|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Those were the rates AFTER the substantial "commission" by the brokers.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Massey [mailto:bnm03@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 12:22 AM
> To: List, Omega
> Subject: FW: No rush for Win 2000
>
>
>
> $30/hr? Cobol programmers get paid more than $30 bucks an hour. Any
> programmer gets paid more than $30 bucks an hour. Visual Test programmers
> get paid more than $30 bucks/hr. The only way a programmer gets paid less
> $30 bucks or less per hour is if they're getting screwed by contracting
> firms that pay them $30 and bill out at $80. The real market value is
> upwards of $80. 2nd year QA testers with associate degrees in photogrpahy
> get paid $25-35 an hour and are billed out at $45-60.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Massey [mailto:bnm03@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 8:43 PM
> To: List, Omega
> Subject: RE: No rush for Win 2000
>
>
> today:
> Y2K maintenance colbol programmers: around $100/hr
>
> 97-99 Y2K Cobol and Fortran Programmers: $150-$250/hr (sometimes even
> higher)
>
> Linux will probably take some marketshare away from MS in the
> long run, but
> MS is a marketing machine and they aren't so stupid not to figure
> out how to
> continue to drive up their stock price and maintain marketshare dominance.
> Win2K may be slow but it's rock solid with great security. The only thing
> that can take down or at least permanently injure the big kid on the block
> is the government.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: M. Simms [mailto:prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 10:41 AM
> > To: Kent Rollins; OmegaList
> > Subject: RE: No rush for Win 2000
> >
> >
> > Good point.....but to confirm the condition,
> > ask any mainframe programmer if his value is going up or down in today's
> > marketplace.
> >
> > today:
> > Cobol programmers: $30 per hour
> > Java Programmers: $120 per hour
> > VB programmers: $60 per hour
> >
> > 5 years ago it was:
> >
> > Cobol programmers: $60 per hour
> > Java Programmers: $0 per hour (didn't EXIST !)
> > VB programmers: $40 per hour
> >
> > My, my....things do change. It all begins with an event or
> "trend change".
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kent Rollins [mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:30 PM
> > > To: OmegaList
> > > Subject: Re: No rush for Win 2000
> > >
> > >
> > > Funny, that's what we were saying in the late 80's about IBM and
> > > mainframes
> > > when Microsoft started coming on strong.
> > >
> > > Kent
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: M. Simms <prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: Chris Cheatham <nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Omega List
> > > <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 8:26 AM
> > > Subject: RE: No rush for Win 2000
> > >
> > >
> > > This marks the end of an era for Bill Gates and Microsoft......
> > > their guns are empty....and the gunslingers have arrived in town fully
> > > loaded....
> > > Linux, IBM, Java, Sun Micro.
> > >
> > > "Buh-Bye" as they say in the airline biz....
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 6:04 PM
> > > > To: Omega List
> > > > Subject: No rush for Win 2000
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For all those who can't wait to get win 2k, you should check out
> > > > page 132 of
> > > > the current PC Mag...
> > > >
> > > > "In desktop performance Win 2k was mostly unremarkable compared
> > > with NT4"
> > > >
> > > > To summarize, their tests were Win 2k v. NT v. 98 SE. NT
> was slightly
> > > > faster in most configs than Win 2k. The exception was FAT
> > > w/256K (versus
> > > > lesser mem in the other tests) and in tests of web site
> > > creation apps. 98
> > > > lost.
> > > >
> > > > However the win 2k server performance was much better than NT.
> > > >
> > > > Also of note to NT users was that the FAT performance was
> consistently
> > > > better than NTFS with either OS.
> > > >
> > > > CC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|