What I was wondering is if this related to the suit(s) about their accounting methods or if it might be Y2K related. I had heard rumors that there might be some Y2K ones ??? As an aside, we are finalizing our plans to address our BPCS and Y2K. This includes tools, service providers, H/W, etc. Part of this includes our BPCS licensing. We are running on a 310 and had planned on moving to a 510 because of IBMs pushing to get on RISC. Now that the "e" models are out, we were thinking of a 620 since that's the path IBM supports. It would also move us from a P30 machine to a P20 one so some charges would be less. Currently we have CPU based licensing and SSA wants us to move to user-based. For the privilege of limiting the number of users who can use BCPS, SSA wants an amount we consider completely unreasonable. ( For 80 users, it was more than 6 figures.) We asked about CPU licensing on a new box and they said that for a 510 it would be even more and that they will not sell CPU licensing on any "e" box. They tried to explain that high charges on the 510 are because it has a higher CPW than our 310. We are only running at about 60 - 70% CPU utilization on our 310 so the only real need we have for the 510 is to get on RISC and to support any new applications which I could easily put on another separate box. Since they justify their price because of CPW, I asked them what the charge would be if we moved to a RISC box with the same or less CPW. They said that to move to a model 500 would have no charge, but to move to a model 600 could only be done if we convert to user-based. I've called my local IBM guy and told him about this. I had my senior staff ready to go for a new 620, but now with the corner SSA is pushing me into I may wind up getting a used 500. Marketing assistance like this IBM doesn't need. -Steve Cotes -email@example.com- > ---------- > From: AKRoche@aol.com[SMTP:AKRoche@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 9:38 AM > To: BPCS-L@midrange.com > Subject: Re: SSA Settles Suit ?? > > In a message dated 97-10-01 23:01:50 EDT, you write: > > << Does anyone have any details ? > > -Steve Cotes > -firstname.lastname@example.org- >> > > What do you want to know? I'm a shareholder so I received formal > notification > of the settlement along with the publicly available 52-page legal-eese > settlement information. Basically SSA admits no responsibility or > guilt (as > is common in these things) and agrees to pay a settlement amount to be > distributed to all shareholders. In exchange for this, they don't have > defend > the suit in court which would cost them a bundle and also potentially > air > confidential information that they don't want to release. They also > get to > stop worrying about this and worry about sales and R&D... nothing too > exciting.... > +--- | This is the BPCS Users Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to "BPCS-L@midrange.com". | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com | and specify 'unsubscribe BPCS-L' in the body of your message. | Questions should be directed to the list owner: email@example.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.