Nick Demos said on Wednesday, February 03, 1999 12:08 PM (-0500)

> Yes, BUT we would expect Gartner to know better.  We don't need
> forecasters like Gartner to say the obvious, hell, I can do that.
> They are supposed to be smarter or at least better researched.  I
> think that Gartner should have known the IBM organization
> and AT LEAST inserted a caveat in its prediction, to wit "If IBM
> aggressively markets and supports OS/2".

What I was trying to say is that *no one* has a bloody crystal ball - not
Gartner, not Forrester (no one mentioned these prima donnas, did they?), not
anyone.  One can only go with the data they have.

If anyone puts their entire decision-making stock in Gartner, Forrester, or
any of the other "research firms" - which do a good job most of the time, I
might add - and only in what these overpriced reports say, they're crazy.
There's more that goes into a technology decision than what someone who does
not use the product on a day-to-day basis has to say.

I look at Gartner reports (when I can get my hands on them) and HP has
periodically sent complimentary reprints of Forrester reports in the past.
I read them... but nothing, beats due diligence.  You wouldn't buy a house
without due diligence (an inspection, etc. right?) -- how about a car (get
your trusted mechanic to look at it, or at least recommend it) -- then why
should a computer system or software product be any different?

The "Reports" are only a piece of the puzzle.  I feel sorry for the original
poster who said that his boss was placing his stock on what Gartner has to
say -- to me, that manager should not be a manager, he should be looking at
a few other areas as well.  I think it was Denys (?) who put it best - they
get paid to evaluate, they get paid by user for the reports - they win
either way.

J