I Would Fire Someone For....
-
Fire for moral reason. Lying, cheating, stealing, laziness etc.
If people do those things once, chances are good they will keep doing them. Simply because they were caught once doesn't mean they will never do it again, it means they will try harder to not get caught the same way.
Another one is inability to learn or change. As someone else mentioned, if they make the same mistake and are told about it multiple times and can't stop, that means something. If they show zero ability to get better at anything. I mean, if you work with Excel for 2 years and still don't know how to do some visual design or a use a basic formula for some magic, that's an issue.
For me personally, if I have to use a tool regularly, I've got the user manual downloaded, I'm looking for hints and tricks, and I'm looking to automate repetitive tasks, and I'm occasionally testing alternate tools. I'm watching Youtube videos, or taking online classes. People who are stuck in their ways cannot drive a business forward, they can only plant it securely in place and hold up status quo.A bad decision, sure. If your tech opens a game server and a bunch of router ports and starts serving torrents for a hacked game off your company server, that's pretty dumb. This shows complete carelessness, not just a lack of some knowledge.
If they can't be bothered to back something up before making a huge change. I understand many things in tech are complicated, and some things potentially have dozens of possible solutions, but the very "basic" stuff like do a backup before a major change, is base level.
On a personal note, I would probably fire butt kissers. These people drive me nuts. They not only butt kiss, but they will throw others under the bus for their own gain, to get an edge with the boss. A little office gossip, a little "just look what she did!"
I'd fire the boss/manager for falling for butt kissing. -
@travisdh1 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@thwr said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
I'd say that most Lenovo gear is physically pretty good! I have two Yoga laptops from them. The first was released a year before Superfish was discovered, and the second a few months before. Luckily the second didn't have the issues when I wiped and reloaded it, where the first one I had to replace the wifi card myself before wireless would work correctly (crappy Superfish drivers!)
Do you remember the good old T40/T41 Thinkpad? Hell of a machine. One day there was nearly unseeable black ice outside of my office and it was dark, very dark... Stumbled, slipped and fallen exactly on the edge of the notebook, which touched the ground first. I'm not exactly a 90 pound supermodel, but there was just a very tiny crack in the casing. The machine lasted a few more years without any issues.
Lenovo does not have this quality anymore, but yes, they are still good. Got a few Yoga's too, really like them.
Yeah, nobody makes the same class of hardware. Which is why the company sucking things up so badly is really quite sad.
We have one Lenovo (the one that AFAIK was the first one to find Superfish, we reported it without the name months ahead of the media) and it is utter garbage. Terrible quality, nothing works reliably. Just junk. I'm glad no one else makes this class of gear.
-
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
Adding ram for example is a very simple thing that can add an additional 2-3 years usefulness to the device.
Sure, but at what expense? Now, in these cheap laptops, it seems pretty common that you can upgrade the HD and the RAM, and generally pretty easily today.
But what if that wasn't the case? What if you had to buy a $400 (instead of $300) computer to have that future expand ability? is that worth is?
Not likely. Getting a wholly new laptop when it comes time to upgrade is very likely worth it. Adding 33% cost to just allow you to pay for another 15% cost to upgrade one thing is probably a really bad investment. You end up going against the time value of money and going against the natural upgrades in technology. And having two laptops at the end of the day is better than one old one that has been upgraded.
-
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
Adding ram for example is a very simple thing that can add an additional 2-3 years usefulness to the device.
Sure, but at what expense? Now, in these cheap laptops, it seems pretty common that you can upgrade the HD and the RAM, and generally pretty easily today.
But what if that wasn't the case? What if you had to buy a $400 (instead of $300) computer to have that future expand ability? is that worth is?
I would say it's worth it considering after the 2-3 years you have to spend another 300 to just be marginally modern
No, that's not the normal cycle. It's longer than 2-3 years (it's 4.5 years in the latest case that I watched) and the cost of the new laptop was a bit less than the old one. So if we factor in the time value of money and assumed changes in the systems over time and pricing it's more like this....
