[Info-vax] Accuweather new contract

[mcleanjoh at gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 3:32:18 AM UTC+11, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <mersp6$m27$1 at dont-email.me>,
> 	David Froble <davezf at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> In article <a61e3181-aad4-46d0-90ca-1dc34ae94fec at googlegroups.com>,
> >> 	johnwallacf4 at yahoo.co.uk writes:
> >>> On Tuesday, 24 March 2015 12:04:06 UTC, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>>> In article <00AF498C.D7F4B393 at sendspamhere.org>,
> >>>> 	VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> >>>>> In article <dc2f7dde-a75d-4cc9-8a50-93169732474c at googlegroups.com>, clairgrant715 at gmail.com writes:
> >>>>>> Accuweather is one of our Field test sites.
> >>>>> Well then, that might squelch the M$ conjectures. ;)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Not when the only public presence provided by Accuweather themselves
> >>>> says they are "Microsoft Cloud" and has no mention of VMS at all.
> >>>> The commercials I saw were all placed in programs where they are
> >>>> likely to be seen by the people with the buying power and corporate
> >>>> influence in places that VMS should be fighting for as customers.
> >>>> This isn't going to help.
> >>>>
> >>>> bill
> >>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> >>>> billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> >>>> University of Scranton   |
> >>>> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
> >>> What's not going to help is the belief that any organisation shall
> >>> worship at one (and exactly one) IT altar.
> >>>
> >>> It is actually possible for an organisation to have more than one piece
> >>> of an IT strategy, and be happy with all of it. One size does not fit all.
> >>>
> >>> When the provider of the most expensive bit of the organisation's IT says
> >>> "there's (e.g.) 30% off next year if you let us use you as a reference site",
> >>> how many organisations will refuse?
> >>>
> >>> 30% off many organisation's Microsoft bill is a lot of pennies.
> >>>
> >>> 30% off many organisation's VMS bill is down in the noise.
> >> 
> >> And, while all of that is correct, what do you think the influence will
> >> be when the CIO of a major corporation is left with the choice of VMS
> >> or Microsoft Cloud?  Microsoft is already on all their desktops, just
> >> why should he even consider bringing VMS in?  One size does not always
> >> fit all, but the door is seldom open for the odd man out.  He has to
> >> fight harder to get in that door.  
> >> 
> >> bill
> >> 
> > 
> > Microsoft desktop apps do the jobs needed on the desktops.  VMS doesn't 
> > have the desktop apps.  It's reasonable to use what is needed for the 
> > job.  If a CIO doesn't understand that, I've got to wonder who hired the 
> > idiot.
> 
> You really don't get out much, do you.  CIO's see things like that
> Microsoft Cloud commercial and that strongly stters their decisions
> in that direction.  And this is nothing new.  I mentioned having a
> DECStation when I first came here.  When I needed it replaced with
> something more powerful (and more up to date as the DECStation ran
> the same Ultrix the VAXStation did!!) I had speced out a Sun based
> on capabilities and cost.  My boss approved it.  The next level
> manager who actually signed the checks came back from an executive
> level (as opposed to techie level) conference where HP had demoed
> HPUX workstations.  He was sold.  No Sun, had to get an HP.  After
> all, the salesdroid had put on a real impressive dog and pony show.
> When we got the workstaion at about 50% higher cost it could not do
> any of the stuff the salesdroid had demoed because his system was
> fully loaded and ours was not.  Neither cold it do most of the
> stuff it was purchased for.  It ended out being used a the University's
> DNS Server.  Nice job for over $20K.  The point being, the man who
> makes the decision is not a technical expert he is a manager.  He
> makes his decision from management data.  And he buys Microsoft Cloud.
> 
> > 
> > But there are other needs, for which perhaps the desktop apps are not so 
> > well suited.  A decent CIO does understand this also.  For some of those 
> > needs, VMS is a viable solution.  A decent CIO can also understand this.
> 
> See above.  CIO's are managers, not techies.  they may have been techies
> at some point in their careers but that is not what got them into that
> corner office.  An MBA did.
> 
> > 
> > There are what we're calling desktop applications in just about every 
> > organization.  Always have been.  In the past they were manual, and then 
> > mechanical, and then users on a computer system, and then when PCs 
> > became available on individual desktop systems.  There was a huge 
> > unfulfilled need for what became desktop systems, and when such finally 
> > became available, that need far over shadowed other computer usage, and 
> > swept Microsoft to where it is today.
> 
> see my comment to Kerry.  The commercial doesn't show Accuweather
> employess using word or Excel.  It shows them using weather modeling
> software and it says they are doing it on The Microsoft Cloud.  What's
> more, the background comments are things like "We couldn't do this
> without The Microsoft Cloud".  Doesn't say much about their opinion
> of VMS, does it.  And this is supposed to be one of VMS' most important
> customers?  With friends like this........
> 
> > 
> > However, the desktop systems have never been capable of doing some of 
> > the other jobs for which computers have been used.  Some have attempted 
> > to do so.  Probably many still survive, but I'm aware of some that 
> > haven't survived their poor judgment.
> 
> Get off this "desktop" kick.  That is not what the commercial was
> selling.  And that is certainly not what anyone means when they say
> "The Microsoft Cloud".
> 
> > 
> > Getting back to Accuweather.  They distribute weather information.  For 
> > many, that distribution is to desktop, notebook, tablet, and smart phone 
> > systems.  Probably the majority to smart phones today.  But unless 
> > they're just re-routing weather information provided by others, they 
> > might need some serious computing capability.  Probably not provided by 
> > a bunch of smart phones.
> 
> Get out more.  Maybe the commercial is available on YouTube or something.
> Look at what they are actually saying.  And then remember who they are
> targetting this message at.  It really makes little difference what
> VSi does if the people making the decisions are still being steered
> away from it.
> 
> bill
> 
> -- 
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

In my experience PHB's seem to decide to purchase or use whatever's getting lots of mentions in the IT press.  Hardware, software, software development methodology .. it doesn't seem to matter.  Maybe this is an extension of the old "No-one gets fired for buying IBM", but this time it's "No-one gets fired for doing what seems popular".

Lots of mention of the "cloud". Almost no mention of VMS for 20 years.  Which do you think will be popular and which be very rare?