TENNET: I believe you misquoted me.
You said "Then when Ted mentioned how some so called "best of the breed"(a term PINC uses) Y2K fixs, are really no good, this made me even more concerned about his "unbiased" look at MBCK."
I didn't say any of the products "are really no good". What I really said was "If a product doesn't analyze the application software and the user written code (Excel spreadsheets, etc.), then I don't think it's very effective as a Y2K tool. As soon as you put that requirement on the tool, several of the hardware-centric tools drop out of contention for "best-of-breed"."
I didn't say that any "best-of-breed" tools were no good. I said that hardware-centric tools can't be "best-of-breed" because they leave out software, the most important part (in my opinion).
By the way, "best-of-breed" is not a PINC specific term, which is what you made it sound like when you said it was a term PINC uses. It's a phrase frequently used by the general populace.
ztect admitted to his sensitivity and apologized for it, so it seems my assessment of his posts was more correct than yours.
Now, if you'll kindly stop spouting off your preconceived notions of my motivations while I do my evaluation, perhaps I can spend more time doing what I came here to do and less time defending myself. Then, I'll go away and you guys can argue your little heads off. An activity you folks seem to enjoy.
My evaluation will be unbiased, but I doubt that you'll believe that until you see it. So, why not wait until you see it? The interesting part about this is if I post a glowing report on the product, you'll swear it's unbiased. If, on the other hand, I post a negative evaluation, you'll swear my intentions were to come here and slam the product. Looks to me like the cards are stacked in your favor, so you can quit worrying.
Regards,
TED |
