Re: Dear Mike...
From: David Elders (david_elders_at_nospam.hotmail.com)
Date: 03/09/04
- Next message: Paul: "VPN problem"
- Previous message: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: SBS 2000 Exchange will not start"
- In reply to: Gary Karasik: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Next in thread: Gary Karasik: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Reply: Gary Karasik: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 23:30:58 -0000
Hi Gary,
We too service SME business - that's in fact our core customer-base, so I'm
not talking through ignorance here.
Obviously, with *any* upgrade there is a financial implication and thereby
by definition a cost-justification needs to show a real business benefit.
Problem is that many real-world business benefits are of the 'what if'
variety. For example, we ran for about 2 years with only desktop AV
protection. We had no problems - thereby you *could* have defined this as a
'working' system. We opted to upgrade to server/email/desktop protection.
We invested in a 'better looking at it than for it' scenario. Same rule of
thumb could easily be applied to matters such as MS support - if you haven't
needed it fine/great/all the better - its what will be available to you IF
you do need it that is the cost justification for customers still on 4.5.
Guarantee that if the support is gone and Sods Law applies that a 'bad
thing' does happen that the customer wishes they'd upgraded before *that*
point in time...
I know also that its all very well talking about such matters in principle
and that many many customers will simply opt for the cheapest possible
option in every conceivable scenario. Fair enough - if we've advised them of
the most professional, cover-their-behind course of action and they choose
not to, we can charge them top dollar for fixing everything if it all does
hit the fan. But that's their choice. We've still recommended the option
where they *would* have support and that's before you even get into being
able to do things for the customer that will address their line of business
either better or at all that the previous version may not have allowed or at
least have been harder to achieve or achieved less fully. If cost is a
particular issue, how is it silly to upgrade the Server unless all the
clients are upgraded? I'd rather have a more stable Server to underpin my
business on than upgrade the less essential workstations beforehand...
By the same token that its a harder sell to sell based on 'what if', that
also doesn't and shouldn't mean that the simplest sell 'its worked so far,
so don't spend more' is the best sell...
Like I said, just my tuppenceworth. Also, not in any way a dig at you but I
just simply don't agree with the 'its never happened, so the customer won't
go for it' being a valid reason not to propose an improvement which the
upgrade from 4.5 definitely is. We're not talking about upgrading for the
sake of it but because it does provider a broader, more supported feature
set.
Regards,
David
"Gary Karasik" <gkarasik2fea.net> wrote in message
news:%23y2wdagBEHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> For those of us who serve small-business clients, the decision is often
less
> technical than financial. I have to have the permission of a business
owner
> to spend upwards of ten thousand of his/her dollars to upgrade. The
upgrade
> generally requires a new server, new OS, new CALs, many (expensive) new
> apps, and many consultant hours. If workstations aren't already at W2K or
> better, it would be silly to upgrade the server OS without also upgrading
> the workstation OSes to at least W2K (and in some cases the workstation
> hardware and apps) and this would also involve consultant hours for
> retraining staff (plus the cost of decreased productivity plus added
> consultant hours). Taken altogether, this is a huge expense.
>
> It's not a decision I can make on my own. It's not enough that it's
> gee-whiz-better technology. I have to convice the business owner that it's
a
> good investment.
>
> So what benefits justify the upgrade? Increased productivity? That would
be
> a tough argument to make. Increased security? Get a Netgear firewall for
> $150. Microsoft is "ending support?" How much support does the existing,
> working system need? Active Directory? No significant benefit to an
existing
> system that's working well.
>
> Certainly when the server reaches the end of it's active life, or when
some
> critical app (like the antivirus) stops being supported, or when some
> business-critical app offers a must-have feature), then one would upgrade
> the OS; but otherwise: Why? No one's ever been able to suggest an
advantage
> worth the cost.
>
> GaryK
>
> "David Elders" <david_elders@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uZLhqsfBEHA.1792@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Gary,
> >
> > As a happy 4.5 admin who recently [Sep 2003] upgraded to 2K, I'd have to
> > disagree.
