Noons wrote:
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> news:<412a8c87$0$8833$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
>> Buying new hardware when it is not actually required strikes me as an
>> unreasonable (as in, irrational) thing to do. It may not fix the problem
>> up in the long-term, and is therefore not actually truly affordable.
>
> and yet, this has been the mantra of hardware makers for the last
> 30 years. "Hardware is cheap, people are expensive" is the rule.
> The mantra was invented by IBM: wonder of wonders, a hardware maker.
>
> It's as wrong as it can be: witness the enormous bottom lines and
> profits of hardware makers compared to consultant or contractor
> suppliers.
>
> What the proponents of this "hardware is cheap" argument NEVER explain
> is that a hardware upgrade is NEVER cheap nor simple. In 99.99999%
> of the cases, it involves some very expensive additional upgrade
> (new motherboard, new memory, new chassis, new this, new that)
> and some serious disruption to the production stream (you can't
> just walk to a box and plonk a new chassis). And it requires heavy
> and expensive human resourcing.
>
> All that somehow magically ends up disguised in a marketing dinner, or
> other suitable kickback to the idiot who authorises the hardware upgrade.
> Of course hardware upgrades are "cheap"!
>
> The more things change, the more they stay the same...
>
>
>>
>> Even the lowest end of town must known that 10K today, plus 10K next
>> year, plus 10K the year after is not a 'quick-and-cheap' alternative to
>> paying 15K-right-now-and-that's-all.
>
> Ah, but you see: the 10k here and there is already budgeted for and has
> been accepted as a way of life. People expenses however are cost-cutting
> items: that means they are never on budget, they are always extras.
> In the bean counter mentality, "extras := $$$$, budget != n*$$$$".
>
> The whole thing is ridiculous. The amount of waste in IT with all
> this "hardware-centric" approach has only increased in the last
> 30 years. I had this very same discussion yonks ago in
> Canopus/Compuserve, when NT came out and the "tuning-du-jour" was: "add
> memory". Somehow, the true cost of adding that memory never was accounted
> for.
>
> It's the way this stupid industry operates. Nothing
> we can do to change it. Other than find clients with half a
> brain and stick with them. The others, hopefully Darwin will
> take care of them. So far, it's worked.
>
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam
I enjoy it when we agree. It makes me think I must have been right!!
Cheers too!
HJR
Received on Tue Aug 24 2004 - 01:42:49 CDT
