Talk:Orphaned technology

'''

Classic MacOS
Should Classic MacOS really be on this list? It was succeeded by Mac OS X, early versions of which contained a full Classic MacOS environment to run legacy software. So it doesn't conform to the criteria "abandoned immediately" and "with no direct replacement". 2A02:A44A:BF29:43:E0A4:155B:CF00:447 (talk)

merge?
There is a much better-developed article on abandonware, which is at least a partial synonym of "orphaned technology." Perhaps this article should be merged with that one? -- Rbellin|Talk 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. abandonware covers software. Orphaned technology pertains to hardware, to boot, hence the link to the Lisp Machine. We would need to talk about hardware, software, and practice. jmswtlk 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also the article Antique software. It seems possible to merge Antique software into Abandonware.  Seperately, there is also the category, Category:Abandonware.  Again, this covers software.  It this article, Lisp Machine has already been mentioned as hardware.  Another one is the Newton PDA.  -- Dcflyer 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

consequences of abandonment
There are several aspects to this as this sample may show.
 * The Lisp Machine folk can argue that their environment was very advanced, given the time frame (80s, essentially). Some IDEs are now approaching that level. So, in some cases, the new technology doesn't cover the same domains. Processes need to change to adjust (with a cost).


 * Technological change not only forces process change but generates orphans which can be detrimental in terms of cost and quality. One example would be data store techniques that antiquate production data. One sense here is finding out that not only has the hardware changed (remember the 1/2 inch floppy) but the data access code has changed. How does an airplane program (as an example) that needs to provide technical support over 50+ years deal with the issue of constant change such as we now see?

These are only two. How do we introduce these into the article? jmswtlk 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is an adopted technology really orphaned?
NeXT went defunct, but NeXTStep begat OpenStep, which begat OSX as well as the open source GNUStep. This is well described in the NextStep and Mac OS X articles. So it isn't accurate at all to say that NeXTStep was orphaned. I suggest that the article include a parenthetical to indicate the lineage, and remark that only the hardware was abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.231.100 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorting the list of orphaned technology
I suggest adding the year of discontinuance (probably obtainable from the Wikilinked article for each item listed) and sorting the list into chronological order. If somebody is ambitious and knowledgeable, turning the list into a sortable Wikitable (WP:TABLE) would be even nicer. What I'm proposing is much more modest, but it could be converted to a Wikitable later. Comments? Reify-tech (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

== everything where is wrong

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orphaned technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311170255/http://www.crmloyalty.com/hknug/ to http://www.crmloyalty.com/hknug/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ''' (Report bug) 01:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)