> >
> > The reason we upgraded was that 4.5's support days are rapidly coming to
> an
> > end - the point Susan makes about the 4.5 newsgroup is a valid one. If
it
> > weren't for the fact we *always* like to use everyone else out there in
> the
> > big bad world our 'beta-testers' and that ISA/SQL are still on the 2K
> > versions within SBS2K3 we'd have went 2K3 straight off - as it is we'll
> > probably do this towards the latter portion of this year.
> >
> > Its not *just* about the software that's working now - its also about
> there
> > being a 'current' thread of support when things don't go right. I also
had
> > the 'pain' with reboots that are now unnecessary when we amended simple
> > areas of config [like re-running the ICW for example...?] that upgrading
> has
> > resolved. It may also just be personal preference but I *far* prefer the
> > management of ISA compared to Proxy Server.
> >
> > I'm one of the greatest proponents of the 'if it isn't broken' adage but
> > there's certainly a difference between upgrading to improve something
> [which
> > 4.5 > 2K/2K3 undoubtedly does] and upgrading just for the sake of it.
> >
> > Just my tuppenceworth... :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> > "Gary Karasik" <gkarasik2fea.net> wrote in message
> > news:eSjIzcfBEHA.496@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Susan,
> > >
> > > The important point--one Mike fails to make--is that there's nothing
in
> > > SBS2000 or SBS2003 that makes it worth upgrading an existing SBS4.5
> system
> > > that's working well.
> > >
> > > GaryK
> > >
> > > "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
<sbradcpa@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote in message news:O1E4GpYBEHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/41673/41673.html
> > > >
> > > > "In fact, because NT is simpler, you could even argue-especially if
> you
> > > > already own NT-that it might be a better fit for small business than
> > > > Windows 2003 is."
> > > >
> > > > There are times that your articles are right on and there are times
> that
> > I
> > > feel you don't get it. This is one of those times.
> > > >
> > > > As a small business server admin since SBS 4.0 days, I suffered
> through
> > > NT4. Trust me, it's not simpler. Not at all.
> > > >
> > > > I hated selecting dip switches to get dual modems to load.
> > > > I hated finding drivers for it.
> > > > I hated when I had to patch it.
> > > > I hated when I had to reboot it. I literally would cross my fingers
> and
> > > scrunch up my eyes when I rebooted my SBS 4.5 box that's how much I
> hated
> > > NT4.
> > > > I prayed that I wouldn't BSOD that sucker.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know of any of my small business beancounter buddies that
turn
> > off
> > > XP's system restore as you say we all do out here.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know of many small business IT guys that would recommend
that
> > > their client buy an NT box over a Windows 2000 or 2k3 box. Not with
plug
> > and
> > > play [and yes, it is plug and play if you go with quality hardware]
And
> > > especially these days, the fact that it's days of getting patches for
it
> > are
> > > numbered... dude... wake up and start patching and you tell me how
easy
> it
> > > is to maintain that NT box when the case in point the .public.smallbiz
> > > newsgroup is decreasing in posts and I can't remember proxy server
stuff
> > if
> > > my life dependent on it. The "been there's and done that's" on that
NT
> > box
> > > are drying up. Don't wait for me to be the last one to turn off the
> > lights
> > > in that newsgroup.
> > > >
> > > > No sorry dude, you may think NT is easy, but not in my book.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/41406/41406.html
> > > > We also think you are all wet on this article too. But we're biased
> out
> > > here ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Susan Bradley
> > > > Microsoft MVP for SBS
> > > >
> > > > P.S. Office XP/2k3 are way better than office 2k as it has the
footer
> > > feature in Excel to allow for a "mapped drive location footer" that
> > > automatically updates when you resave the file. Excel 2k3 has nicer
> > > equation auditing and just a whole bunch of little features that I
miss
> > when
> > > using a Office 2k.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.sbslinks.com/really.htm
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Paul: "VPN problem"
- Previous message: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: SBS 2000 Exchange will not start"
- In reply to: Gary Karasik: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Next in thread: Gary Karasik: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Reply: Gary Karasik: "Re: Dear Mike..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
