Hi, Rick: In all fairness and in light of recent patch releases (eh hem DST P20), I would much rather them take as long as necessary to properly test and QA this combination before releasing it to the masses. I'm hoping that it's not a low priority for them and they're simply trying to get it right this time. I'm sure they are aware that their reputation among some of their customers might be at stake. On the more obvious point, I believe you're making... If you've been given an Estimated Time of Release for a product and months have passed, I would say that they might need to work on setting and meeting expectations. I almost wish they would say, "sometime in 2007" and be done with it. I agree with your last point that, "BMC sales would try to sell it [ITSM 6] as an alternative...". This is what some companies on their own are electing to do. That is installing ARS 7.0 with ITSM 6.0 as a solution. My two cents, Michelle
________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 9:16 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ADM:Timing Test, please ignore, ITSM7 ** As soon as ITSM 6 will work with CMDB 2.0? That was supposed to happen in November, then December, then January, and now it's February. I keep being told it's in process, but geez, it's been so long since it was promised that I have to think it's a pretty low priority for them. I do wish we had the option of keeping some people on ITSM 6 until their organizations were ready for ITIL, and that BMC sales would try to sell it as an alternative when it was the better alternative for a particular customer. Rick ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Bloom Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 5:52 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ADM:Timing Test, please ignore, ITSM7 ** Robert, Hmm, could it be more difficult than a change to ITSM7? You know, I could get into a lot of trouble for this. On the one hand, I love the look and feel of ITSM7. Most certainly it feels more ITIL aligned than ITSM6, and has some neat stuff in it. On the other, gosh I hate converting people from ITSM6 to it, and really, waiting for ITSM6 on CMDB2.0 makes a lot of sense for a lot of people. A number of folks I know and respect have commented on ITSM6 being a very good option, and as soon as the upgrade to CMDB2.0 is available I think that answers that issue. [anybody want a really heated discussion of the field ids in ITSM7? Ed, got your breakdown spreadsheet of how many are outside the prescribed range done yet?] thanks for the kudos .... Daniel ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Molenda Sent: February 19, 2007 8:01 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ADM:Timing Test, please ignore Thanks Daniel; We DO appreciate your efforts :-) Hopefully your upgrade goes better than ITSM7... Oh wait those are "in side the head words"... darn those just keep leaking out these days... Thanks-n-advance; HDT Platform Incident / Problem Manager & Architect Robert Molenda IT OS PA Tel: +1 408 503 2701 Fax: +1 408 503 2912 Mobile: +1 408 472 8097 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quality begins with your actions. __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
