Conference 7.286::digital

    She obviously never heard the second half of that particular dictum.
    The full version is "use what we produce, where appropriate".
    
    	- andy

And the corollary is "make what we produce worth using".  Which sadly
doesn't always seem to be the case.

    I don't like using ALL-IN-1...I use VAXmail for everything.  In fact,
    I forward all my ALL-IN-1 Mail to my VAXmail account.  I don't see
    why anyone would use A1 personally, but that's my opinion.
    
    Regarding internally developed systems, my opinion leans towards the
    anti-MIS stance.  I've seen some stinker internal systems.  A popular
    thing to fall back on is 'well, at the time there was nothing
    available, so we built this thing, and even though there's something
    better now, it's too late to change'.
    
    The last time I looked, our internal ordering system (System 'T' et al)
    was pretty ugly, and could nicely be replaced by one of the
    Distribution and Logistics packages available on the market.
    
    My $0.02...
    
    Jim

    IN Defense of ALL-IN-1, it is a wonderful system where appropriate. The
    problem with it is not so much with the product (Well, it does have
    some product problems, but that's another matter.) The major problem is
    the implementation of ALL-IN-1 in Digital. Typically, it is instituted
    as a bare bones OA Shell, with little or no customizations, no
    integration of layered products that would be of advantage to the
    groups using it, etc etc. THe fault for this is most typically the I.S.
    organizations that implement it, and are not proactive in the services
    that they provide.
    
    q
    

    While I agree that using our own products just because they are our own
    isn't a wise decision, we should be careful when making comparisons
    between internal products and those from the outside.
    
    One reason is that even though a Digital product may not be as good
    today as someone else's that doesn't mean its always going to be that
    way.  We, as internal users, have far more control on the direction of
    our internal products that we do over those in the general market
    place.  
    
    An example of this is RDB.  In its early days, it lacked a lot. 
    But over time, many of those deficiencies have been fixed, the
    capabilities that were needed added, and performance became more
    respectable.  That didn't happen by accident.  Many, many internal
    groups drove those decisions to make it what it is today.
    
    Now, you can argue whether RDB is really the best product in its class
    but I think its safe to say that it has come a long way.  Would
    internal IS groups have the same amount of influence over INGRESS or
    ORACLE or FOCUS development?
    
    Another consideration is cost, not just acquisition cost but life cycle
    costs.  This includes licenses, support, documentation, consulting,
    etc.  Often (not always but often enough) these will turn out to be
    cheaper with an internal product.  Again, this should be the sole
    criteria but it should be considered carefully.  They aren't always the
    easiest things to nail down.
    
    A dog is a dog and that's no excuse for using something that doesn't
    meet at least the basic functionality for which its intended.  But we
    do need to look at both the long and short run aspects of every one of
    these decisions.  Its not always easy (or cheap) to convert once you've
    chosen a path to take.

    
>    The last time I looked, our internal ordering system (System 'T' et al)
>    was pretty ugly, and could nicely be replaced by one of the
>    Distribution and Logistics packages available on the market.
    
    Like MAXCIM for instance? :-) Anyone who suggests buying an
    external package should see how well we manage with that!
    
    John

    Anyone who insists that we *MUST* use our own products should be forced
    to use TECO for all future editing and text working.

    I use some of our products, others I try to avoid. By the time I have
    fully learned all the tricks of one product I am informed that it is no
    longer fashionable and I could do so much more in less time if only I
    would use the latest product. 

    A couple of times I tried this and found that I am allergic to V1.0
    products as I don't like weird bugs. I also found out that it takes
    ages to get back to my original speed on a new product. By that time
    the cycle starts again.

    Thus I made one move from the old line editor on Tops10 to EVE on VMS
    missing out several on the way. As for All-in-bits? Sorry it is too
    slow for me.

    Jamie.

Re .8:

Gee, I wish I had my college homework assignment of LINED rewritten in Rutgers
Pascal online for you.  You wouldn't have had to go to EVE.
				/AHM

re: .8,

>    A couple of times I tried this and found that I am allergic to V1.0
>    products as I don't like weird bugs. 

    	Apparently you are not alone.  A product of mine underwent a
    naming ceremony from "Pulse V2.3" to "DECpulse V1.0" to "DECpulse V3.0"
    (the first renaming was due to a trademark issue, and the second
    was due to the market's tendency to avoid V1.0 products like the
    plague).

