Trurl Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Was CC4 not a natural progression from CC3 then? Partially. CC3 was quite dated, still COM based, the management console was written in VB. Some CC4 components are just wrappers around old CC3 components, but a lot of it is new. New frameworks were developed specially for CC4, when we started writing the actual product those frameworks were still far from finished. RM's outsourcing facility in India has its fair share of problems too. The failure to deliver CC4 on time and to a sufficient level of quality is just a manifestation of the systemic problems within the company.
garethEds Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Partially. CC3 was quite dated, still COM based, the management console was written in VB. Some CC4 components are just wrappers around old CC3 components, but a lot of it is new. New frameworks were developed specially for CC4, when we started writing the actual product those frameworks were still far from finished. RM's outsourcing facility in India has its fair share of problems too. The failure to deliver CC4 on time and to a sufficient level of quality is just a manifestation of the systemic problems within the company. Looks like we did the best thing by getting out.
CyberNerd Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 The failure to deliver CC4 on time and to a sufficient level of quality is just a manifestation of the systemic problems within the company. Can't wait for BSF...
Trurl Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Looks like we did the best thing by getting out. Yep, I'm not even sure if it's at all possible to make CC4 work ok (stable, fast). There are some really deep architectural problems with it.
PeterW Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Yep, I'm not even sure if it's at all possible to make CC4 work ok (stable, fast). There are some really deep architectural problems with it. Ohh go on detail a few for us
Tallwood_6 Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Please do tell us more, the only solution to get things working more effectively here with CC4 is to chuck more memory on the machines but even with the best inferstruture and lastest kit available logon times seem to be pathetically slow in comparison to a vanilla setup, and lets not forget about the many memory leaks with the major one being the network recyle bin which has still yet to be fixed.
garethEds Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Yep, I'm not even sure if it's at all possible to make CC4 work ok (stable, fast). There are some really deep architectural problems with it. Are you really an ex-RM employee or just trying to wind people up here? If you are real then please accept my apologies. If you are winding people up then I'm sure the CC4 schools on here know they have problems and do not need reminding. Again - sorry if I have made a mistake, Gareth
Trurl Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Yes, I really am an ex-RM employee (can't think of a way to prove it TBH). I'll try to type something up about those architectural problems later (when I get home).
garethEds Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Yes, I really am an ex-RM employee (can't think of a way to prove it TBH). I'll try to type something up about those architectural problems later (when I get home). In that case I apologise once again. Send us your name LOLOLOL and what you used to do in RM. MWAH!!! GJE
PiqueABoo Posted January 30, 2009 Posted January 30, 2009 Yep, I'm not even sure if it's at all possible to make CC4 work ok (stable, fast). There are some really deep architectural problems with it. I've got a significant NT s/w dev history and that has been my take since I spent my first day with CC4. Thus I'm not surprised to hear it, but it is interesting to have that view confirmed. You're certainly from s/w dev-land and if you're not ex-RM I'll eat my hat.
Trurl Posted January 31, 2009 Posted January 31, 2009 Right, I was planning to put together some words on why, in my opinion, CC4 turned out to be such a disaster for quite some time now. First of all, a few disclamers. One, I wasn't fired from RM , so it's not bitterness. Two, I left the company some time ago now so my info can be a bit out of date. It was a mistake to make the management console a desktop app instead of a web app. The overhead of transfering the data back and forth between the server and client is crippling performance. Secondly, the key compoents (user management, computer management) should have been developed with very high performance in mind. Lots of other services depend on user/computer data to operate. User management is still the old CC3 stuff underneath, which wasn't particularily fast in the first place. This is just a small fraction of the problems with CC4, most of them are due to organizational dysfunction. The individual devs are often very skilled but RM's managerial ineptidude is dragging them down. But that's a topic for another post.
speckytecky Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 What programming language is CC4 based on?
Butuz Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Wow - things are getting interesting on this thread for sure! I wonder how long it lasts! Nice to have some insider knowledge coming to edugeek!! Butuz
webman Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 It was a mistake to make the management console a desktop app instead of a web app. The overhead of transfering the data back and forth between the server and client is crippling performance. What god-forsaken protocol are they using to transfer the data?? Is this a mistake because of the issues transferring the data? The Microsoft management snap-ins run on workstations, so why is it so difficult for RM to do the same sort of thing reliably? I thought the management stuff was done with a PostgreSQL back-end?
MK-2 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 with two weeks to go before our cc4 install i am now actually worried. i have spent the first 5 months of my job here getting the network to a workable state that staff feel happy about. if we now go to v.slow logon times and poor network performance it will destroy all the work i've done to build up users confidence in the network!
CHR1S Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Well this week we are undergoing our re-commission, brand new server and a complete rebuild of everything. So thats almost 6 months to the day its taken so far.... fingers crossed!!!
MK-2 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 you know when you just get a curveball that totally gets you! just got an email saying we're ok for our install date in 2 weeks, but am i aware that once we've rebuilt EVERY machine, come mid march when SR1 is released, we will probably have to rebuild them all again. i dont know about staff losing confidence in the new network, but my heart is sinking just at the amount of work coming up!
Tallwood_6 Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The main complaint will be the performance hit on the stations, and if you have any with less than 256mb of RAM you may as well chuck them out now.
matt40k Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The main complaint will be the performance hit on the stations, and if you have any with less than 256mb of RAM you may as well chuck them out now. Just looked on RM website, found: CC4 - "I'd definitely recommend it!" Guess it's only for primaries hey? RM recommend a min of 512mb(*) for XP. 2000 isn't support and vista is recommend to have have 1gb. I've yet to find any fool with 800MHz CPU and 512mb of ram running Vista (production). Let me know if you see any systems. I need a laugh. Also checked out the fixes etc, my god, good luck to anyone doing this!
Theblacksheep Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 with two weeks to go before our cc4 install i am now actually worried. CC3 'up(?)grade' or new CC4 commisioned servers?
enjay Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 if you have any with less than 256mb of RAM you may as well chuck them out now. In fairness, that pretty much applies to CC3 as well, considering the demands of many newer apps.
MK-2 Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 CC3 'up(?)grade' or new CC4 commisioned servers? We are vanilla at the mo. Will be having one RM server, and the rest of our current servers wiped and moved to CC4. I then have to rebuild every machine in the school (starting after feb half term), but was told yesterday by RM that with SR1 in mid-march, it will require total rebuilds of machines again. Can anyone confirm or deny this? As our head is not too happy the thought of me having to rebuild all machines just to have to do it again a month later. If we do have to wipe machines to put SR1 on, can we postpone SR1 install until easter hols or something? Not getting anywhere with RM, just told to look on rm.com for more info, yet all SR1 documents on there tell me i need a valid support contract.
binky Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 No, you should be able to use Package Updater to update stations to SR1 1
MK-2 Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 OK so no total rebuild, but how much time am I looking per PC as i was told to set aside 'dedicated time' as it is a lengthy process
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now