This subject seems to be very emotive and I can understand why. The
whole problem seems to stem from certain vendors overcharging when a
customer has to upgrade their hardware through necessity (e.g. no
choice). If the charges were "reasonable" (and not, in some cases much
more than the cost of the harware upgrade), then there would not be
too much belly-aching. The fact that a customer has bought a product
originally, and paid the price, should qualify them for a "loyalty"
discount when the time comes to upgrade to a larger system. In this
case, the customer feels happier about getting a good deal, the
manager finds the upgrade easier to justify and the customer remains
with the vendor's product with the prospect that a further upgrade
(and it's additional, reasonable cost) could happen in the future.
Alternatively, if the vendor demands an inflated figure, the customer
feels "gouged", dumps the vendor's product whatever the cost and
spreads discontent about the vendor. If you were a vendor, which
scenario would you prefer?

Just my $.02.

Cheers,
John Dunlop

E-mail : [log in to unmask]
Web  : http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~jdunlop/
"All your HP3000 resources on the Net"