes keeping it old school is the most safest and reliable way to avoid ending up in a river of ****.

 

[Duke]

You mean you're not?

I still use 8 Tracks!!

 

[Greens]

Mostly because of security concerns and the fact there aren't people capable of running them anymore? A system that isn't broke but no one can operate is not particularly useful.

Sometimes, the fact that the systems can only be run by a select amount of people is exactly what makes them safe.

 

[Kyle]

No wonder hackers can break in so easily.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I miss having Windows 3.1 on our old family computer from 2 decades, my dad replaced it with Windows 95 2 years into the computer's life.

Don't fix what ain't broke. If these systems work, why spend the money to replace them and risk ****ing it all up?

To get things moving faster.

 

[Teelie]

Sometimes, the fact that the systems can only be run by a select amount of people is exactly what makes them safe.

Right up until the last person who knows how to do so retires or dies and no one is left to learn how to operate them. That is the reality the government is facing now. There are just not people who know the code to operate these archaic systems.

And the older systems that are still in use but not that antiquated aren't supported anymore meaning any security flaws in them are going to be left exposed and eventually found out.

 

[Silicon Surfer]

There are undoubtedly trade-offs. There is a lot of sophisticated malware around now that probably won't run on an ancient system because the system's memory isn't big enough to hold the malware let alone the malware and the regular tasks together. It would no doubt be infuriating to a serious hacker to build up an arsenal of high powered tools and then find out the system he is trying to hack is so old it won't run anything he has.

 

[KevanG]

It's similar to what happened when all of the people my mothers age retired in the pension section of the government. Her, my father and step-mother all worked there at the same time. Totally not awkward.

They all had decades of experience with a huge variety of cases and whatever but when they started retiring en masse, the government started hiring people at that time and trying to make the soon to be retirees train them. By the time the new kids got out of training, 75% of the old staff was gone and very few people with any experience were left to help. So the government, in their infinite wisdom, basically paid a ****ton of money for the retirees to come back for 2-6 month terms at pretty much double time and a half + benefits, vacation, ect. just to do they work they just finished. They still didn't have them train the new people and after they stopped coming back, everything went to hell for a few years.

Go government.

 

[Slushy]

Can a hacker even get access to an old relic? lol

 

[Marvolo]

Pretty sure most of the nuclear armament relies on all this dated tech too which is mind-blowing.

It might be a good thing that our nuclear armament relies on that old tech. It may be harder to hack that older tech. Most modern malware and viruses and network stuff is designed and developed for new tech.

 

[chamber-music]

I keep a spare Nokia 3210 which I use regularly. Sometimes keeping it old school is the most safest and reliable way to avoid ending up in a river of ****.

Those old Nokia phones will outlast us all

 

[cheungcheung]

The airline industry is a disaster too. I swear I see them typing on black and green mainframe screens.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, I guess we don't have to worry about Skynet as long as the system requires the manual use of floppy discs.

 

[SwordOfAzrael]

I never would have guessed.
I'm sure the pros far outweigh the cons, in this situation.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

There are undoubtedly trade-offs. There is a lot of sophisticated malware around now that probably won't run on an ancient system because the system's memory isn't big enough to hold the malware let alone the malware and the regular tasks together. It would no doubt be infuriating to a serious hacker to build up an arsenal of high powered tools and then find out the system he is trying to hack is so old it won't run anything he has.

And the malware shouldn't be compatible.

 

[Gee]

Well yeah.

Even many IT security specialists still recommend to write down your password(s) on paper. At my work, our Wi-Fi passwords are discreetly printed on a paper.

 

[Rozen Thorne]

They went with the Battlestar Galactica low tech method... OK.