ts@chyde.uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) (06/02/89)
In article <7525@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mdlawler@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Mike Lawler) writes: >This doesn't prove that arc is the best thing to use. I really don't >understand why the human race is so relucant to change. People >usually look at new products like this: I don't care if the new >product is better because I'm used to what I'm using. If we always >used this sort of absurd logic then progress, as we know it, would >not exist. Arc doesn't have the features that zoo has. Arc is older I admit that my comment is beside the main subject, but you ignore the inherent costs of change. Learning and adopting a new (better) method always involves at least time and effort if not outright monetary costs. Thus the improvement must be great enough to facilitate these cost (whether psychological or real). Of course attitudes to change are as much questions of personality than rationale. Some enjoy change for its own sake, some resist all changes. Anyway, let us take this line of discussion somewhere else, and watch the revisited zoo vs arc discussion here. I resist the temptation of expressing my own preferences in this message. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: vakk::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun