On 08/03/2006, at 8:17 AM, Howard Coles Jr. wrote:
SNIP!
Fact 5: "TCO" is nebulous at best, and can be skewed in any
direction the
person putting the figures together wants it to go, and in my
opinion nearly
impossible to nail down to any exact figure. There are so many
ways to
figure this that I could certainly find a way that would favor MS
and a way
that would favor OOo. Here's the truth: All software costs money,
even free
software. The difference? What will you spend on a switch to OOo
that you
would NOT spend upgrading to the next version of MSO? Well, I
would need to
(re) train users either way, I would need to install new software
either way,
I would have compatibility issues either way, but I would only have
continued
license costs the MSO way, and I will have to spend money
converting some MSO
spreadsheets and macros to OOo. Not only that, if I want corporate
support,
what is the difference between what I would pay MS per seat as
opposed to
what I would pay Sun (for example) per seat for StarOffice? This
would all
depend on your license agreement with MS. Many like to say MSO
costs 450 to
500 dollars a seat, I know this is NOT so. Granted its not as
cheap as say a
75 dollar per seat license for Sun, considering that you could
probably get
away with only buying licenses for covering execs and advanced
users and
using OOo for everyone else. This is how I figure TCO for those
who just
insist that it be figured up. What will cost to continue or
upgrade with app
a, and what will it cost to switch to app b. I believe that if any
honest
exec, or CxO sits down and uses true figures they'll realize that
of all the
possibilities out there, MS is the most expensive long term
solution on the
market.
Agreed. Combining the TCO problems with the need to look in the
longer term at solutions results in a method of looking at the return
on investment (ROI) for the product/service/etc. It does not matter
that there may be more money up front if the longer term investment
is going to save more money down the track. It makes more sense the
few thousand dollars, for example, in re-training people to use OOo
as a one-off than to keep spending that same amount or more on
licenses for the software.
Fact 6: "We need to be able to exchange documents with other
companies" is a
flimsy excuse, and never a reason. Its the last ditch effort of a
lost cause
that makes everyone go "uh, we can't make our suppliers switch."
Listen, OOo
does a very decent job opening and saving docs in MS format. NO, not
perfect, but very good. Not only that, if I'm paying company A
good money to
do business with me, asking them to download a free Suite to
interact with me
isn't asking much. I have worked for the last 4 years at my MSO
only shop
using OOo exclusively. The result? no one notices. So, I can by
4 years
experience say that company A will do just fine if we save docs we
send to
them in MS format, or ask them to use OOo.
I am amazed at how many people are stuck in this rut of blaming the
application for not working across platforms or applications. The
majority of people I have dealt with who complain about not be able
to send out documents in MS Word format easily have no idea about the
methods or capabilities available to them. Most of the documents
being sent they agree need to be treated as read-only, so you explain
that sending them in PDF if much better and already builtin to OOo
and they suprised by the option. This is one of the best examples of
re-training that needs to be done in the workplace - changing peoples
traditional methods to the new technologies.
Regards
Jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