    				   -davo

    There are some interesting plans being drawn up to revamp our internal
    MIS systems. Concept is that the IM&T org provides services up to the
    plug in the wall and simply recommends which "appliances" should be
    plugged into it. High on the list is PCs and Macs and they don't care
    where you get them from since the expense is that born by the user
    organization.

That strategy looses,for DIGITAL overall, because it does not force us to come
to grips with our own product strategy. If we don't use our own products (which
we get at cost) why would a customer buy at our sales price? I always thought
that we would have been better off using are products and improving them as
required. It's a harder rote to follow but at least you arrive at the
destination.

re: .12

>That strategy looses,for DIGITAL overall, because it does not force us to come
>to grips with our own product strategy. If we don't use our own products (which
>we get at cost) why would a customer buy at our sales price? I always thought
>that we would have been better off using are products and improving them as
>required. It's a harder rote to follow but at least you arrive at the
>destination.


Thats exactly the point our customers shouldn't be expected to buy something
that we won't use! Likewise, why should we (DEC MIS) be expected to use 
something in our business systems that our customers won't use?  Do you
really think that our customers will buy an inferior product simply because
a salesperson points at DEC's MIS and says "See, we use it!"? Don't kid
yourself.

I've read time again, comments from people who have to interact with some of our
business systems, about how poor they are. I suggest that at least some of that
is caused by the products that were used. DEC's MIS organization has been
touted as "DEC's largest customer", well if thats true then does DEC expect
that its largest customer should use DEC's products simply because it has
DEC's name on it or because its the best product in its class?

Users of our business systems have a choice they can insist that only DIGITAL
products be used, and suffer the consequences or they can insist that the
product that demonstrates the best quality be used. If the result is embarassing
for DIGITAL, then that should send a strong message back to engineering.

If all users, not just MIS, had to use our products I believe our customers
would receive better products. MIS and other technical users should compare
outside packages with our products and demand similar functionality from
engineering. Senior management should arbitrate.

We're a pretty diverse company, geographically and functionally.  We do
business on all continents, in many langauges, with many market sectors.  We
design, manufacture, distribute hardware.  We design, implement, deploy
software.  We provide educational, consulting, and repair services.

So..., if we won't use it internally, maybe it should never be a product!

I propose that no hard or software be released to the marketplace without
some internal Digital organization having used it for a negotiated period of
time, planned as part of the development cycle.  Feedback is mandatory, even
if it's oversimplified.  Response to the feedback likewise.

At least we won't try to hit the market with a V1.0 product cold.

Dick



   

    Seems to me that if we have the best products at the best prices there 
    should be no argument.  Nobody should be forced to use what we sell.
    However, if someone uses something from outside when what we have
    inside has the best performance for the best price and all other things
    are equal, then there should be some kind of penalty.  Not because
    our products weren't used, but simply because of bad business decisions
    in light of having our own superior products available.
    
    Steve

>I heard a true story from Detroit.  Any car company employee driving
>competitor's car to work must park far away in hugh parking lot.  Also,
>he/she will expect to file an insurance claim pretty soon.

	So, you're advocating that DEC thugs commit acts of
	vandalism against systems known to be running non-DEC
	software, eh?

--

This all seems pretty straightforward to me.   Ideally, we should
use what we sell.  On the other hand, that decision shouldn't
be forced by decree.  We should want to use what we sell because it's
the best in its class.   If you want to use something else,
you should be allowed to do so, provided you can make a valid
case for so doing.  This case would be passed on to the product
team to let them know why they'd lost a "sale" to the competition.  

re .14


>Sounds like you are not working for DEC.  If you insist to use outside
>wonderful product,  I have a solution:  Contract out the MIS job to a
>small company.  This will save DEC a lot of money.  Including you guys'
>high pay.  We don't need you.

First, I do work for DEC and love it. However, I am not working with blinders
on. Not all of our products are THE BEST in the marketplace, to believe
otherwise is nieve. I would like nothing else then to be able to use
DEC products exclusively with all the confidence in the world that it
will do the best possible job. I also realize that there are going to be
times that its just not going to be possible to do that.

