* Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030610 18:35]: ->On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 02:46, James Mohr wrote: ->> In the real world, decisions like which OS to use are usually based ->> on economics. -> ->s/usually/hardly ever -> ->It's usually decided on a "what is everybody else running" or "what did ->that guy say that I played golf with last Saturday" -> ->You give upper management *way* too much credit Yep. I've seen this first hand. I was part of a migration team several years ago that took Anheuser-Busch from a working Lotus email system that worked very well and had a group of 22 admins+techsupport+management. This occurred when "management" above the "email group" decided that the company MUST have Exchange and Outlook. The migration took 14 months because none of the email group had the slightest clue how to do any of this..let alone setup that big of an Exchange server farm and convert all those clients. Had they stuck with their current setup they could have upgraded cheaper and had it done in 30% of the time. It's never the geeks or their direct managers in most large to medium size companies that make the decisions and it's CERTAINLY not for economic reasons 9-10 times. It's a case " oh boy that CEO's company is using *blah* so I MUST use *blah* or we won't be competitive..." These days it's becoming partly economic since quite a few companies just can't afford Microsoft wares and the headaches they bring with them. But it takes some early adopters to get the other PHB's at the country club to sit up and take notice an say " I must have that..." -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in the opposite direction.