Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:57:21 -0400
Reply-To: Quentin McMullen <quentin_mcmullen@BROWN.EDU>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Quentin McMullen <quentin_mcmullen@BROWN.EDU>
Subject: Re: v9.2 projected release date
Hi All,
Wait a minute Jack. You're suggesting a slush fund? At a University??
In Rhode Island??? : ) I was thinking the same thing.
But I managed to reach our SAS internal sales rep this afternoon, and got
an explanation (which should end up saving my Center money, and makes me a
bit frustrated with University life). What I had been told by university
folks was that our license was NOT like a corporate license (which has
free upgrades). What the SAS rep said is:
1) The current version of SAS is 9.12.
2) The University license covers a set number of installations.
3) She said there is *no* upgrade charge from 8.2 to 9.1. The licensing
agreement includes free upgrades. She said the license allows the
University to obtain 1 set of official installation CDs, burn copies, and
distribute, so long as we do not exceed the limit on total installations.
All of the above sounded very familiar to my days in corporate.
When I asked why my Department might be charged a fee per upgrade per seat
(we pay ~$75 to 'buy' installation CDs for each staff member from the
University), she said that *if* we want to get the official CDs in the
nice pretty packaging with pretty logos, then SAS would charge ~$68 for
the burning/packaging/shipping. But of course that's optional. Most
places just get one set of CDs, burn a couple copies, and pass them around
(with the only limitation that of course you may not surpass the licensed
number of installations).
So with 10-20 SAS users, my group has been paying ~$75/head for each
upgrade. Bummer. But at least it gives me a better argument to say "yes,
upgrade now [finally]. I don't need the $75 packaging". And my minimal
research agrees with Ron's suggestion that 9.2 is vaporware.
Thanks,
--Quentin
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:23:15 -0600, Jack Hamilton
<JackHamilton@FIRSTHEALTH.COM> wrote:
>Are you sure that that "nominal fee" goes to SAS Institute and not your
>IS department slush fund?
>
>I assume it's not a nominal fee of $1, or you wouldn't be worrying
>about it.
>
>
>
>
>--
>JackHamilton@FirstHealth.com
>Manager, Technical Development
>Metrics Department, First Health
>West Sacramento, California USA
>
>>>> "Quentin McMullen" <quentin_mcmullen@BROWN.EDU> 04/29/2004 12:30 PM
>>>>
>sigh...
>
>Is there an official estimate for a release date of 9.2 on sas.com?
>Unofficial rumors?
>
>Version 9.1 has apparently arrived at my fine university.
>
>However, I'm still learning the oddities of educational contracts with
>SAS.
>
>The master CDs are here (somewhere). But my *department* needs to pay
>a
>(nominal) fee for each person upgrading to 9.1. (So it aint like most
>companies, where you have an annual license fee that includes 'free'
>upgrades).
>
>So now that the CDs are at the university, the people in my department
>are
>wondering, "should we pay nominal_fee*10 SASprogrammers to upgrade to
>9.1
>if that means we will again have to pay nominal_fee*10 again in the
>fall
>to get to 9.2?"
>
>Of course, I'm holding my breath waiting for 9.1, so I'm hoping I can
>tell
>them (honestly :) "we won't be seeing 9.2 any time soon, so let's go
>ahead
>and get 9.1."
>
>Thanks for any info,
>--Quentin
| 