Total Cost of Upgrading: $500
Total Cost of Buying a Replacement: $550End Result of Upgrading: 4-5 year old system with an old OS license and enough memory to run, but an old processor, old hard drive, old motherboard, old connection technologies.
End Result of Buying New: Brand new machine that is way faster than the old one with faster, modern proc, bigger faster hard drive, modern motherboard and connection features (wifi, usb, hdmi, etc.) and a new OS install and drivers. Not only does it have more memory but probably ships with more memory installed than the old one can even hold after the upgrade. Plus as an added bonus, the old laptop gets to hang around as a backup or get passed down to someone that just barely needs a laptop or get taken home or donated. -
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
But it is paying for upgradability that is one of the biggest things that I warn about in that situation. Upgrades are not normally cost effective. Sometimes they are, but normally only with hard drives and normally only close to the time of purchase.
As machines age, their memory costs go up, not down. So you might pay disproportionately more for the memory than if you were buying a new system with more memory. This has been a standard pricing pattern for decades. If you need to upgrade, the vendors know that they have you at a disadvantage and that you will pay a premium because you've already thrown away the money and feel trapped.
This is why upgrading a SAN normally costs more than replacing with a new one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
Adding ram for example is a very simple thing that can add an additional 2-3 years usefulness to the device.
Sure, but at what expense? Now, in these cheap laptops, it seems pretty common that you can upgrade the HD and the RAM, and generally pretty easily today.
But what if that wasn't the case? What if you had to buy a $400 (instead of $300) computer to have that future expand ability? is that worth is?
I would say it's worth it considering after the 2-3 years you have to spend another 300 to just be marginally modern
No, that's not the normal cycle. It's longer than 2-3 years (it's 4.5 years in the latest case that I watched) and the cost of the new laptop was a bit less than the old one. So if we factor in the time value of money and assumed changes in the systems over time and pricing it's more like this....
Total Cost of Upgrading: $500
Total Cost of Buying a Replacement: $550End Result of Upgrading: 4-5 year old system with an old OS license and enough memory to run, but an old processor, old hard drive, old motherboard, old connection technologies.
End Result of Buying New: Brand new machine that is way faster than the old one with faster, modern proc, bigger faster hard drive, modern motherboard and connection features (wifi, usb, hdmi, etc.) and a new OS install and drivers. Not only does it have more memory but probably ships with more memory installed than the old one can even hold after the upgrade. Plus as an added bonus, the old laptop gets to hang around as a backup or get passed down to someone that just barely needs a laptop or get taken home or donated.I agree that there isn't much point in upgrading systems anymore when you consider labor and low cost of new systems. However, new OS(es) are requiring much less resources. With everything being web based, applications don't create as much of a load either. So you get alot more out of alot less hardware.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@travisdh1 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@thwr said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
I'd say that most Lenovo gear is physically pretty good! I have two Yoga laptops from them. The first was released a year before Superfish was discovered, and the second a few months before. Luckily the second didn't have the issues when I wiped and reloaded it, where the first one I had to replace the wifi card myself before wireless would work correctly (crappy Superfish drivers!)
Do you remember the good old T40/T41 Thinkpad? Hell of a machine. One day there was nearly unseeable black ice outside of my office and it was dark, very dark... Stumbled, slipped and fallen exactly on the edge of the notebook, which touched the ground first. I'm not exactly a 90 pound supermodel, but there was just a very tiny crack in the casing. The machine lasted a few more years without any issues.
Lenovo does not have this quality anymore, but yes, they are still good. Got a few Yoga's too, really like them.
Yeah, nobody makes the same class of hardware. Which is why the company sucking things up so badly is really quite sad.
We have one Lenovo (the one that AFAIK was the first one to find Superfish, we reported it without the name months ahead of the media) and it is utter garbage. Terrible quality, nothing works reliably. Just junk. I'm glad no one else makes this class of gear.
