As a professional trainer, I can assure you that the cost of training staff in a second O/S is smaller than the cost of lost productivity corporate-wide. Tell them that they are moving from known stability to an unknown. Even if it works, they are facing weeks or months of settling in time. The overtime and delays in setting up the new system are likely to be larger than the delays caused by training.
Please also point out that staff sees training as 'the employer investing in them' and downtime as 'the employer is mad at me' - they'll know which is better for morale in IT and corporate-wide.
- Charles Barouch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sara Burns wrote:
The general thinking is that it must be more effective to only have one
operating system. Less staff training etc etc etc.
As there is so much that is NT based they think that all should be on NT.
That includes UniVerse and Oracle. Of course SQLServer doesn't have the
choice.
The fact that UniVerse and Oracle are supported on NT makes it that much
harder to explain that this is not such a good idea. I need facts to back
up my feelings. Some years ago I was told by one of the knowledgeable
contributors to this list that "We would be brave to go the NT route, as we
would be the biggest site to do this." I am trying to find out if that has
changed with the evolution of new versions of NT - now W2K3.
Just my .02
-John
-- Sincerely, Charles Barouch www.KeyAlly.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
