• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Budget director blames old computers for ineffective government

Phantom

John Schnatter 2012
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
184
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I think he is incorrect.

It is massive bureaucracy, slow to change by default, which is the issue here.

The computers may be old, but that is not the fault of the computers…It’s the fault of those who didn’t update them.
 
Yep I agree.
 
He didn't blame computer for ineffective government. He said it was one of the reasons. Not the only reason.
 
I would like to know exactly what is he talking about.
How old are these computers, etc... ?

The argument could be made that as soon as they buy something new it is already outdated.

Which doesn't really mean that they are ineffective.
 
I would like to know exactly what is he talking about.
How old are these computers, etc... ?

The argument could be made that as soon as they buy something new it is already outdated.

Which doesn't really mean that they are ineffective.

Obama Staff Arrives to White House Stuck in Dark Ages of Technology

One member of the White House new-media team came to work on Tuesday, right after the swearing-in ceremony, only to discover that it was impossible to know which programs could be updated, or even which computers could be used for which purposes. The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software. Laptops were scarce, assigned to only a few people in the West Wing.

In computer terms that is ancient if the computers are as old as the software and it usually means the computers are even older than the software since implementation of new gear in business and government is like pulling teeth often.

But I would also love to see what kind of gear and systems the US government and other governments use.. they are often years if not decades behind the rest of us when it comes to IT.
 
Obama Staff Arrives to White House Stuck in Dark Ages of Technology



In computer terms that is ancient if the computers are as old as the software and it usually means the computers are even older than the software since implementation of new gear in business and government is like pulling teeth often.

But I would also love to see what kind of gear and systems the US government and other governments use.. they are often years if not decades behind the rest of us when it comes to IT.

:rofl

They had to deal with six year old Office software????? OH NOES!!!!

Before Office 2007, which was quite buggy, the next newest version was Office 2003. I still use Office 2003 on one of my computers, so the idea that "six year old Office" is somehow holding the government back is absurd.
 
The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, ...
That was clearly their fault.

In computer terms that is ancient if the computers are as old as the software and it usually means the computers are even older than the software since implementation of new gear in business and government is like pulling teeth often.

But I would also love to see what kind of gear and systems the US government and other governments use.. they are often years if not decades behind the rest of us when it comes to IT.
After a precursory google search it doesn't appear as if the computer were that old in the Capital.

Which of course has nothing to do with the OP.
 
:rofl

They had to deal with six year old Office software????? OH NOES!!!!

Before Office 2007, which was quite buggy, the next newest version was Office 2003. I still use Office 2003 on one of my computers, so the idea that "six year old Office" is somehow holding the government back is absurd.

Not my point. Point is to know what the software is installed on. The smaller and older the machine the less effectual you are using the software like office 2003. The smaller and older the machine means that you cant use newer software on them effectively because they are simply not powerful enough. How much ram does these machines have? There are a lot of factors on the hardware that can hurt productivity. I have a 6 year old laptop here beside me. It runs Windows XP and Office 2003. It has only 512 mb ram, and that was standard back then. I can run office just fine, as long as I dont start up too much. If I have excel and a few word documents running then you can clearly feel the computer getting slow. Yes this laptop is outdated and lowers my productivity when I use it compared to this machine I am sitting on at the moment.

I aint defending this guys comments but it is undeniable that having outdated IT infrastructure does hurt productivity. Now the question is how "outdated" is defined... and for me at least a 6+ year old PC is outdated.
 
After a precursory google search it doesn't appear as if the computer were that old in the Capital.

Which of course has nothing to do with the OP.

I disagree. Companies are notorious in not upgrading their IT infrastructure unless they are forced to do so, and I doubt that government is any different. Now software is not the main problem but the size of the computers are. A 6+ year old machine simply does not run modern software that well.. it is slow and that hampers productivity.

That is why knowing what type of machines the software is being run on is crucial in make a judgement on if this guy is blowing hot air or has a point.
 
I disagree. Companies are notorious in not upgrading their IT infrastructure unless they are forced to do so, and I doubt that government is any different. Now software is not the main problem but the size of the computers are. A 6+ year old machine simply does not run modern software that well.. it is slow and that hampers productivity.

That is why knowing what type of machines the software is being run on is crucial in make a judgement on if this guy is blowing hot air or has a point.
Lets see, you disagreed with what you quoted, yet nothing you quoted is incorrect. :confused:
The Capital's computers apparently were newer than 6+ years old.
And their computers has nothing to do with the OP.
So there was no reason for you to even go there.


Now back to the OP.
Of which we are apparently in agreement.

If you didn't notice I had already acknowledged the point you are making when I said the following. (even though not as detailed as your reply)
"The argument could be made that as soon as they buy something new it is already outdated."

But I will say again the following.
"Which doesn't really mean that they are ineffective."

Which is why I said the beginning two sentences.
"I would like to know exactly what is he talking about.
How old are these computers, etc... ?"

 
Lets see, you disagreed with what you quoted, yet nothing you quoted is incorrect. :confused:
The Capital's computers apparently were newer than 6+ years old.
And their computers has nothing to do with the OP.
So there was no reason for you to even go there.


You went there I did not. I just gave an example of government IT systems via an article about the White House. Here there is no mention on the age of the systems only the age of the software. And considering that companies and organisations rarely upgrade their systems unless they are forced to do so, then one can easily assume that the PCs on which the 6 year old software is running on, most likely are just as old. And that is why I would love to see the specs of the machines that Government uses, regardless if it is the Capitol, local or other agencies.

Now back to the OP.
Of which we are apparently in agreement.

If you didn't notice I had already acknowledged the point you are making when I said the following. (even though not as detailed as your reply)
"The argument could be made that as soon as they buy something new it is already outdated."

But I will say again the following.
"Which doesn't really mean that they are ineffective."

Which is why I said the beginning two sentences.
"I would like to know exactly what is he talking about.
How old are these computers, etc... ?"


fine we agree somewhat.

Sure having a 4 year old machine running 6 year old software does not mean that they are ineffective, but running 6 year old software on a 8 year old machine and then you bet it is ineffective. And even if it is a 4 year old machine, it could easily be a cheap piece of crap sold in bulk. We all know where computer companies save money.. ram was one once. It has taken a very long time for computer manufactures to go from 512 mb as standard to 2 GB as standard and even some are holding back. And anyone with just a bit of pc knowledge knows that a pc running 512 mb ram is slow and adding another 512 mb ram will speed it up considerably depending on what you use it for.
 
Last edited:
You went there I did not.
No Pete.
You went there first in post #7 with the following.
Obama Staff Arrives to White House Stuck in Dark Ages of Technology

One member of the White House new-media team came to work on Tuesday, right after the swearing-in ceremony, only to discover that it was impossible to know which programs could be updated, or even which computers could be used for which purposes. The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software. Laptops were scarce, assigned to only a few people in the West Wing.
I only responded to where you went and stated that after a precursory google search, it didn't appear that their computers were out of date and that this specific thing had nothing to do with the OP.

I hope we are straight on that now.

As for the rest, I believe we are in agreement.
 
Last edited:
Ha! That's a good one! :rofl

What a bunch of baloney... :rolleyes:

The government is ineffective because there are too many laws and too much government. They should all go get real jobs.

Then what is the excuse for private companies? They are just as ineffective many of them.. especially the big ones.
 
Then what is the excuse for private companies? They are just as ineffective many of them.. especially the big ones.
Please list all of these ineffective companies. Most of them reside in Spain no doubt.
 
This is a bunch of hooey. Government ineffeciency is strictly a matter of the size and complexity of the beaurocracy.

I'm running on a 5 year-old machine powered by Windows 2000 and a half-gig of RAM. I've got plenty of horsepower left over for screwing off in my free time.
 
Back
Top Bottom