Well, I held off getting into this debate as long as I could. There is one aspect to this discussion that hasn't been covered yet, that is near and dear to my heart. Perhaps the easiest way to describe is by example. Let's say I have a 957 that is running my business applications. For sake of simplicity, let's say that is MANMAN with the following modules, manufacturing, order processing, general ledger and accounts payable. I now decide to add field service and project tracking. Because of adding these two new modules, I am "forced" to upgrade my CPU to a 967. I am suddenly faced with paying an upgrade fee on the original four modules of the MANMAN package. WHY? I have not added any users to the group that use these modules. I am not getting any more "value" from the use of these modules. I have purchased more software from the vendor, made a larger committment to them, and now must pay even more for that priviledge. Does something seem strange about this to you? Granted this is specific example, but I bet that every IS manager can think of somewhere in his/her world that follows this model. I understand and appreciate the point of view of the vendors who use Tier based pricing as a way of making their product affordable to smaller shops, but there are some real problems when the model is applied with no room for discretion. Terry W. Simpkins Lucas Control Systems Products (804) 766-4278 [log in to unmask] *************************************************************** ** The "UK" in my mail address does NOT mean I have moved. ** ** It just means I am cheap, and use the gateway at another ** ** Lucas site instead of putting up one of my own. ** ** Opinions here are mine only, not my employers ** ***************************************************************