Re: More on Auto Warewhousing




"Jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:jim-5554D4.10500029072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <oI6dndSSkKgbCTHbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"PC Guy" <pcguy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jim-E2F795.21313528072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <P5qdnZMB5f0jwzfbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "PC Guy" <pcguy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> "Jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:jim-50F240.15551927072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > In article <jKSdncguNrurxDfbnZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > "PC Guy" <pcguy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Craig Koller" <cwkollertwo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:270720071322289178%cwkollertwo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> > In article <SdednV94ls2kzDfbnZ2dnUVZ_qCgnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, PC Guy
>> >> > <pcguy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jim" <jim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:jim-230398.09494927072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> > http://www.macnewsworld.com/rsstory/58527.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why they won't go Vista and switch to Macs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ""From what I've observed, Windows Vista is the same [as XP], >> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > prettier icons and a little prettier user interface," Frantz
>> >> >> > says.
>> >> >> > "At
>> >> >> > the end of the day, our users are not going to do their work >> >> >> > any
>> >> >> > differently with Vista than with Windows XP." "
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > and...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It will take 12 to 18 months to rewrite the VIPS client >> >> >> > software
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > run
>> >> >> > on Macintosh
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I bet it would take considerably less time to rewrite the >> >> >> program
>> >> >> properly
>> >> >> so that it runs on Vista.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Latest News about Macintosh machines, and Frantz doesn't want >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > delay the cost savings and efficiency enhancements tied to the
>> >> >> > migration to Apple hardware.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What cost savings? Until the application is re-written for the
>> >> >> Macintosh
>> >> >> (writing in Java is now considered writing for the Macintosh?) >> >> >> he's
>> >> >> still
>> >> >> going to have to run the application in Windows. Which means all
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> support
>> >> >> costs of Windows are going to remain. Looks like he's adding >> >> >> costs:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. Macintosh computers cost more.
>> >> >> 2. He has to buy Parallels.
>> >> >> 3. He has to buy Windows.
>> >> >> 4. He has to support OS X.
>> >> >> 5. He has to support Parallels.
>> >> >>
>> >> > The savings is in productivity and support costs.
>> >>
>> >> Where? Assuming there is a support cost savings (which is
>> >> questionable)
>> >> switching from Windows he's still going to be using Windows until >> >> the
>> >> application is re-written. Therefore he's going to continue to >> >> incur
>> >> those
>> >> costs in addition to new ones stemming from the list I provided in >> >> my
>> >> earlier post. Surely you're not implying that Windows support costs
>> >> decrease
>> >> merely because it's run in OS X and Parallels are you?
>> >>
>> >> > Hardware/software costs are minimal, especially when averaged >> >> > over
>> >> > the
>> >> > typical 3-year cycle.
>> >
>> > You seem to have a problem remembering that to this point they have
>> > approached this as a "proof-of-concept" to see if this was viable >> > and
>> > when they looked at their results as outlined here, they find it a
>> > profitable switch.
>>
>> Perhaps it is WHEN THEY MAKE THE SWITCH. Until then they're increasing
>> costs
>> for the next 12 to 18 months (and that's assuming it doesn't fall >> behind)
>> as
>> they:
>>
>> 1. Buy more expensive computers.
> IF you build your own you'll get less expensive computers, and CHEAP
> Dulls are just that. However, hardware is a fixed cost and an
> incremental one. Even if the Mac is more expensive, that difference is
> easily eclipsed by the administrative costs of the platform.

Damn Polaski! You really have earned your nomination for the most retarded
Mactard in this forum.

In the face of no real answer, the winnutjob tactic of the ad hominem
attack is used. To expect more of you would be folly.

The truth is no an ad hominem.

> Try looking into TCO, Gartner knows about it

LOL! You guys are STILL bringing these things up? Too funny!

No response other than your usual crap is noted.

OK, here's what Gartner has to say about this deal:

"As Gartner's Silver sees it, another potentially fuzzy area is the return on investment that AWC can expect by switching from PCs and Windows to Apple hardware and its Mac OS X operating system. "I'm skeptical about the ROI and how much it will cost in the end," says Silver."

Now we have conclusive proof that this is likely a bad move on Franz's part.

>> 2. Buy Parallels.
> Small cost.

But an additional cost. Especially when multiplied out of 100's of
computers.


Not a significant cost, and there are those things called site licenses
which are often very attractive. I'm sure Parallels would oblige them.

But it's still a cost. An additional cost. He's supposed to be SAVING money. Not spending more of it!

