On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 12:18:38PM +0100, ChrisB wrote:
> I agree, but it???s probably the cost as well. COTS is always quoted
> as a benefit for the taxpayer ??? we don???t want to pay extra for
> bespoke software or OSs. I always found it odd that the Eurofighter
> Typhoon's main computer used a PowerPC processor, for a while anyway;
> it???s probably different now.
The cost benefit was inferred- plenty of supply equals lower cost :)
Longer term, this may not be the case. Many organisations still use a
modern IBM AS/400 simply because they had an AS/400 25 years ago. Even
now, the cost of conversion would be significant and less favourable to
buying a replacement machine that supports your existing software.
Modern design methodology is interesting. I've been away from
electronics manufacturing for over 20 years. I've recently been looking
at things in a consultant role, and I found a few weeks back that modern
component data sheets consistently show the bulk packaging
specification, and looking at online supply sources, they now show a
minimum guaranteed supply period. I'm sure this information was always
available during the pricing process (and why purchasing departments
existed 30 years ago), but now it's much easier to find at 'first look'.
davidt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|