I know you have a yoga - which one is it? I think it's the same one my wife has.
even with a fresh install of Windows 8.1 or 10 and it doesn't work well? My wife has no problems with her 2013 i5 yoga (all black) except now, a few years later, one of the hinges is starting to stick. otherwise it works great for day to day consumer stuff - facebook, email, O365, netflix.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
Adding ram for example is a very simple thing that can add an additional 2-3 years usefulness to the device.
Sure, but at what expense? Now, in these cheap laptops, it seems pretty common that you can upgrade the HD and the RAM, and generally pretty easily today.
But what if that wasn't the case? What if you had to buy a $400 (instead of $300) computer to have that future expand ability? is that worth is?
I would say it's worth it considering after the 2-3 years you have to spend another 300 to just be marginally modern
No, that's not the normal cycle. It's longer than 2-3 years (it's 4.5 years in the latest case that I watched) and the cost of the new laptop was a bit less than the old one. So if we factor in the time value of money and assumed changes in the systems over time and pricing it's more like this....
My whole point was choosing to either buy a cheap laptop but buy often, like every 2-3 or a more expensive one but only ever 4+, really probably 5+ years.
-
@IRJ said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
Adding ram for example is a very simple thing that can add an additional 2-3 years usefulness to the device.
Sure, but at what expense? Now, in these cheap laptops, it seems pretty common that you can upgrade the HD and the RAM, and generally pretty easily today.
But what if that wasn't the case? What if you had to buy a $400 (instead of $300) computer to have that future expand ability? is that worth is?
I would say it's worth it considering after the 2-3 years you have to spend another 300 to just be marginally modern
No, that's not the normal cycle. It's longer than 2-3 years (it's 4.5 years in the latest case that I watched) and the cost of the new laptop was a bit less than the old one. So if we factor in the time value of money and assumed changes in the systems over time and pricing it's more like this....
Total Cost of Upgrading: $500
Total Cost of Buying a Replacement: $550End Result of Upgrading: 4-5 year old system with an old OS license and enough memory to run, but an old processor, old hard drive, old motherboard, old connection technologies.
End Result of Buying New: Brand new machine that is way faster than the old one with faster, modern proc, bigger faster hard drive, modern motherboard and connection features (wifi, usb, hdmi, etc.) and a new OS install and drivers. Not only does it have more memory but probably ships with more memory installed than the old one can even hold after the upgrade. Plus as an added bonus, the old laptop gets to hang around as a backup or get passed down to someone that just barely needs a laptop or get taken home or donated.I agree that there isn't much point in upgrading systems anymore when you consider labor and low cost of new systems. However, new OS(es) are requiring much less resources. With everything being web based, applications don't create as much of a load either. So you get alot more out of alot less hardware.
I'm not sure how the fact that newer OSs need less resources plays into this discussion. And while it's true that Windows 8.1 used less than Windows 7, and windows 10 less than 8.1, people still want faster and faster machines - so we haven't reached a point yet where the desire for speed has been stopped.
-
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@IRJ said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
Adding ram for example is a very simple thing that can add an additional 2-3 years usefulness to the device.
Sure, but at what expense? Now, in these cheap laptops, it seems pretty common that you can upgrade the HD and the RAM, and generally pretty easily today.
But what if that wasn't the case? What if you had to buy a $400 (instead of $300) computer to have that future expand ability? is that worth is?
I would say it's worth it considering after the 2-3 years you have to spend another 300 to just be marginally modern
No, that's not the normal cycle. It's longer than 2-3 years (it's 4.5 years in the latest case that I watched) and the cost of the new laptop was a bit less than the old one. So if we factor in the time value of money and assumed changes in the systems over time and pricing it's more like this....
Total Cost of Upgrading: $500
Total Cost of Buying a Replacement: $550End Result of Upgrading: 4-5 year old system with an old OS license and enough memory to run, but an old processor, old hard drive, old motherboard, old connection technologies.
End Result of Buying New: Brand new machine that is way faster than the old one with faster, modern proc, bigger faster hard drive, modern motherboard and connection features (wifi, usb, hdmi, etc.) and a new OS install and drivers. Not only does it have more memory but probably ships with more memory installed than the old one can even hold after the upgrade. Plus as an added bonus, the old laptop gets to hang around as a backup or get passed down to someone that just barely needs a laptop or get taken home or donated.I agree that there isn't much point in upgrading systems anymore when you consider labor and low cost of new systems. However, new OS(es) are requiring much less resources. With everything being web based, applications don't create as much of a load either. So you get alot more out of alot less hardware.
I'm not sure how the fact that newer OSs need less resources plays into this discussion. And while it's true that Windows 8.1 used less than Windows 7, and windows 10 less than 8.1, people still want faster and faster machines - so we haven't reached a point yet where the desire for speed has been stopped.
There will never be such a thing as a computer that is fast enough.
-
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@IRJ said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@DustinB3403 said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
Buying hardware that can be upgraded is different than buying hardware that might run everything in the future.
Adding ram for example is a very simple thing that can add an additional 2-3 years usefulness to the device.
Sure, but at what expense? Now, in these cheap laptops, it seems pretty common that you can upgrade the HD and the RAM, and generally pretty easily today.
But what if that wasn't the case? What if you had to buy a $400 (instead of $300) computer to have that future expand ability? is that worth is?
I would say it's worth it considering after the 2-3 years you have to spend another 300 to just be marginally modern
No, that's not the normal cycle. It's longer than 2-3 years (it's 4.5 years in the latest case that I watched) and the cost of the new laptop was a bit less than the old one. So if we factor in the time value of money and assumed changes in the systems over time and pricing it's more like this....
Total Cost of Upgrading: $500
Total Cost of Buying a Replacement: $550End Result of Upgrading: 4-5 year old system with an old OS license and enough memory to run, but an old processor, old hard drive, old motherboard, old connection technologies.
End Result of Buying New: Brand new machine that is way faster than the old one with faster, modern proc, bigger faster hard drive, modern motherboard and connection features (wifi, usb, hdmi, etc.) and a new OS install and drivers. Not only does it have more memory but probably ships with more memory installed than the old one can even hold after the upgrade. Plus as an added bonus, the old laptop gets to hang around as a backup or get passed down to someone that just barely needs a laptop or get taken home or donated.I agree that there isn't much point in upgrading systems anymore when you consider labor and low cost of new systems. However, new OS(es) are requiring much less resources. With everything being web based, applications don't create as much of a load either. So you get alot more out of alot less hardware.
I'm not sure how the fact that newer OSs need less resources plays into this discussion.
I am not sure how you deduce that. Because the main reason we replace systems is lack of hardware to perform business functions. @scottalanmiller just mentioned that now systems are good for 4-5 years vs 2-3 years. So that is an example of less resource intensive software right off the bat. I think we are going to see that more and more on desktops in the years to come.
-
@IRJ how did who deduce what?
-
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@IRJ how did who deduce what?
That what I said had nothing to do with Scott's post.
-
@IRJ said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
... Because the main reason we replace systems is lack of hardware to perform business functions.
I did a hardware refresh 2 years ago mostly because we needed to get rid of XP. Sure the machines were 5+ years old, but they were functioning. Other than wanting to replace XP, they probably could have lasted another year or 2.
Now that I'm on Windows 10 across the board (well almost - I needed a few legacy machines) I'm on a hardware failure/hardware can't handle task replacement timeline. This could easily mean that a machine could be 8+ years old before it's replaced. I already have some that are 5 years old now that came with Windows 7, have been upgrade to Windows 10 and will stick around until the one of the two reasons above causes me to replace it.
So with all that in mind, while I'm sure some people are replacing hardware more often, I agree with Scott now, I don't see a lot of point in replacing a machine just because it's 'old.'
-
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@IRJ said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
... Because the main reason we replace systems is lack of hardware to perform business functions.
I did a hardware refresh 2 years ago mostly because we needed to get rid of XP. Sure the machines were 5+ years old, but they were functioning. Other than wanting to replace XP, they probably could have lasted another year or 2.
