NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/sys/dec/6753

Text File | 1993-01-08 | 9.7 KB | 173 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!umnstat.stat.umn.edu!rjg
From: [e-mail] (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: DEC puts first marketroid on the moon
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: DEC INFOSHARE Alpha lunacy
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: itasca.stat.umn.edu
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
References: <kGd=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:40:30 GMT
Lines: 159

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Marcus J Ranum) writes:
|> [e-mail] writes:
|> >Believe it or not, but we have a lot of requests from customers for OSF/1
|> >Alpha. This means that we have a lot of work to answer all different aspects
|> >and we cannot do everything in one day ! We have to put some priorities !
|> >The mail you are speaking about has to be putted in this context : asking for
|> >some feedback to put a priority.
|>
|>     I sympathise with the problem of lack of resources and being forced
|> to prioritize. I've heard that complaint many times, and I understand what
|> it feels like to be on the short end of "lack of resources".

The main problem with corporate criticism, is that it's far too easy to
be critical.  No matter who you work with or who your supplier is, you
will always find something that is a major problem and make some other
guy look much more attractive.  But switch, and it will be learned that
the same problems exist there, just with different names and areas.

I have no doubts that there is a lot of requests for OSF/1 on Alpha.  Just
a few months ago, the fecal-matter hit the fan when the customer base
learned about the possibility of no OSF/1 on the now orphaned DECstations.

Prioritization is _critical_ for a company.  However, as a customer of any
company, I expect that prioritization to be long term.  When I align myself
with a single vendor, I expect that the evidence presented to me in the
sales meetings are at least semi-accurate and that an effort is made to
follow through with the promises made for software, hardware, upgradeability
and long-term value for the investment.

Alpha looks interesting - very, as a matter of fact.  However, we have none.
We have DECstation 3100's and various 5000's.  If we are going to consider
Alpha, we insist on an upgrade path that is relatively, at least, seamless.
OSF/1 was the vehicle promised.  The promise was that after Ultrix 4.3, the
next Ultrix was OSF/1.  This same OSF/1 would be available on the new
(unnamed at that time) platform, and all we needed to do was consider it
a CPU upgrade - i.e., we could integrate new hardware into the existing
network.

To be honest, I'm still waiting.  I had to _fight_ to get Ultrix 4.2 when
I needed it.  We're still waiting for the MIPS R4000 upgrades for the
5000's.  We were extremely disappointed and concerned when we learned that
our existing platforms probably could not be integrated with new hardware
easily - at least not without separate servers.

All in all, every one of these points has been addressed or improved in
some manner.  However, DECs "priorities" have shifted many times in the
past three years, and I honestly don't know _where_ they are going next.
I have no problems with priorities, or even priorities that will
instantly send me running and screaming for asylum from Sun or SGI.  A
clear corporate path and direction makes it very easy for the customer
to choose the vendor (or vendors) that will help solve their computing
and software problems.

DECs priorities have shifted so often, at least in appearance, that even
when shown a priority, I immediately have to question it.  I'm nervous
being "on the cutting edge" with DEC, because I don't know where that
edge will be in six months.

I'm very happy to see DEC solidifying it's direction, but when you've been
burned before, you wait - and see - and then put it back in the same
category as all other vendor options - in other words, start over and
convince me again.

Am I happy with DEC and it's products?  Without a doubt.  With the exception
of the VR262 monitor whose picture tube reliability problems I don't
understand, the equipment has been extremely robust, reliable and fast.  The
fast graphics capability made other, faster, options pale from the cost
aspect.  Service has been reasonable.  Ultrix is reasonably robust and
solid (ALL flavors of Unix have _some_ bugs which will bite you someday).
The availability of "anything you may need" for the system is very good.

