kurttrail said:
"They (the customer) just paid the $150,000 for the patch on SP3."
--
Well, I shouldn't have said "the customer"... The end-users' IT service
provider paid $150,000 to patch their operating system. Why? Because they
insist on running an unsupported operating system, which is Windows 2000
SP3. Why? Because they moved their Technicians to an hourly rate to save
money during slow periods.
Even though the IT firm would pay nothing to Microsoft to upgrade to Windows
2000 SP4, a supported operating system, they would have to pay those hourly
technicians to "touch" a helluva lot of machines. So, this IT firm has made
the calculated decision that it is cheaper to pay Microsoft for patches to
an unsupported operating system than it is to pay the Technicians an hourly
rate.
I know this doesn't fit well in your world view, but the progressive IT
firms that actually train their technicians and pay them to manage their
clients' networks never seem to get hit with these problems. Meanwhile, the
reactionary IT firms almost ALWAYS get hit by each and every one of these
problems because they only dispatch technicians to FIX problems AFTER they
are reported.
Carl