Now that I'm on Windows 10 across the board (well almost - I needed a few legacy machines) I'm on a hardware failure/hardware can't handle task replacement timeline. This could easily mean that a machine could be 8+ years old before it's replaced. I already have some that are 5 years old now that came with Windows 7, have been upgrade to Windows 10 and will stick around until the one of the two reasons above causes me to replace it.
So with all that in mind, while I'm sure some people are replacing hardware more often, I agree with Scott now, I don't see a lot of point in replacing a machine just because it's 'old.'
I feel like Windows is going the route a constantly updated OS like Android or iOS. That is the way IT is going. Microsoft is not gonna be able to keep up in the desktop world otherwise. Everything is becoming web based so it isn't dependent on OS anymore. The only thing Windows Desktop has going for it Active Directory Integration, but I believe we will start to see less AD in newer environments as there are other management options.
-
We already are - it's called Azure AD.
I agree, as more and more apps become full featured on the web, the less and less we need Windows. That said I still feel like we are in our infancy days. I remember java 15 years ago - the typical UIs were horrible. Sure it was cross platform, but who in their right mind wanted to use them?
I've never tried using Android on a desktop - I'd like to see a full function/feature version of things like Office or CAD or Adobe Photoshop on other platforms (yeah I know Linux has some of this) that works great with a mouse and keyboard like Windows and Mac.
I think I'm saying this wrong - I want to see these "web" apps (example being Scott's aforementioned MS Office 2013 or newer) running on anything. But we don't. Until that happens, Windows and Mac will continue to have a place.
-
@IRJ said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
The only thing Windows Desktop has going for it Active Directory Integration, but I believe we will start to see less AD in newer environments as there are other management options.
Everyone has AD integration. That's trivial. Mac OSX, most Linux, FreeBSD, etc. all use AD if you want. AD is already phasing out rapidly. MS is moving smaller shops away from it and using Azure AD (which is quite different from AD) as a reason to go to Windows 10 across the board. Lots of shops are starting to not want AD in general as well. The reasons to have it are rapidly evaporating.
-
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
I think I'm saying this wrong - I want to see these "web" apps (example being Scott's aforementioned MS Office 2013 or newer) running on anything. But we don't. Until that happens, Windows and Mac will continue to have a place.
With the exception of MS Office, which we are expecting to see on Linux very soon, what aren't you seeing on the other platforms? How many real business tools or serious apps are you not seeing on "any" platform? Medical is decades behind, and screwing their customers, we expect them to be using native apps for a while. But of serious business apps from good vendors, who isn't on Linux?
-
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@IRJ said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
The only thing Windows Desktop has going for it Active Directory Integration, but I believe we will start to see less AD in newer environments as there are other management options.
Everyone has AD integration. That's trivial. Mac OSX, most Linux, FreeBSD, etc. all use AD if you want. AD is already phasing out rapidly. MS is moving smaller shops away from it and using Azure AD (which is quite different from AD) as a reason to go to Windows 10 across the board. Lots of shops are starting to not want AD in general as well. The reasons to have it are rapidly evaporating.
I know that AD and GPO aren't directly related. but system management is the biggest reason I want AD.
Moving to all of these different cloud services has broken the SSO model, sorta. I know that some systems today allow you to pull authentication from an outside source... I'm hoping that we will see more and more of that.
Federated services seems like a dream come true for some ways of sharing data, but in the SMB is still pretty uncommon.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
@Dashrender said in I Would Fire Someone For....:
I think I'm saying this wrong - I want to see these "web" apps (example being Scott's aforementioned MS Office 2013 or newer) running on anything. But we don't. Until that happens, Windows and Mac will continue to have a place.
With the exception of MS Office, which we are expecting to see on Linux very soon, what aren't you seeing on the other platforms? How many real business tools or serious apps are you not seeing on "any" platform? Medical is decades behind, and screwing their customers, we expect them to be using native apps for a while. But of serious business apps from good vendors, who isn't on Linux?
I have no idea - is Literoom and AutoCAD on Linux? (I have no idea if they are or not).
But more importantly, if they are, are they native apps or web apps?
My main point was the platformless nature of web apps is what I still don't see very much.
