Perfect rebut Rick. I totally agree. Execs hate the idle threat and from my experience
they usually take it as a challenge. There are so many positives to point to when
selling the idea of Win2k/2003 that using the fact the you may lose (perceived)
support doesn't carry much weight. I do a lot of work with the government and DOD and
they know that regardless of where they are in the process of moving forward they will
not lose support from MS. They are too important to MS for them to just simply drop
support for NT. I am sure support will end but some high end customers of MS's will
continue with the relationships that they have and be OK. With that said, I really
don't think anyone out there is thinking of staying on NT 4.0 indefinitely, but then
again I don't quite get why I see so much Netware 3.12 out there still (definitely
another thread). The technology is compelling and the fact that if I continue to move
forward and support the future windows world, I will lower the costs of my network.
Supporting NT 4.0 is much more expensive than Win2k, period. There are many case
studies on MS's site to look at where organizations have done detailed research into
how much it will save them to move forward and this allows them to see the ROI.
Numbers, not threats, help executives see the future and value of new technologies.
I agree with Rick, find the Case studies on MS's site that specify exactly where
organization are finding compelling value in new technologies and sell that.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/casestudies/default.asp (That
URL may wrap...)
Lastly the best way to convince someone that new technology is better is to believe
that new technology is better by understanding exactly where it is better. Do a
detailed analysis of your pains in day to day work and see exactly where Win2k/2003
addresses those pains and makes them better.
Kevin
"See the ball Danny, be, be the ball Danny... I'm a veg Danny." - Chevy Chase
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] E2K and DC
All,
I've held my tongue on this issue (NT 4.0 retirement as a justification) because I
think there is merit to it - but in a very negative and damaging way. There is
another way - using the same method, but turning it positive.
Executives NEVER like to be backed into a corner. And, to say that Microsoft has
backed them into a corner is not correct. This life-cycle timeline for Win95 and
Windows NT 4.0 has been advertised for some time. 18 mos to 2 years comes to mind.
And, regardless - the idea that they WOULD maintain both NT 4.0 and 2000, with 2003
coming is a bit inane anyway.
Your tactics would be much more successful AND retain a stronger relationship with
Microsoft if you were to sell them (as well as the rest of your tech staff) on the
power, flexibility, TCO, ROI (yes - they are there if you know what to measure) of
MOVING to Windows 2000 rather than threatening them with gloom and doom of ending
support. Or, you could just tell them that you won't have to re-boot the NT 4.0
machines on a regular schedule because the reliability on Windows 2000 is just THAT
much better.
No one wants to hear that they MUST move to (insert whatever here) or you won't have
any support. Firstly, I know this to be a bit of a misnomer. Define support and what
it means to your organization. Are you calling Microsoft regularly with support
problems? No - most of you seem to come here and save the money . Are you worried
about the lack of patches? Hmmm. That's an issue, if you really are applying them
timely. But, how many showstoppers have come out for NT of late? There is no, and
will be no Service Pack 7. Oh, but we've known that for some time. Did we go
bludgeon the Executives at that time? Nope. We waited until the last minute.
If any of your executives are saavy enough to do just a little bit of research, they
will find out that we've known about this obsolesence for more than a month or two.
Their first question would likely be along the lines of 'Why didn't you tell me this
last year - or the year before when you knew or suspected this was going to be a
problem?'
That's the really TOUGH question to answer. And for those of you that have NOT been
priming the pump on this, better have a good explanation before you go in with tales
of horror.
For most companies, it's a bit late to budget for a major migration. I'm not saying
not to justify it. I just would caution all to not use negative tactics as your
primary motivator. Believe me - most execs are a lot more intelligent than you are
giving them credit for. ;o)
Oh, and lastly - if you can't get it done until 2004 Calendar / fiscal year - big
deal. Support is going to be available. I know that a cottage industry is going to
spring up or grow to encompass NT 4.0 transitional support.
Be positive - you'll get what you need much easier.
Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
Microsoft MVP - Active Directory
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Craig Cerino
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] E2K and DC
>
>
> Yes --- but i will tell you. If the desire to find articles
> on migration is to convince "higher-ups" of the bnefits and
> ROI of migration, one of the first things I would be sure
> they understood is that Microsoft will no longer provide
> support for Win NT4.0 after Dec 31, 2003. That's HUGE if you
> company thinks about.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Magalhaes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thu 1/23/2003 8:28 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] E2K and DC
>
>
>
> Hey Craig this a great thank you for the info, this is
> a dev machine so it wont be on the open net.
>
>
>
> Those articles actually help one motivate a migration?
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Carlos Magalhaes
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Cerino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] E2K and DC
>
>
>
> Hello Carlos,
>
>
>
> If you are limited to putting everything on one machine
> (DC and EXC 2K) there's not much I can offer you other than
> to say - do not install any unneeded add-ons.
>
> There is a LOT going on on a Win2K Domain controller
> and a LOT going on a Ech2K box as well.
>
>
>
> If you become vulnerable to known exploits on an
> Exchange box - - your network becomes compromised as the
> Exchange box is also a domain controller.
>
>
>
> There are also plenty of article out there on the
> migration from 4.0 to 2K out there - -too many to site right
> now - I'd recommend starting at the MS site and going through
> thier KB articles on the subject first.
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Carlos Magalhaes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Sent: Thu 1/23/2003 7:43 AM
>
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>
> Cc:
>
> Subject: [ActiveDir] E2K and DC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We have a test server we bought, we would like to
> test Windows 2000 AD and E2K can one install these on the
> same machine (we a bit low on machines) are there any issues?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P.s. are there any articles or links one can got
> to for motivating moving from nt4 to win2k?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks all
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Carlos Magalhaes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .+-wȆi0g-튺+Yb顲mPi慰0൹-튺+bᰲڪf.+-j!硶
> 0j!岊or氻yثIᚊV+v*
>
> .+w ������Y P ������ .+j
> j ory IV���+v*
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
��b��!��� 0i�b��b����f��X��f.+-!��� 0i�b��b����X�����ً��Z��b��m����
&j)Z��b��(����+�v*��f���-�����+�
