I spent many hours in the 1980's filling out endless forms for capital
funds in order to buy computers (HP3000s) for the company(ies) I was
with at the time.

I was told the trick was to get enough money up front so you didn't have
to go "back to the well" a few months or a year or two later, for more
funds for the same project.  That was stupid, but that was the way the
game was played.

I tried to explain to senior management that prices kept coming down and
that computing power was increasing every year and that it was stupid to
buy for years in advance.  I repeatedly tried to explain that the
company would save oodles of money (a financial term) if they just
started buying with a shorter view.

I was told that since getting capital funds was such an involved process
that it actually cost less to spend more upfront rather than go back
more frequently for smaller amounts.

When I asked if they would fire some bean counters if I just did one big
capital funds request to last 10 years, I was told I was not a team
player.

I still maintain, now more than ever, that buying computing power for
more than 12 months is a waste of money.

My team is very small.  :-)

Denys


-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Emerson, Tom
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 5:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] any new migration success stories?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denys Beauchemin
> > Tom wrote in part:
> > [...]
> > The fact that what you buy --today-- will have enough "horsepower"
to meet your
> > needs --three to five years down the road-- is what I'm talkging
about
> > [...]

> I would also state that anyone who buys computers nowadays, spending
> money to make sure the machine will meet the needs for 3 to 5 years is
> not using the funds properly.  It would be better to buy a machine to
> meet your current and 12 months needs and then simply replace it with
> another one the following year or so.

That isn't quite what I meant -- people were buying HP3000's sized to
meet today's needs [and any anticipated growth for the next year as you
suggest] but they were finding that after that year was up, the
"current" system still had capacity to spare.  "just because it's been a
year" is hardly a business-case to make for buying "new stuff".  Even if
after that year they actually grew enough to make the system seem
sluggish, the systems were often upgradable with newer/faster processors
and the like for less than a comparable "new" system, so again the
result is "no sale" [of a "new" system]

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *