ab@canaan.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Alan Butcher) (04/08/91)
I received a letter from Silicon Graphics today indicating the use of third-party drives or third party installation of SGI components in my SGI system (4D/210S) would void the maintenance agreement. I was planning to install a POWER Channel I/O processor, quad trays and SCSI disks in the 4D/210s while moving the existing SMD drives to a separate cab. What are your experiences with SGI in regards to 3rd party upgrades?? DO YOU KNOW OF ANY THIRD PARTY SGI MAINTENANCE VENDORS?? I DO NOT LIKE TO BE HELD HOSTAGE BY SGI FOR UPGRADES. --- Alan Butcher, ab@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu Concurrent Engineering Research Center, West Virginia University Drawer 2000, Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293-7226 -- Alan Butcher, ab@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu Concurrent Engineering Research Center, West Virginia University Drawer 2000, Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293-7226
1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) (04/09/91)
In article <1554@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu>, ab@canaan.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Alan Butcher) writes: > I received a letter from Silicon Graphics today indicating the use > of third-party drives or third party installation of SGI components > in my SGI system (4D/210S) would void the maintenance agreement. > > What are your experiences with SGI in regards to 3rd party upgrades?? > > DO YOU KNOW OF ANY THIRD PARTY SGI MAINTENANCE VENDORS?? I DO NOT LIKE > TO BE HELD HOSTAGE BY SGI FOR UPGRADES. > > Alan Butcher, ab@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu My experience with computer vendors OTHER than SGI is that they always want you to believe you can't add 3rd-party gear, but when it comes time to cash your maintenance checks, they do in fact cash them. For most companies, maintenance is a major source of both cash flow and profits, and few of them can afford to turn away business. Obviously, though, you'll want to straighten this out before you SEND the checks, else you'll run the risk of having a broken box sitting there while the lawyers hassle. In the weird old days with DEC, people sometimes yanked 3rd-party stuff from their PDP-11s etc. before calling for service. It's still a good idea to be able to quarantine 3rd-party subsystems, so you can isolate faults and not get into a situation where two (or more) vendors each claim a problem is the other guy's fault.... Regarding 3rd-party maintenance, we have not been able to find such even from otherwise aggressive outfits such as Bell Atlantic, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. Please keep the net informed about how you resolve this issue. I've got about $120K to spend on workstations, which I obviously intend to populate with 3rd-party memory and peripherals, and if because of that SGI doesn't want my business, then they're obviously not going to get it. It seems so clear to me that 'hostage' policies like you've posted gain companies a few disk sales and lose many more system sales; I wonder why they do this, particularly if it's basically an idle threat? Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall 913-864-4428 or -4495 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
vargas@EULER.JSC.NASA.GOV (Steve Vargas) (04/09/91)
We have always installed third party vendor equipment on our SGI. Once we have installed this equipment we have SGI come out and inspect the equipment and then add it to our maintenance. Steve Vargas
thant@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr8.154643.29535@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes: [...] > It seems so clear to me that 'hostage' policies like you've posted > gain companies a few disk sales and lose many more system sales; > I wonder why they do this, particularly if it's basically an idle threat? I don't work in support, and I don't speak for SGI, but I'm pretty sure that the refusal to support 3rd party equipment isn't an attempt to gain a few disk sales. Silicon Graphics can't be expected to be experts on all third party hardware, and SG has no influence on its quality, how it is installed, or how it interacts with SG equipment. Refusing to support third party hardware is the only way SG can guarantee good service and good quality. -- thant@sgi.com The State, that is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly, also, it lies, and the lie that creeps from its mouth is this: "I, the State, am the People." - Nietzsche
1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.162537.711@odin.corp.sgi.com>, thant@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes: > In article <1991Apr8.154643.29535@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes: > >> It seems so clear to me that 'hostage' policies like you've posted >> gain companies a few disk sales and lose many more system sales; >> I wonder why they do this, particularly if it's basically an idle threat? > > I don't work in support, and I don't speak for SGI, but I'm pretty > sure that the refusal to support 3rd party equipment isn't an attempt > to gain a few disk sales. > > Silicon Graphics can't be expected to be experts on all third party > hardware, and SG has no influence on its quality, how it is installed, > or how it interacts with SG equipment. Refusing to support third > party hardware is the only way SG can guarantee good service and > good quality. I re-read the original post, to make sure I didn't misunderstand it, and while it's possible the original poster misunderstood what SGI was telling HIM, his statement was NOT that SGI was declining to undertake specific maintenance responsibilities for Brand-X gear, but that SGI was threatening to refuse to honor existing maintenance agreements for the SGI box if 3rd-party equipment were plugged into it These aren't the same thing, obviously. I wouldn't object a bit if SGI decided it were too small to undertake maintenance of stuff they don't make or OEM (though DEC and IBM seem to have found it profitable to do so). I hope the straight story on this emerges from this thread. It's not only a theoretical issue, but will influence some significant purchasing decisions. (Course I'm not going to take anything posted here as the absolute and final truth....) Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Lab SPAN--KUPHSX::GUNN Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Malott Hall 913-864-4428 or -4495 University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045
msc@ramoth.esd.sgi.com (Mark Callow) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr9.161250.29571@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) writes: |> I hope the straight story on this emerges from this thread. It's not |> only a theoretical issue, but will influence some significant purchasing |> decisions. (Course I'm not going to take anything posted here as |> the absolute and final truth....) |> Historically our policy has been to provide maintenance to systems with added 3rd party peripherals or memory. This maintenance would be under our normal maintenance agreements. When a problem occurred on such a system we required that all 3rd party components be removed and the problem verified to still exist before we would dispatch a PSE to the site. I am not aware of any recent changes in policy. The person who could give the definitive answer to this forum is currently on sabbatical. -- From the TARDIS of Mark Callow msc@ramoth.sgi.com, ...{ames,decwrl}!sgi!msc "Spirits of genius are always opposed by mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein