William Hindman
wdhindman at dejpolsystems.com
Tue Jun 30 14:34:26 CDT 2009
...it doesn't ...I vary the expiration date based on what I expect the client to use ...if he's a 10 hr per month type guy and wants to buy 120 hrs, I'll give him a year ...the 60 hr per month type gets 90 days ...I never do less than that. William -------------------------------------------------- From: "Max Wanadoo" <max.wanadoo at gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 6:25 PM To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Retainers (was: Converting . . .) > Yes, me too. > > William....just a quick answer please. > > How does 30/60/90 hours map to x/y/z lapsed days. > > Is it 30 hours lapses after 30 days, 60 hours - 60 days, etc? > > Max > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters > Sent: 29 June 2009 23:20 > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Retainers (was: Converting . . .) > > Aaah! I was thinking in terms of XX Hours/month! > > I'll look for the old newsletter. > > Thanks! > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of William Hindman > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:05 PM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Retainers (was: Converting . . .) > > 1) What is, "... the expiration date on the unused retainer,..." > > "The retainer billing rate begins upon our receipt of a check for the > number of hours quoted and ends upon consumption > of the hours purchased or 90 days after date of receipt > of your check, whichever is first." > > ...I've never had to use the expiry date but its there so that clients > don't > > get lazy > ...its just part of the deal to get the discount rates > > 2) If you've arranged for a retainer of 30 hours, how do you handle if > they > want you to do 50 hours? Or only 10 hours? > > ...I offer them a block of hours in 30/60/90/120 hour increments ...its > their choice, not mine. > ...but I also offer a further discount from normal billing with each > larger > increment > ...not much but the psychology is there and in their face > ...I monitor their hour consumption and always give them a new bill > before their hours have expired ...less than 30 hours just isn't worth it > for me > > ...note: You might want to reread the old dba newsletter ...I did a > business > > column in the first edition > that covered pricing strategies, most of which still applies even though > its > > years old now ...now that I > think about it I really should delete it ...I was inundated by questions > at > the time and never made the > mistake of listening to Susan's entreaties to write another. > > ...its not that I mind questions, just that I hate answering the same > thing > over and over :) > > William > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Dan Waters" <dwaters at usinternet.com> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:57 PM > To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Retainers (was: Converting . . .) > >> Hi William - now I'm really hooked! >> >> Couple questions: >> >> 1) What is, "... the expiration date on the unused retainer,..." >> >> 2) If you've arranged for a retainer of 30 hours, how do you handle if >> they >> want you to do 50 hours? Or only 10 hours? >> >> >> Thanks! >> Dan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of William >> Hindman >> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:20 PM >> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Converting Customers to VB.Net (was: Pollon >> Access2007) >> >> Dan >> >> ...you never know until you ask, eh ...if I do work for a client on a >> pretty >> >> regular basis, I now suggest the retainer basis to him ...I give him a >> substantial hourly discount and bill him for 30/60/90/120 hours "upfront" >> ...bill is due when submitted ...if he doesn't pay promptly, all hours >> worked are at regular rates. >> >> ...it levels my income flow considerably, I never have to dun an >> otherwise >> good customer, and ...think about it ...the client is more inclined to >> actually use you if he's already paid for your time ...and if you put an >> expiration date on the unused retainer, what used to be the most >> difficult >> part of the sell now becomes much easier. >> >> ...not every client is a prospect ...but since I almost never do any >> fixed >> fee work ...it works for more than you'd think. >> >> ...a client put me onto it ...just flat out asked if I'd ever considered >> working on a retainer basis ...didn't have a clue what he meant but we >> discussed it and I worked out some numbers and there its been ever since. >> >> William >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Dan Waters" <dwaters at usinternet.com> >> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:20 AM >> To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" >> <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> >> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Converting Customers to VB.Net (was: >> PollonAccess2007)> Hi William, >>> >>> A Retainer . . . Excellent! I could only wish. >>> >>> The argument of upgrade to VB.Net vs. upgrade to next version of Access >>> is >> >>> a >>> good one. I'm also finding that some of my customers who didn't >>> originally >>> plan to expand beyond their LAN, now want other company branches to use >>> the >>> system on their WAN. So do we use Access on Citrix or Access/ADP or >>> VB.Net? >>> My suggestion will be VB.Net to avoid future Access upgrade cost and >>> also >>> uncertainty of the Access changes that MS will be making. