[SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users -- SYSTEM21

We upgraded from a 500 to an 820 this year. The issue with a software charge
related to a change in processor happened with three of or software vendors.
It was a common part of contracts and not unusual in the AS/400 world. We
had to negotiate a reduced fee in all three situations. I inherited all
three contracts from a "previous administration". I would advise anyone to
review all your software contracts before any upgrade. It's all "old school"
and we all know the reasons for upgrades. We can only hope it's because we
are "doing better". But even that isn't a good reason to have to pay more
for the software. Negotiate a reduced fee or no fee. Lets put this subject
to bed!

Tim Pfeifer
Director of Information Systems

-----Original Message-----
From: jbausers-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jbausers-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of keith.tyler@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:33 PM
To: GEAC/JBA System 21 Users
Subject: [SYS21] Re: Minimum Number of Users


The statements below about Hitachi are somewhat incorrect. We did have a
situation during one of our upgrades that required Geac (then JBA) to
advise us that our user count was insufficient for the processor upgrade.
We were moving to a 620 - 2181 at the time (02/99) and the minimum number
of users (according to a document we did not have)  was 170. Just as many
of you have stated this was quite a shock as none of our other 400 based
products were licensed this way. We were able to work with Geac (JBA) to a
conclusion that allowed a win / win situation. But it did leave a scar that
has since healed considerably.

 My suggestion to anyone that has the potential to change processors in the
future. Check your contract for the "minimum user clause", if it exists,
ask your account rep for a copy of the (Minimum number of Users based on
Processor Size) document.  This will allow you to evaluate your exposure
and work with Geac on any plans moving forward.

Keith




                      "Watkins, Rick"
                      <rwatkins@xxxxxxxxxx        To:
"'JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx'" <JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
                      >                           cc:
                      Sent by:                    Subject:  [SYS21] Minimum
Number of Users
                      jbausers-l-bounces@x
                      idrange.com


                      03/07/2003 10:18 AM
                      Please respond to
                      GEAC/JBA System 21
                      Users






Minimum (?) number of users.

Although this subject has been discussed before I would like to resurrect
it.

In reviewing the past thread, there appears to be a number of
inconsistencies in representations made by JBA (Geac) to users.  For
instance Hitachi was told that the minimum number of users for a 720 was
170
- recently we were told in writing that the number was 127.  This would
lead
one to look at the processor not the model number.  In our case we
purchased
150 licenses for a 510 P30 (processor), moved to a 720 P20 and incurred no
phantom upcharge, then moved to an 820 and back up to the P30 processor
(our
original level) and are now being told that we need 39 more licenses. (we
own 150 and only use about 120).  We were also told at the time of sale
that
there would be no tier based pricing - only per user pricing (naturally
that
salesperson is long gone).  What we weren't told is that Geac would be the
one to tell us the minimum number of users we have in our facilities.

Also in the past thread it was stated by some customers that they were
given
a schedule of AS400 models and the minimum number of users.  Did everyone
receive this schedule?  Does any outside agency play a part in determining
the minimum user number or is Geac free to do whatever they please?
Doesn't
this practice seem counter- productive to their partnership with IBM since
it discourages hardware upgrades?  By the way, we were chastised for not
purchasing our upgraded hardware through Geac and the implication was made
that if we had, this upcharge could have been avoided.  How?

I cannot understand how we are required to buy something for which we have
no use.  And it goes without saying, that this larger number of users will
be used to determine annual maintenance costs ad infinitum.  It would
appear
that Geac wants to drive users to dropping maintenance.

If anyone can shed light on this usurious practice please do so.  If anyone
else has an 820 P30 machine I would appreciate knowing have many minimum
users you were required to have licenses for.   I think this will be a nice
discussion topic during the Q & A at Mr. Quinn's Alliance presentation.


Rick Watkins
Director of BPR
RJF International Company

_______________________________________________
This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list
To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l
or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l.





_______________________________________________
This is the GEAC/JBA System 21 Users (JBAUSERS-L) mailing list
To post a message email: JBAUSERS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/jbausers-l
or email: JBAUSERS-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/jbausers-l.