BTW just because I did not say it before I know this is not possible or practical but it sure would be nice.
Jon On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Jon Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> ~