Am I dissappointed with DEC?  There again, the answer is yes.  Although
service is good, it's cumbersome.  Getting information is like pulling
teeth (I may have been spoiled from other vendors, but in three years I
have never managed to attain the same level of "trust" from DEC).  The
direction of the company seems to be quite fluid from the customer point
of view and nervousness is high because of the company's inability or
unwillingness to follow through with long-term promises.  Offerings that
are important to the customer (though perhaps not DEC) are also quite a
bit behind the market average (DAT drives are several gigabytes behind the
market, aside from being late; R4000 upgrade daughterboards have lagged
WAY behind, etc.)

|>     On the other hand, lack of resources is part of being a vendor. It's
|> part of being a *successful* vendor to know how to prioritize internally,
|> and to know how to keep lack of resources from hurting your business. Digital
|> seems to have no understanding of the basic fact:
|>
|>     A vendor's customers don't care about lack of resources. They can
|>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
|>     buy from someone who doesn't have that problem.
|>     -----------------------------------------------

Lack of resources, the market, the economy, etc. will all affect a
company's ability to produce and provide.  DEC has faced difficult times
as have many.  A downsizing or delay in offerings is manageable or
understandable - at least it should be by the customer.  The fact that
something is late or even occasionally terminated, is not something one
should get worked up about (it can be dealt with).

But when you invest several years into a product line or company that has
shown or convinced you that the long-term viability is there and that the
future direction leads to the solutions you require, you expect that the
company will follow through.  DECs multiple apparent re-prioritization in
the past has confused, confounded and angered some customers.  As someone
who strives to make things work, I have to admit to being quite leery
about DECs solidly-written-in-stone current priorities.  I'll give it the
benefit of the doubt, but I'm also much more likely to sit back and take
stock of the company's five-year history when the need comes to make
another 5 year investment.  If I had/have a solid _partnership_ with a
vendor, it's likely they'll have a great advantage when I need to do a
major system overhaul.  But if I don't, then all the cards are on the
table, all vendors are equal.  A bad relationship and no partnership puts
the current vendor in a bad position, though one tries to view them with
as much equality as the others.  I've never been able to develop the same
"partnership" with DEC as I have been able to with NCR, AT&T and others,
unfortunately.

Sorry.  I ramble.  :-)

|>     Market analysts get paid big bux (probably much more than the folks
|> from DEC who read news in their spare time at 2:00am) to know what customers
|> want. A vendor that knows what customers want and is able to *anticipate*
|> those needs is what is called "in touch with the market." A vendor that is
|> constantly in a reactive mode because of lack of resources, where the
|> vendor's top technical staff (who often are in touch with the market) are
|> forced to beg for ammunition to help fight internal battles is "out of touch"
|> and often "out of luck" because by the time those battles are fought,
|> your competitor has stolen a march on you. This is called, in modern
|> buzz words, "being proactive." Boy scouts call it "being prepared." Some
|> people, myself included, take lack of preparedness as an indication of
|> lack of commitment. Vendors cannot afford this.

If my needs diverge from the majority of the market, I can fully understand
the difficulties I'll be faced with.  Sometimes those philosophies can change
in mid-flow.  When the market switched from mainframes to workstations, there
is going to be a border-line battle and someone is going to lose.  The same
goes for general philosophies.  If our design of networked semi-independent
workstations becomes unpopular, we'll have to change or live within the
limits available.  But when our design is very broad and our requirements
are even broader, it's felt that we will at least be "in touch with the
market" for many years to come, even when that market changes - even
if it changes dramatically.

|>     I sympathise with Digital's problems, but if I were a customer of
|> Digital's, I would't *care* about them. There's a subtle distinction.

I care, as I care about the future of the company and those that work for
it.  However, I have to care more about our local needs and the solutions
for the problems we face.  DEC has the resources and offerings to solve
them.  They've never lacked.  However, the long term direction must be
solid and clear also.  That's what I have to care about...

Sorry, I ramble again.  The last time I did, I got quoted in two newspapers.
:-)

--
\\ Robert J. Granvin                                 User Services Specialist
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota            [e-mail]