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >>> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of William >>> Hindman >>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:23 AM >>> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Converting Customers to VB.Net (was: Poll on >>> Access2007) >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> ...everyone is different ...look at the monster machines jc's clients >>> pay >>> him to play with :) >>> >>> ...my road to VS was through the web ...a major client wanted to convert >>> his >>> >>> website from static html to a data driven one using the data in his >>> Access >>> app ...I wanted no part of web work being perfectly happy working with >>> Access, so I recruited another AccessD'r I knew did web work to do it >>> ...but >>> >>> then the client's ISP got real picky about some dlls that he wanted to >>> use >>> and the client got antsy about turning his data over to a third party >>> ...so >>> I wound up doing it myself ...never again. >>> >>> ...I bought a 3rd party tool that was supposed to be the end all in Asp >>> development ...big mistake ...I got the site running but just barely >>> ...so >>> in desperation I turned to the new VS5 Express tool that MS had just >>> released ...it was free after all ...and I've never looked back ...the >>> VS >>> Web Developer Express Edition was a joy to use and .net turned out not >>> to >>> be >>> >>> all that hard to learn even for an old codger like me ...and the client >>> was >>> happy. >>> >>> ...as for Access app conversion to VS, you have to understand that I'm >>> on >>> retainer with most of my clients and pretty free to experiment ...so >>> when >>> a >>> client's office manager choked on the Office 2007 upgrade changes I >>> started >>> moving his apps ...still on A2k3 with a lot of his stuff but the new >>> stuff >>> in VS has him smiling (and his office manager) ...then another client >>> wanted >>> >>> a major upgrade and I sold him on VS8 vs A2K7 and so far so good ...the >>> majority of my work is still in A2k3 but now I can demo apps in both and >>> the >>> >>> sell on VS8 vs A2k7 is pretty easy >>> >>> ...I focus on the roi in VS and SQL Server Express vs the costs of >>> upgrading >>> >>> to 2007 ...a ten employee office upgrading to O2007 is looking at a lot >>> of >>> money invested in training and conversion costs (jc isn't exaggerating >>> the >>> screen real estate problems and training issues at all) ...and in my >>> case, >>> it doesn't cost them a great deal more to go the VS route and they end >>> up >>> with a lot more flexibility ...things they just could not do with Access >>> and >>> >>> Office are now just a matter of how badly do they want it. >>> >>> ...I'm a long way from being proficient in VS8 Pro or SQL Server but its >>> like back in the days with Access 2 ...you look, you ask, you try and >>> eventually something works ...and every so often the light bulb gets a >>> dim >>> glow :) >>> >>> ...hth >>> >>> William >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Dan Waters" <dwaters at usinternet.com> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 8:05 PM >>> To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" >>> <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> >>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Converting Customers to VB.Net (was: Poll on >>> Access2007) >>> >>>> William, >>>> >>>> I've just gotten started learning VB.Net - and VS 2008 is a pretty nice >>>> tool. So is VB intellisense. I think that MS is trying hard to make >>>> VS >>>> 2008 a tool that developers will like. >>>> >>>> But how did you get your customers to convert? Did you convince them >>>> to >>>> pay >>>> you? I have three customers I would eventually like to convert - could >>>> sure >>>> use some pointers! >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >>>> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of William >>>> Hindman >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 6:32 PM >>>> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >>>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Poll on Access 2007 >>>> >>>> ...lol ...did it hurt that much? :) >>>> >>>> ...the thing that really blew me away is when they announced that the >>>> Access >>>> >>>> Development Team had been moved out from under the SQL Server group >>>> which >>>> was slowly killing it and into the Office products group ...I track >>>> most >>>> of >>>> the relevant MS blogs and they certainly gave us promises that >>>> everything >>>> would now change for the better ...especially for developers ...that >>>> they >>>> could now deliver all those things that we'd asked for over the years >>>> but >>>> never got ...like an updated DAO ...fixes to longstanding problems >>>> ...transaction fall back ...a reliable JET engine that didn't corrupt >>>> every >>>> time a user nic flickered ...yada, yada, yada ...and reading back >>>> through >>>> those early