Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Y2K (Year 2000) Stocks: An Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (10536)	3/31/1998 10:26:00 AM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13949

Jeff - Actually, I've never heard that PTUS had a bad tool, only that it was hard to use and relatively inflexible. But this, if true (and I'll confirm it tomorrow), would be further evidence why outsourcing Y2K to a reputable vendor is the best way to go, IMO. "Hard to use" is a very common slam on a new tool. I remember in 1990 & I was just getting into Macs & someone said a certain product was 'hard to use'... which actually meant you had to read the manual... something considered a no-no to Mac fiends. Therefore "hard to use" is typically more a statement of the client that is unwilling to put their butt in the chair. One of the very specific complaints about all offsite work is that there is always a lengthy to & fro as the offsite tool points out the client hasn't sent all the correct pieces. That of course is also blamed on the tool. The fact that the root cause is often non-existant library control proceedures by the client is also the new tool's fault. Offsite/outsourcing is no panacea. - David