>> 3. Buy Windows.
> You buy that with Windows hardware, it isn't free, it's just cheap > since
> it's preloaded and with no backup disks either. Again, the cost is
> eclipsed by administration costs etc.,

The point is it's still a cost. Until the application is re-written he has
to continue buying it.

Yes, Windows is still a cost. At least you got something right.

So where is his cost savings?

>> 4. Support OS X.
> Needs less support than Windows which is why they're switching. He's
> done his own homework.

Doesn't matter if it needs less support than Windows or not BECAUSE HE IS
STILL GOING TO BE USING WINDOWS (why is this part continuing to escape
you?). Therefore it's additional support with additional cost.

Less Windows by percentage which lowers cost.

No Jim...he is going to be using the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF WINDOWS deployments. They're not going to decreease AT ALL. Why is this so difficult for you?

As for his "homework" all he's done is run it in a lab environment. If you
think support costs in a lab environment are representative of support costs
once deployed to 100's of computers you've got some serious brain damage.
The lab is a controlled environment with knowledgable people performing the
testing. Once deployed to end users you lose the controlled environment and
knowledgable people.

He's looked at other companies who use the Mac OS. He sees what they're
doing and what their costs are which he can relate to his situation. To
listen to you, one would think Frantz doesn't know a thing and you're
the expert. Get a real grip on your lack of understanding his situation.

Jim, do try and follow along with the discussion AT HAND. This has nothing to do with the long term cost savings. It has everything to do with the interim period WHILE THE APPLICATION IS BEING RE-WRITTEN.

And I find it interesting that he's unwilling to write it as OS X specific instead choosing a cross platform solution. Doesn't sound like he has a lot of confidence in OS X.

I would really like to know what problems he's encountering with Windows. He
didn't mention anything specific. Much like the Mactards here he just
provided vague "answers".

>> 5 Support Parallels.
>
> probably has low support costs since if you look on the sites, there > are
> few folks complaining about Parallels and in fact, it's reported that
> Parallels runs Windows just fine and at blazing speed.

But it's still an additional cost.

Incremental and only for one year until the native app is rewritten,
then costs will decrease.

Doesn't matter. It's still additional cost. He supposed to be REDUCING costs. Not INCREASING it!

It's about the big, long-term picture for which their are start-up and
transition costs.

No Jim...it's about the SHORT TERM costs. Do try and keep up. I have made it clear that I am questioning the following:

"It will take 12 to 18 months to rewrite the VIPS client software to run on Macintosh machines, and Frantz doesn't want to delay the cost savings and efficiency enhancements tied to the migration to Apple hardware."

Where is the cost savings and efficiency while the application is being developed? It's not there. In fact it's just the opposite: costs are going to increase during this time. Which makes me question his rational for the above.

> IOW, all of your objections are non-events born of your bias rather > than
> anything indicated by Frantz.

No. What I am questioning (that's different than objecting to) is his
statement he doesn't want to delay the cost savings he expects to see by
moving to the Macintosh. That would make sense if he:

WASN'T GOING TO CONTINUE USING WINDOWS IN THE INTERM WHILE THE APPLICATION
IS BEING REWRITTEN.

He wants to have the hardware solution in place.

I know that. But how does this result in "cost savings and efficiency enhancements tied to the migration to Apple hardware."?

Should he get the re-write done, he has his hardware infrastructure in place to test and
debug it while he has the old system in place. It's a common good practice. The only
alternative would be to keep the current systems and have the new next to it which is
a mess, so he sees the value of one piece of hardware doing both tasks but for the sake of Parallels.

Irrelevent. Where is the immediate "cost savings and efficiency enhancements tied to the migration to Apple hardware."? He clearly stated he doesn't want to delay obtaining this cost savings. But where is it? All I see are cost INCREASES.

Sorry to have to capitalize this but you Mactards continually miss this
point. Until he removes Windows from the equation he is going to continue
incurring whatever Windows support costs he has prior to the migration.
They're not going to magically decrease/disappear because it's running on a
Macintosh or a VM.

You don't know much of scaling costs. 100 Windows boxes cost less to
support than 500.

And this has what to do with the fact that he's still going to be supporting the same number of Windows systems in the next 12 - 18 months and therefore incurring the same amount of support costs for it?

> Fact is Frantz, with vastly more experience at this than you,

Typical Mactard. Making up statements without any facts. Fact is you know
little about me yet you make such a claim.

It's nothing made up that Frantz(sp) runs his company, is in touch with
what goes on there, and is doing a due diligence evaluation( his proof
of concept) regarding his switch.