Second the idea that DEC can save money by contracting its MIS needs
to any company let alone a "SMALL" one is ludicrous, please just how do you 
that they will be able to keep up with all that will be demanded of them?
Even if this came to be, what will happen to the idea of using DEC's
equipment for DEC business systems? The "other" company may very well use
IBM's or DG's or well you fill in the blank.

Third, you don't need us? I'm hurt! (-;
       High salaries?   compared to who?

>I was amazed to read one noter explained: they would have difficulty to
>find outside job if they switched to Rdb.  Which is more important?
>Your job career or DEC's future?  

Both are important to me... I still fail to see how using DEC's products
exclusively is going to help DEC and/or me... Convince me that customers
buy DEC products because DEC uses them....

>Where is your company loyalty?

Thats a very loaded question right now! I'd like some answers from
those that have been TS... er, layed off! Where is DEC's loyalty?
I know, I know, all they owe us is a weeks pay for a weeks work.
Well, then loyalty has nothing, nada, zilch, zero to do with it.

Lets not rathole this discussion with this line, lets take it to another note
if you want to persue it.



>I heard a true story from Detroit.  Any car company employee driving
>competitor's car to work must park far away in hugh parking lot.  Also,
>he/she will expect to file an insurance claim pretty soon.
    
Do you agree with this type of threat? They probably park far away because 
of danger from coworkers, not the company. Maybe, if they dare, if the have
the gall to actually drive a competitor's product their survivors may
need to file for death benefits. Well, I guess that example sure makes
an impression on me. I want "ALL-IN-1" (is that the correct tradename?)
installed on my system right now!  Get this MS-DOS system out of my office
NOW!! I want VMS....  (-;

- George

oops, .19 is in response to .17 not .14

- George

         *** Reality Alert!  *** Reality Alert! *** Reality Alert! ***
    
    
    I defy anyone to tell me that throughout their days with Digital
    (no matter the number) that they have never used anything BUT 
    Digital home grown software applications. 
    
    Furthermore, I defy anyone to find a customer in today's vast
    computing environment who as a single vendor environment all be it
    hardware or software or both!  Should DEC be any different in reality!
    
    Lastly, lets not forget about the revenues which third party applications
    generate via DEC hardware and service sales. The Oracle's, Focus's,
    Cincom's, etc. of the world, get a lot of VAXs w/service in the door!
    
    
    

    Re .23

    >Using what we produce:  What about PCs?

    I was unaware that we produced PCs. I thought other manufacturers
    produced them, with our logo on, and we just sold them.

    Jamie.

    A problem we run into is that we produce such a variety of products and
    solutions that it's virtually impossible to literally use what we
    produce!  PC's is one example.  Most of our customers' desktops are
    MS-DOS machines.  Such machines are RARE here in DEC.  We DO NOT use
    our own products, like Computer Integrated Telephony and many of the
    Field offices in the U.S. are using an IBM-type Networking solution
    (remote terminals connected to a centralized processing cluster) instead 
    of distributing the computing where the people are...
    
    I have no problem with being told to "use what we produce".  I do
    object to having that dictum enforced too narrowly...

    Pathworks outperforms Novell?!
    
    Do you by any chance spend a lot of time sitting real close to a
    monitor that's got very high EM emmissions? 

re .26

>> DEC has a lot of PC product at street compatible price.

DEC's PC prices are ridiculously high. 

Bob.

    Yes, but streets are also very expensive, especially with union
    wages and all.

    Now, if you want to compare our PC prices with *other PCs*...

People should be free to use whatever they wish in order to get their jobs
done. If people choose non-DEC systems, products or services, then the very
least we get is a source of excellent market research data that can be used
to improve our own offerings...
								- Ian W.

    Re using what we produce and PC's:
    
    In our group we're now running DECwrite T2.0 on our notebook PC (not to
    mention our desktop PC's).  
    
    INCREDIBLE!!!

>>    In our group we're now running DECwrite T2.0 on our notebook PC [...]

>    Digital will  NOT  muy  notebooks  for  employees,  you are expected to
>    provide them for yourself under Employee Purchase. This came from PCF.
    
    That memo came out 6 months ago, recently I have seen a few people with
    Digital owned machines.  I wonder if the plan changed?