blogs I'm certain that was their intent. >>>> >>>> ...then the Office products management got involved ...and all the >>>> developer >>>> >>>> promises went out the window one more time ...Access was an OFFICE >>>> product >>>> by god and it WOULD by god conform with OFFICE ...so instead of a new >>>> dao >>>> engine we got a ribbon ...and OFFICE users needed more focus on macros >>>> ...REAL OFFICE PROGRAMMING don't you know ...so we got more macros for >>>> users >>>> >>>> ...now THERE is something I use every freakin' day ...macros ...bloody >>>> cretins and I'm being nice, I am :( >>>> >>>> ...jc mentioned the tabs ...too confusing for OFFICE users eh, get rid >>>> of >>>> such silly stuff, eh >>>> >>>> ...bug fixes? ...hey, lets ADD a few ...nobody really uses this for >>>> real >>>> databases so we won't waste any quality time fixing or testing it, eh >>>> ...just make it pretty and look like the rest of OFFICE ...ta da!!!! >>>> ...look >>>> >>>> everyone ...ACCESS 2007! ...and it has a ribbon just like a REAL Office >>>> product, it does. >>>> >>>> ...I lived through the fiasco that was Access 95 ...stayed with Access >>>> 97 >>>> until Access 2003 finally got it right ...and my intent was to stay >>>> with >>>> Access 2003 until they released A14 with fixes for all the crazy sh*t >>>> they >>>> did with Access 2007 >>>> >>>> ...but no, that's not to be ...the blogs say its here to stay ...A14 >>>> will >>>> give us a "better" ribbon, "better" macro tools, etc, etc ...and >>>> apparently >>>> no one is looking at updating dao anymore ...and of course, they >>>> promise >>>> to >>>> fix the bugs ...just like they promised for every previous version >>>> ...yeah, >>>> right :( >>>> >>>> ...in the meantime, a client pushed me off the high board into the .net >>>> pool >>>> >>>> ...damn near drowned but I got paid well for learning it and hey! >>>> ...Visual >>>> Studio 8 is the developer tool that Access could have been but never >>>> will >>>> be >>>> >>>> ...I'm moving all my work there client by client ...some have to be >>>> dragged >>>> away from Access kicking and screaming but I'm a pretty big boy ...so >>>> like >>> >>>> I >>>> >>>> said, A2003 is it for me ...the guys at VS are Microsofties who >>>> actually >>>> like developers. >>>> >>>> ...they don't insult me ...and I'm into that :) >>>> >>>> William >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>> From: "Jim Lawrence" <accessd at shaw.ca> >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 6:10 PM >>>> To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'" >>>> <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Poll on Access 2007 >>>> >>>>> I do not believe it.... I am agreeing with John and William; AND AT >>>>> THE >>>>> SAME >>>>> TIME. It seems that all developers, who really make their living by >>>>> doing >>>>> development work, have the same song book. >>>>> >>>>> Jim >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com >>>>> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:51 AM >>>>> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving >>>>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Poll on Access 2007 >>>>> >>>>> Steve, >>>>> >>>>> Give it a fair go? Hmm... I have work to do. Do you mean spend the >>>>> weeks >>>>> required to figure out >>>>> how to do what I can do without even thinking (it's called muscle >>>>> memory) >>>>> with the previous version? >>>>> >>>>> Well, like I said, I have real work to do. I am a sole proprietor, I >>>>> earn >>>>> all of the money for my >>>>> house, if I don't do real work my kids don't eat. I do not want to >>>>> spend >>>>> the time to completely >>>>> relearn Access because some twit decided that I just need to do that >>>>> and >>>>> too >>>>> bad for me. >>>>> >>>>> What would you tell GM if they tried to sell you a Camaro with the >>>>> accelerator as as a joystick in >>>>> the center console, the brake a pushbutton on the console, the lights >>>>> as >>>>> a >>>>> knee switch, the >>>>> windshield wipers as ... well you get the picture (I HOPE! Hmmm... >>>>> maybe >>>>> not?) THAT is precisely >>>>> what Access has done to the PROGRAMMER INTERFACE with Access 2007. >>>>> >>>>> The POINT is that for 15 years Microsoft has given us Access, with all >>>>> of >>>>> the hot keys, all of the >>>>> menu items, all of the database tabs. We learned that, we memorized >>>>> that, >>>>> we programmed it to >>>>> muscle memory. Suddenly, for no reason other than some nebulous >>>>> "sharepoint >>>>> server will make it all >>>>> better" crapola, it changes. >>>>> >>>>> WHY? You steadfastly refuse to answer that Steve. WHY? What is the >>>>> POINT >>>>> of moving everything >>>>> around? I want YOUR ANSWER STEVE, WHY MOVE THE WORLD AROUND and >>>>> refuse >>>>> to >>>>> allow the programmer to >>>>> get his environment back? And don't EVEN try to feed me some nebulous >>>>> "sharepoint will make it all >>>>> better" crap! >>>>> >>>>> The POINT is that they are doing the same thing to the interfaces of >>>>> all >>>>> the >>>>> other Office >>>>> applications, which are by and large USER APPLICATIONS in their own >>>>> right. >>>>> It makes sense for those >>>>> apps, IF this new ribbon stuff actually improves productivity (and I >>>>> will >>>>> take a pass on commenting >>>>> on that). The POINT is that they want Access to look pretty like Word >>>>> and >>>>> Excel. Well whoopty >>>>> frickin doo! So now we have a pretty Access. Which I promptly have >>>>> to >>>>> turn >>>>> off to get the ACTUAL >>>>> APPLICATION to fit on the screen again. HMMMMMMM!!!!!!! >>>>> >>>>> But Access is decidedly NOT an office USER APPLICATION. Ask a "USER" >>>>> what >>>>> 3rd normal form is and >>>>> enjoy the deer in the headlights look you get back. Ask the "USER" >>>>> what >>>>> a >>>>> PK is, a FK is, an ADO >>>>> recordset is, a DAO object model is, what a recordset, querydef, >>>>> hmm... >>>>> I >>>>> could go on and on. >>>>> Access, from the beginning was about storing DATA in a logical, >>>>> CONSISTENT >>>>> manner, and the USER >>>>> hasn't a clue. >>>>> >>>>> Oh yea, we now get sharepoint server, which is all about lists, I >>>>> remember. >>>>> Everything is a list >>>>> and nobody needs real tables anymore. Tell that to the SQL Server >>>>> guys, >>>>> the >>>>> ORACLE guys. Tell that >>>>> to your BANK, your auto manufacturer, or for that matter to GOOGLE. >>>>> >>>>> For that matter tell that to my client in Bloomfield, Ct where we >>>>> start >>>>> with >>>>> Policy holder, policy, >>>>> claimant, claim, benefits, benefit details (Parent through great great >>>>> great >>>>> grandchild) and that is >>>>> just the beginning of a DATABASE APPLICATION (let me repeat that) A >>>>> DATABASE APPLICATION, that >>>>> completely runs a disability insurance claims center. It contains 150 >>>>> TABLES, ALL OF THEM >>>>> RELATED... Primary keys, foreign keys, all of that stuff that will >>>>> magically not be needed I assume >>>>> with sharepoint server? >>>>> >>>>> Tell my client BTW exactly what of all the magical glitz and glitter >>>>> makes >>>>> 2007 soooooooo worthwhile >>>>> that they need to upgrade, especially when the same old bugs that I >>>>> have >>>>> been telling MS about are >>>>> still there. TEN YEARS LATER the same bugs are still there but we have >>>>> a >>>>> ton >>>>> of magical glitz and >>>>> glitter. >>>>> >>>>> Do you get the idea that I am irritated? Do you get the idea from the >>>>> general response to this >>>>> thread that I am not alone? >>>>> >>>>> C'mon Steve. The move to 2007 is a PITA to the guy that does Access >>>>> for >>>>> a >>>>> living. And now... I >>>>> have to keep the old because most of my clients already have that (and >>>>> are >>>>> refusing to move in >>>>> DROVES I might add) and learn the new just because some TWIT thinks it >>>>> is >>>>> "better". >>>>> >>>>> My ASS! >>>>> >>>>> Ahhhooooommmmmmm.... thisiswhatIdoforaliving.... >>>>> >>>>> Ahhhooooommmmmmm.... thisiswhatIdoforaliving.... >>>>> >>>>> Ahhhooooommmmmmm.... thisiswhatIdoforaliving.... >>>>> >>>>> OK, I am calm now... >>>>> >>>>> Sharepoint? >>>>> >>>>> Ahhhooooommmmmmm.... thisiswhatIdoforaliving.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John W. Colby >>>>> www.ColbyConsulting.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve Schapel wrote: >>>>>> John, >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> From: "jwcolby" <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 1:31 AM >>>>>> >>>>>>> ... Microsoft imposes it on us and is absolutely silent (officially) >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> how to turn it off. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are concerned about screen real estate, it is very easy, as I >>>>>> think >>>>> >>>>>> you know, to minimise the ribbon until needed. Equally, from the >>>>>> point >>>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> view of the finished deploted application, it is very easy to "turn >>>>>> it >>>>> off", >>>>>> if by that you mean not have a ribbon. So I really can't relate to >>>>>> what >>>>>> you're on about here. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is certainly the case that there has been no easy way to produce >>>>>> customised ribbons within your applications, without a fairly steep >>>>> learning >>>>>> curve. I have seen Microsoft people acknowledge this, and one would >>>>>> be >>>>>> justifiably disappointed if this is not corrected in the near future. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sorry to just pick one aspect of your post to respond to, but >>>>>> that >>>>>> was >>>>> >>>>>> the part that had me wondering whether you had given it a fair go. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> AccessD mailing list >>>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >>>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >>>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> AccessD mailing list >>>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >>>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >>>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AccessD mailing list >>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AccessD mailing list >>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> AccessD mailing list >>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >>> >>> -- >>> AccessD mailing list >>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >>> >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >