Interesting that Siemens seem to still be willing to support a Win 3.11-based system for at least one operator. That said, this looks like it's a third-party doing that work but Siemens must be tacitly allowing the third party to try to do so, as they'd have a complete stranglehold on the design, software and hardware underneath it.
I worked for a rail operator and the driver interface systems of our locos (from other suppliers) were running on WinXP. We wanted some changes and feature upgrades, but the supplier said it was obsolete and they would not do any code changes to the WinXP software. Instead, they were telling us to move to a QNX-based version of it (which came with all of the fun joys of ensuring feature and interface equivalence for both the system and the human-computer interfaces). This was even for old locos, where moving to the QNX-based system wasn't just about running the same front-end software on a different OS, but in some cases was a fundamental hardware design upgrade (i.e. moving from a dumb terminal with a rack of hardware in a cupboard to fully integrated computers in the dash), which then meant making it interface with other hardware systems that may not be designed to talk to it. In some cases, those additional systems had to be upgraded. It was well in to 8 figures of work to do.
I am surprised that Siemens have, in some degree, allowed ongoing support for this. Whichever operator uses it must be fairly big in order to bend them to still actively manage it.
>I am surprised that Siemens have, in some degree, allowed ongoing support for this. Whichever operator uses it must be fairly big in order to bend them to still actively manage it.
The ICE 1 and ICE 2 trains use this for their internal system. Deutsche Bahn will keep them running until at least 2029 (ICE 1) and 2030 (ICE 2).
A co-worker showed me a video of a display of the passenger information system that boots in MS-DOS and then restarts after it fails to load network drivers. BIOS from 1996 (166 MHz, 8 MB RAM). I guess they also need some people to maintain network drivers (and serial/parallel port drivers and the applications using it).
(GE Canada tried to headhunt me for that but I don't want a job where a typo turns Toronto into a parking lot. Thanks but no thanks. I will stick to web pages.)
Contemporary with the PDP-11 is the IBM Series/1 which runs the nuclear forces of the USA. The 8" floppies were retired in 2019 though. Progress? I guess.
Much older than that are the IRS Master files: the US tax system runs on IBM 7074 assembler although I think the actual 7074 hardware is long gone.
Presumably for something as expensive as the US nuclear weapons program, they could afford to hire and fully train 10x as many people as they need to be experts in externally-obsolete software/hardware and it just have the effect of a rounding error in their overall budget?
If that were cheaper, or considered more reliable or less hackable, than upgrading the systems to run on more modern technology then why not, as long as they look ahead far enough to make sure they fund the required tutoring to get the knowledge being passed down a generation or two, and do it before getting to the point where not having enough young experts actually has become a problem.
The PDP-11 was unusually well suited for that. They designed it so you needed less skilled workers to assemble it which meant a lot of tolerance in components which leads to much easier maintenance. For example, the backplane is wire wrapped so there's no soldiering there which can eventually tire out. If things move around, oh well.
Also the PDP-11 was designed at the time boundary of core vs semiconductor memory with the clear intent to be able switch to semiconductor which led to an unusually flexible design around memory (and also affected I/O design). Check this 1975 paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800110.803541
> One of the plan’s priorities is the retirement of the Business
Master File by FY2027 and the Individual Master File by
FY2028
But it's not at all clear whether there's funding available to execute this plan.
I mean, yes, it's been 15 years and now only about five remains (because these projects never meet deadlines, let's face it) so they are nearer the finish line ... but it's very far still.
But I refer to the IRS's core executable code. Isn't the current state of affairs that it is code that is not well-documented, or not even documented at all ?
That's the impression I have gotten. Correct me if I am OTL.
What's the difference between AI documenting the system that makes decisions on the tax code and using AI to make decisions about the tax code? Nothing. I used this hypothetical scenario to highlight the absurdity and absolute idiocy of what you are suggesting.
I think number of such machines in developing countries is much larger then in developed.
In 80s, people said "it is good, that we don't have western infrastructure, because when become democracy and need it, will build all new from zero".
What really happened then, few waves of upgrades at West, when obsolete systems exported to developing countries very cheap.
But this is not whole picture. As First World is just about Billion humans (from more than 6 Billion at about Y2K) and have very limited land, number of obsolete systems exported to developing countries is just not enough for their size, so developing countries could not build whole infrastructure from just obsolete systems from West, but have to do (or to buy) something other.
So now, developing countries usually have mixed infrastructure, partially already obsoleted when imported systems, partially modern systems (many made in China), and partially some custom, even literally hand-made or garage-production.
I'd argue that if everything generally worked fine, and it is an estimated 8-figure upgrade, that I would only be surprised if they bothered an upgrade at all.
I worked for a rail operator and the driver interface systems of our locos (from other suppliers) were running on WinXP. We wanted some changes and feature upgrades, but the supplier said it was obsolete and they would not do any code changes to the WinXP software. Instead, they were telling us to move to a QNX-based version of it (which came with all of the fun joys of ensuring feature and interface equivalence for both the system and the human-computer interfaces). This was even for old locos, where moving to the QNX-based system wasn't just about running the same front-end software on a different OS, but in some cases was a fundamental hardware design upgrade (i.e. moving from a dumb terminal with a rack of hardware in a cupboard to fully integrated computers in the dash), which then meant making it interface with other hardware systems that may not be designed to talk to it. In some cases, those additional systems had to be upgraded. It was well in to 8 figures of work to do.
I am surprised that Siemens have, in some degree, allowed ongoing support for this. Whichever operator uses it must be fairly big in order to bend them to still actively manage it.