X-no-Archive:yes
Thank you for your reply, Gavin. 

Gavin writes:
> I'd examine any non-3000 systems laying around first.
Good point! And an excellent example of consolidation of the kind that Wirt
has recommended before. 

> Conversely, would replacing a large box with two smaller boxes, or
> augmenting an existing box with another one provide improvements in
> redundancy or other advantages such as splitting development off onto a
> small box where development tools are cheaper.
I guess I wasn't very clear. I meant consolidating two production boxes or
two development boxes, but not production and development together. And even
then, there is crash and burn development versus maintenance. Still, good
point, that there can be productivity and efficiency benefits to more
instead of fewer boxes. 

> And if so, investigate whether the cost savings for dropping support on
that
> tool actually out weigh the advantages of keeping it, since you've
probably
> already invested a lot of money in it.  Try to make the best use of the
> tools you've purchased.
Right. Perhaps the best remedy to an unused tool is training. I'm trying to
avoid a chainsaw mentality. There's nothing wrong with discovering that one
is already productive and efficient, or underfunded, and productivity and
efficiency will first require some investment. I'm sure there are good
stories out there. And I would love to hear them. Really. War stories,
lessons learned, questions to ask, any of these are welcome, whether they
come from one's own shop or an engagement in someone else's. 

> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/LART.html
Is this where Allegro got the inspiration for Mr. Sledgehammer ®? 

Greg Stigers 
http://www.cgiusa.com