RE: Why CODE instead of LPEX?

["Booth Martin" <Booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric, which indirect cost?  The few dollars for a new 20" monitor?  Or the
cost of your lost production for the last 5+ years while you worked on a 15"
monitor?  
 
Lets just guess it cost them 10% lost effectivness over 5 years.  That
sounds reasonable to me...  10% times 5 years...  Lets see...  they delayed
spending the price for a decent monitor and it only cost them a 1/2 year's
salary for a key technical professional.   I'm guessing they spent well over
$20,000 to delay buying you a decent monitor for 5 years.   
 
Bean Soup anyone?
 
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Booth Martin   http://www.MartinVT.com
Booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:14:32 AM
To: 'RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries'
Subject: RE: Why CODE instead of LPEX?
 
Not just CPU and memory... I just had to request a larger monitor. IDEs
seem to like higher resolutions, and my old 15" monitor had me squinty after
a few hours. These indirect costs really start add up after a while.
 
Eric DeLong
Sally Beauty Company
MIS-Project Manager (BSG)
940-898-7863 or ext. 1863
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Buck Calabro [mailto:Buck.Calabro@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:07 AM
To: RPG programming on the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: RE: Why CODE instead of LPEX?
 
 
>My question is this; why the push towards CODE when 
>IBM has stated that it will be replaced by the LPEX 
>editor in WDSc?
 
I don't think there's a push toward Code, but Lpex isn't 'there' yet. Also,
there are a handful of developers who are using older PCs because they're
perfectly adequate (or were, anyway!) for the work that we do. At a
thousand dollars a pop, it is unrealistic to expect companies to replace PCs
en masse during a slump in the economy. Although, I might weasel another
128 megs of RAM...
--buck