Conversation with PTUS.
I am not trying to get into a "pissing" match with you, but I received an email from my financial advisor. He says he called PTUS and asked them specific questions regarding their y2k toolsets.
From his email, it seems that PTUS got into the y2k game late and did not have any "assessment" toolsets. That is the main reason they decided to buy Millennium Dynamics. It seems that Millennium had the assessment tools that would compliment PTUS's conversion tools.
PTUS believed that most of the assessment / identification would of been completed by the time they entered the race, but to their surprise, and as all of us y2k investors are aware, companies had delayed their y2k obligations.
Furthermore, He asked the following questions and received the following answers.
=====================
1. Q. "Can your toolset automatically convert code ?"
A. YES
2. Q. "From the time you start the conversion process until it is
finished, you are saying that no programmers have to manually convert any code ?"
A. well, no not exactly. Our toolset can, on average, automatically convert 95% of the code. The remaining 5% requires a programmer to go in and make the changes manually.
3. Q. " so you are saying that your toolset can automatically convert 95% of the code and after the conversion process 5%, on average, has to be done manually. ?"
A. YES.
========================
The above conversation took place with Jackie Crowlet (sp?) at PTUS Investment Relations (508) 670-0800
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted, when you said that PTUS, like CSGI, can automatically convert code and NO PROGRAMMERS ARE NEEDED TO CHANGE A SINGLE LINE OF CODE ONCE THE PROCESS STARTS, is not correct.
According to PTUS own IR, they can only automatically convert 95% of the code. The other 5% must involve manual intervention.
From your demo at CSGI you have stated that once the rules were established, a CSGI technician "pushed a button" and the toolset automatically found and converted the code.
ONCE THE PROCESS WAS STARTED, THE TOOLSET CONVERTED 100% OF THE CODE AUTOMATICALLY.
Most people may not think that the difference between converting 100% of the code or 95% is a big difference, but from what I understand, just because you automatically converted 95% of the code, doesn't necessarily mean you would have a 95% solution.
For example.
Let us say there are 50,000 date occurrences that need to be made y2k compliant.
Using the PTUS toolset 95% or 47,500 of them will be converted automatically. The remaining 5% or 2,500 have to be converted manually.
You have now 2,500 chances for a possibility of "human" error.
At a 5% error rate, you would have 125 errors.
What would happen when you go and test this code. Would you have a 95% solution or a 0% solution ?
ConSyGen, on the other hand, converts 100% of the code.
Since 100% of the code is converted Automatically, there is no need for any human intervention once the conversion process starts.
Therefore, CSGI's process eliminates the need for human intervention. Since not one single line of code is converted manually, the chance for human error, in the conversion phase, is eliminated.
Once ConSyGen successfully converts the code there should be no errors and the code should test very easily.
We all now know that there will be a major crunch in the next year. Some companies may have to lessen their testing standards just so they can finish in time.
Who do you think they would rather have their code converted by ?
1. A company that uses hundreds of programmers to manually convert code.
2. A company that has automated toolsets that only convert 90% to 95% of the code, leaving 5% to 10% to manual intervention.
Or
3. A company like ConSyGen that converts 100% of the code automatically, which should limit, if not eliminate, the potential for human errors.
If the #'s on PUTS are correct, then they can NOT be compared to CSGI.
The standard is simple:
Automatically Find the code ::: Automatically Convert 100% of the code.
I have asked him to call SEEC and VIAS and ask them the same questions. I think we will see similar results.
Since you reported your results of the ConSyGen Demo, two things have changed.
1. The figures on what percentage of the date occurrences CSGI can identify vs. how many have to be verified by the client. In your report, you stated that 70% can be identified as "for sure" and 30% remain "questionable" and have to be verified by the client.
Since that time, Ron Bishop has stated that those numbers were incorrect. Approx. 95% of the code can be identified as "for sure" by CSGI and only 5% has to be verified by the client.
2. The statement that PTUS, like CSGI, can automatically find and convert code, and during the conversion process not one line of code is converted manually.
With the latest information I received on PTUS, the above statement is not true. Although PTUS can automatically convert code, only 95% is done automatically. The other 5% requires manual intervention. This is clearly not the same as a 100% conversion with no manual intervention.
You may still consider ConSyGen in the middle of the pack, but I feel that they should be considered higher up.
Well, at least higher up than PTUS.
BTW- there is still one thing CSGI reported that no other company has to date.
That is the successful completion and testing of a Y2K project. I have not found any other company that has reported to have successfully finished and successfully test a project.
If anyone has seen such a press release, other than ConSyGen's, please post it to me on this thread. |
