First I have never run into this where is was not some Win 9x type of garbage that got ported to a new OS and sold as new. That said and understood I personally think it would be very interesting to have a list of these vendors and the products publicly posted where those companies that are complaining about this attitude can see if it is true or not that no one else is upset about this. It would of course need a way to make sure that the companies that do complain are protected from reprisals in some manner and that the companies being complained about are getting real complaints not just from a few using the ability to mask their identity. I did run into a case where a vendor told me no one else in the company had complained about an issue only to later find out that most of the people working with the product in the company had complained about it.
Jon On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Sean Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > First, I agree with everyone else. Software in today's world shouldn't have > that type of dependency. Unfortunately,current versions of today's software > probably haven't changed much if they were originally developed many years > ago. > > With that said, have you investigated the possibility of using the resource > kit tools (srvany.exe and instrsrv.exe) to run this particular application > as a service? I've been able to eliminate your exact scenario on a few > servers over the years, but I've also run into many scenarios where it just > wouldn't work. In either case, it may be worth a shot. > > - Sean > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Mayo, Bill <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Afraid not. The department that uses the software makes the decision >> about what they use. We can only advise. We previously had a different >> vendor, and this vendor is actually superior from what I can tell. >> >> I don't really deal directly with the vendor for this system, so the >> only thing I can do is point out the problems to the person that >> administers the system and to our CIO. The former has been hearing >> about it all day, and the latter will (he is already aware of some >> issues we have had when the workstation has had problems). >> >> The last time this came up (when I had some involvement with the >> workstation getting setup), I complained to the on-site tech about it. >> At that time (about 3 years ago), he said that he agreed and that they >> were working on converting the processes to services. Guess that didn't >> happen. >> >> Thanks to all for the confirmation that I am not just difficult (at >> least in this case!). >> >> Bill Mayo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christopher Bodnar [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:23 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Reality check >> >> As long as you are tied to the vendor, they will do whatever they want, >> which means not fixing the problem. >> >> Any possibility of shopping around for another vendor? >> >> Chris Bodnar, MCSE >> Sr. Systems Engineer >> Infrastructure Service Delivery >> Distributed Systems Service Delivery - Intel Services Guardian Life >> Insurance Company of America >> Email: [email protected] >> Phone: 610-807-6459 >> Fax: 610-807-6003 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:05 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: Reality check >> >> I am terribly frustrated with an application vendor who is on-site to >> add a new module to on of our critical software packages, and I want to >> confirm it is not just me being difficult. This system already has the >> requirement that a workstation be logged on with 3 different programs >> running in the foreground to shuffle data around between modules. To be >> clear, an account has to be logged into this machine at all times for >> this system to work properly. They are here now, installing a new >> server for a new module, and they now have to have it doing the same >> thing on the server (logged on account, foreground applications >> running). >> >> This is not a minor system (either in size or cost) and the parent >> company is not tiny (rhymes with "bun hard"). When I say "services" >> they look at me like I am from Mars. The problems with needing an >> account logged onto a server at all times seem obvious to me. (The >> workstation was bad enough.) Am I alone? >> >> Bill Mayo >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ >> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is >> privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable >> law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you >> are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or >> communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have >> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by >> return e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ >> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
