Re: CL enhancements

Chris,

At 10:25 PM 3/9/98 PDT, you wrote:

>> 2)  They lost the largest /400 shop in the U.S. Northeast, in large part, 
>> due to this. 
>>  
>> 3)  In the example I mentioned above, the customer didn't care how it was 
>> done, just that it got done within budget (or close.)  Once we combined
the 
>> cost of the tool and the labor, testing, installing, setting up a clean 
>> environment for testing, etc., it wasn't worth pursuing anymore. 
>
>Mark,
>
>I cannot believe that a company would decide to leave a platform because
>the manufacturer was not the "first out of the gate" with a Y2K solution.
>I think you are paraphrasing here in order to make what you feel is the
>point. 

 I am *not* paraphrasing.  Look at what I said:  They lost the largest /400
shop in the U.S. Northeast, >>> in large part <<<, due to this. 

>I also feel it is pure fantasy to state that replacing a hardware
>platform, converting all of the application data, retraining all of the
>application staff, rehiring a new crew of technical expertise, etc. etc.,
>is all less expensive and more timely than correcting the AS/400 based
>data to a Y2K format. 

>The conversion of date formats would be a fraction of the required
>time/expense for converting the data to another application/platform.

 Will it cost them more?  YES.  But see the reality (and I'm sure that they
are not the only ones out there w/ this attitude.) 

Programmer: We're facing a huge Y2K project.

Manager: How big?

P: A large percent of our system, including DB files, screens, reports,
queries, SQL, etc. Thousands of objects.  We will have to either put most
projects on hold or greatly expand our staff.

M: Hmm.  What does IBM have to offer?

P: There's talk about a tool, but nothing official yet.  They haven't even
finalized date support in the DB (i.e. *PRTF, *DSPF.)

M: Any other products?

P: Some, but nothing spectacular.

M: Let's see what other vendors have to offer.  We'll get a more modern
up-to-date application, more open, and Y2K compliance will be thrown in for
free...

 In retrospect, had IBM come out w/ a solid product much earlier in the
process, (and for a more reasonable price than what it is now,) I believe
that many of those "wandering managers" would have been headed off at the
pass.

>I believe that if you or your client feel that migrating to another
>platform is the less expensive, faster solution, then you are either badly
>mistaken or the software product your customer is using is extremely poor. 

 See above.

>Now, if what you are going to say in response is that there are other
>circumstances that make a migration more attractive, my response to you
>is: That is exactly my point.

 As mentioned above, it was a large mitigating factor.

 -mark

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---