From: "Robert Comer" 

> So long as the problem is solved in a manner considered to be
> cost-effective to the business, why not use the solution that is
> appropriate?

Yep, that's why Google's wont make it here.

> btw, my company (a SMB) is on a 3-year cycle for PCs and software...

I'd be raked over the coals for spending the money that would take that
kind of life cycle.  The company I work for just doesn't make the kind of
margins necessary to do that.

We have PC's that are over 10 years in service btw...

--
Bob Comer


"mike"  wrote in message
news:e1r0u2lpbekb7c2c32cvgt30qmi6lm7iia{at}4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:28:45 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
>>> Contrary to what Microsoft thinks, one office suite is not the solution
>>> to everyone's problem.  I, for one, like to see alternatives.  Some
>>> companies may see $50 per year per seat (with volume discounts) as an
>>> excellent substitute to MS Office.   I was surprised to see General
>>> Electric in that category.  But then again, not.
>>
>>I'm not all that much of a supporter for Office, I only like it because of
>>retaining compatibility and a few things I've extended it with.
>>
>>I figure a PC's life is at least 5 years, so at $50 a year, that's $250,
>>which is quite a bit more than Office Standard OEM, and that's what I was
>>basing my cost comparison on...
>
>
> As I said, others (especially some SMBs) may want a different financial
> model, especially (as in my case) Office Standard OEM did not provide a
> solution to the problem at hand, but the free version of google's
> spreadsheet application did.
>
> So long as the problem is solved in a manner considered to be
> cost-effective to the business, why not use the solution that is
> appropriate?
>
> btw, my company (a SMB) is on a 3-year cycle for PCs and software...
>
> /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5