[Am-info] Amazing......

[Mike Stephen]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:03:18 -0500, John J. Urbaniak wrote:

>
The Windows servers need the help.  They crash... Warp does not.  Warp runs with no need for me 
to do anything.  Therefore I make more money fixing the problems with Windows server.  If the 
Warp server does not need my help, I don't charge for it.  

Simply put, I make more money servicing Windows servers than I make servicing Warp servers.  If 
it was my choice, I prefer Warp servers.  The one advantage I have when a Warp Server is 
installed, is I don't have to worry about a pimple faced geek poaching my clients away.   For the 
most part, the pimple faced geeks do not have an inkling of how to use Warp Server. But if the client 
is hell bent on running a Windows server, I now don't bother trying to talk him/her out of it. I just 
simply install what they want. If that means Windows, I install it.  And I get to bill for all the updates 
and bug fixes as well as fixing it when it crashes.  Since Warp does not need fixing, it stays 
running.  I lose money....(when compared to running a Windows server).

And if the client insists on using Outlook as a mailer, I get even more money to fix the virus 
infections.
>
>Mike Stephen wrote:
>
>> I am in disagreement with your suggestion for ethical reasons.  I cannot and will not pull a client
>> billing for doing nothing.  Thanks for the suggestion, but it really isn't much help for me.
>
>Wait a minute.  You'll happily bill a client for fixing Windows bugs and problems, which you know 
are not
>necessary, and could easily be avoided,  but you feel it's unethical to charge for tweaking and 
PM-ing a
>well-running superior server?
>
>John
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 22:31:32 -0500, John J. Urbaniak wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Mike Stephen wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:51:03 +0000, John Poltorak wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:50:19PM +0800, Mike Stephen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Wow!  Thats new.....  I have 30 replies to my plea saying the client was not available.  
However
>> in
>> >> my case, I found it easier to simply change servers.  At the time the client was not available,
>> and no
>> >> indication than it ever would be.  I didn't subscribe to the support system, so I cannot get the
>> client.
>> >> The customers of mine always wanted Windows as a server (it is a problem always trying to
>> >> convince them that Warp server is a better server, so after doing this repeatedly, I give up).
>> >>
>> >>  I get more money supporting Windows servers than I get Warp servers.  With Warp servers 
on
>> a
>> >> small network I get an average of two calls a year for maintenance.  With Windows servers I 
get
>> 6.
>> >> More money for me, and the customer thinks he prefers Windows.  Why fight it?  IBM is slow 
to
>> fix
>> >> and it costs to get the fixes today.  In the past all the IBM clients for the Windows desktops 
were
>> >> free.  Now they are in a paid subscription.
>> >
>> >Seems to me you could still schedule 6 calls a year for "preventive maintenance."  Go to your
>> client's, say
>> >stuff like "hmmmm, let's tweak this a bit to improve throughput."  Client's happy.  You're happy.
>> You get
>> >paid for doing very little.  What's the problem?
>> >
>> >John
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >From the Desk of Mike Stephen
>

>From the Desk of Mike Stephen