Yet the Mactards seem to know what's good for all the companies out there that are running Windows. You see constant claims from Mactards that these companies would be better off with Macintosh. You just did it in an earlier post! Yet you know nothing more about them than I do of AWC. Typical double standard.

Fact is I don't need to know anything about his business. All I need to know is his rational doesn't make sense. He clearly states that by moving away from Windows he's going to save money. OK, that's all fine and good. Up to this point I don't know enough about his operation to question that savings. However he goes on to say that he won't be able to move away from Windows until approximately 12 - 18 months. OK, that's understood too. Porting takes some time. The problem is when he says he "doesn't want to delay the cost savings and efficiency enhancements tied to the migration to Apple hardware." How is this possible until he removes Windows from the equation? Something he can't do until at least 12 - 18 months from now. Acccording to the facts presented the earliest he could begin to realize cost savings is 12 - 18 months out. Until then switching to OS X and Parallels to run what he already has is just INCREASING costs. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out his immediate cost savings doesn't make sense.

Oh, did I forget to mention that your pals at Gartner have doubts about this move of his?


As for you, the evidence is your commentary here which is way off target
and based in your bias, which is ever so obvious.

PC GUY: "We're doing what we're doing because of what we've always done,
and we've always done what we've done because of what we're doing!"

It's the mantra of the lemmings.


> or for that matter perhaps anyone here, has made a decision on what he
> considers his doing "due diligence" by looking at other companies,
> studying his problem and the proposed OS X systems and done the math > and
> thus arrived at his conclusion and here you are, not there, with no
> intimate knowledge, telling him he's wrong.

Then do explain how he is going to see a cost savings by moving to the
Macintosh platform while at the same time keeping the very product that's
driving up his support costs. This is the problem Jim. It doesn't take
someone with a whole lot of sense (must be why the Mactards are having such
difficult with it) to see that his immediate (i.e. 12 - 18 months during the
re-write of the program) cost savings doesn't make sense. One can't say that
they're going to reduce supports costs associated with Windows by
eliminating Windows when they don't eliminate Windows. And in addition
adding a bunch of other stuff that's going to need support.

Apparently the transition costs are lost on you.

They're not lost on me, that's why I'm questioning them.

Transitions, in any area are not free. True cost savings is not immediate with systems like
this.

I didn't say they were free.

While we can find transitions where savings can be immediate, it's not
with technology. No one in their right mind would move out one thing,
even if it's inefficient, cost laden and so on and move in an untried,
untested system. It's not wise management.

Irrelevent to the point being made.

> What a tool you are.

Yes, you are. You'd rather throw logic to the wind and look a fool in
defense of your platform.

You're the one on whom logic is lost.

I'm pleased to hear this coming from you. It's the most solid endorsement that my logic is fine.

All you think about is your
Win-Bias and not changing from the Winstandard. You can't bear to accept
that someone like Frantz might dare to think differently than you even
though you're not in his shoes with the information he has at hand on
which he's based his decision.

I haven't begun to question his strategic thought on this. The problem is that he doesn't want to DELAY the cost savings he intends to realize by this move EVEN THOUGH HE CANNOT REMOVE THE COST FOR THE NEXT 12 - 18 MONTHS.

The key word to note is "delay". He doesn't want to delay the cost savings even though he can't start it for at least 12 - 18 months.

You don't see a problem with that?

Not everyone wants to stay in lock-step with your preferences.

I have no problem with his preference. I do have a problem with his "logic".

.... snip ...

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: taking our health care back......
    ... customer's unnecessary labor costs, costs for support, lack of ... windows, windows, windows and if you don't want windows, you still pay ... It cost me many hours because MS was not owning up to the ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: More on Auto Warewhousing
    ... Why they won't go Vista and switch to Macs. ... What cost savings? ... going to have to run the application in Windows. ... He has to support OS X. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: More on Auto Warewhousing
    ... Why they won't go Vista and switch to Macs. ... What cost savings? ... going to have to run the application in Windows. ... He has to support OS X. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Woohooo! Dell + Linux
    ... linux to *lower* the cost by the cost of the windows license. ... Most people could not complete a Linux install without a phone call to ... tech support. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: What makes a mac better?
    ... potential candidate pool that might do a DIY. ... to get Y hours of life at cost Z, a less wholesome manufacturer can go ... They can't limit a Windows install to a single PC ... PC when I can spend $1,500 more for a Mac and a Windows ...
    (rec.photo.digital)