ACS-STAF Archives

December 1997


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
ACS staff discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Geoffrey Duke <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:03:45 -0500
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
ACS staff discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (50 lines)
At 09:10 AM 12/19/97 -0500, you said:
>>[Geoff chuckles to himself, feeling smug.]
>It doesn't change the fact that UVM is still a
>predominately Wordperfect shop.

This is a myth.

Yes, WordPerfect is used by many people. However, I've found more computers
with Word than WP in my travels around campus. And there are lots of other
products out there, too.

The Customer Advantage Program (CAP) through which many at UVM bought WP
licenses from CIT ended in the Spring of 1996. CIT sold 458 WP license
units purchased. There are 3100 faculty and staff at UVM.

Granted, WP is available from retail stores, too. But CAP is the usual
source from which departments acquired WP.

>The University either needs to provide the
>funding to allow departments to switch over to "standard" applications, or
>the University needs to continue to support Wordperfect.

Yes and No.

There should be a standard set of tools that everyone at UVM has available
to them, and which everyone knows how to use effectively.

There should be training available, incentives and support for
participating, changes in hiring and promoting (and tenure) practices to
assess and reward IT competencies.

Funding? Lot's of ways to structure this, but it's still a zero-sum game.
If we (UVM) coordinate and manage spending on IT across the institution, we
might better provide coherence in tools and training.

>I think Corel is making a wise move to position themselves as the
>multilingual application suite.

There is definitely a niche market that a vendor could fill. Is it strategic?

>Simply changing the standards doesn't change anything.  You have to put
>enough cash on the barrelhead to buy the software, upgrade equipment and
>above all TRAIN EVERYBODY on the new standard suite.  We've done none of
>the above.

And never have, as far as I'm aware. But I think you're right.