Tech Forum

We've got a GX270 with 256MB of RAM and it is very slow. Switching from MLS to Firefox shouldn't require paging things in and out of memory. Who do I contact about a refresh? What is the procedure? I understand there is a five year refresh cycle. How do I find out when the current system was placed in service?

If a replacement does not happen, is it permitted to just buy some more RAM out of the ward budget and install it myself?

Yes, we've also found 256MB to be a bit too tight. HERE's a good thread explaining how others performed a RAM upgrade. I would definitely involve your Stake Technology Specialist on any project like this. He may already have plans in the works to do the upgrade, or possibly obtain new PCs.

psnarula wrote:How do I find out when the current system was placed in service?

Your stake technology specialist should be working with your FM office for the computer replacement program. The economic downturn interrupted the five year replacement cycle from the original plan. The Church has placed the replacement strategy in the hands of the FM offices and managers. If your STS has not already been in contact with the FM Group he should do so to provide his input.

psnarula wrote:If a replacement does not happen, is it permitted to just buy some more RAM out of the ward budget and install it myself?

Everything should be coordinated with your STS. He should council with the stake president on a plan. In our stake the funds for the RAM upgrades were funded from the stake budget. That does not preclude individual wards from funding the need if coordinated with the stake through the STS.

You'll need to talk with the stake technology specialist, who then may need to talk to the FM group. The computer is probability due for replacement, but with the recession, that's been slowed down.

jdlessley wrote:Your stake technology specialist should be working with your FM office for the computer replacement program. The economic downturn interrupted the five year replacement cycle from the original plan. The Church has placed the replacement strategy in the hands of the FM offices and managers. If your STS has not already been in contact with the FM Group he should do so to provide his input.

Where do you get this information? I've got the same feedback from FM, but only have the policy dated Aug 2009 to go on. If there is an official policy to the contrary, I'd like to see the documentation updated. This is a sore subject in my Stake right now. I have 14 units that have 0 computers newer than 2004, and now that I'd trying to get them replaced, I'm getting some push back.

jshawut wrote:Where do you get this information? I've got the same feedback from FM, but only have the policy dated Aug 2009 to go on. If there is an official policy to the contrary, I'd like to see the documentation updated. This is a sore subject in my Stake right now. I have 14 units that have 0 computers newer than 2004, and now that I'd trying to get them replaced, I'm getting some push back.

The Aug 2009 policy reads

Scheduled Replacement of
Computers and Printers
Each record-keeping computer’s central
processing unit (CPU) is normally replaced on a
five-year cycle. The stake physical facilities
representative works with the FM group during
the fourth year of the computer’s life so that
funds from the annual plan can be requested in
order to replace the CPU during the fifth year.

I have not seen any thing that changes it, but it's clear that replacement is dependent on budget. Given the worldwide economic downturn, it's logical to believe that tithing donations are down and as a result, the church would be tightening operating budgets. In addition, many units received their computers in 2004 right after the 5 year program was started. As a result, many units were due for a computer in 2009 creating a big hit on the budget. I'm sure the church is eager to stagger the replacement cycle to prevent just a large collective hit in the future.

The FM budget cutback has been reported by several members of the forum who work with different area FM organizations. Yes, it would be nice if the church let the stakes know about the change in a letter. Unfortunately these kinds of communication gaps are not that uncommon.

jshawut wrote:If there is an official policy to the contrary, I'd like to see the documentation updated.

Last year, when our 15 boxes should have been replaced, our FM Group outlined the unexpected budget constraints, along with a plan to replace one third of our computers in 2010, 11, and 12. They have been better than their word and this year have sent replacements for more than half of our CPUs. They have been able to manage their budget better than ever.

We may not get any more this year, but they have also immediately replaced any computer in our region that was five years old and failed.

Our FM Group briefed us that it was strictly a budgetary problem. I will not post the amount of the cut here, but it was huge. They have cut back in every area of their responsibility because they do not have sufficient funds. They have kept us informed, and done all they can to help us when we have had problems.

But, the same budget that will provide the rest of our replacement computers also replaces failed hot water heaters, leaking roofs, chapel sound systems, satellite systems, and, well, you get the picture.

And no, we do not like limping along on six-year-old computers, either. But we are glad to have what we have.

jshawut wrote:Where do you get this information?

As our stake technology specialist I was coordinating in 2008 our computer replacements (all nine for the stake) for 2009 when our FM manager notified me of the pending changes in the 5 year cycle as a result of significant FM budget cutbacks. He then began to send me copies of internal FM memos and e-mails in 2009 that communicated the information that RussellHltn and lajackson just mentioned. Because those communications were not intended for general distribution I did not keep them.

A good relationship between your FM manager, the STS, and the high councilor for physical facilities helps in getting this kind of information that has in this case only been communicated through FM management channels.

Our regional FM office in Indianapolis directed our local FM office to come up with a plan to spread the large number of computers originally scheduled for replacement in 2009 to be spread out over the next three years (2010 - 2013). The last computer to be replaced will be nine years old when it finally is replaced.

As one who recently was called as STS when I was bold enough to actually call the local FM office they would not even give me a reply to my requests. They will only communicate with the Physical Facilities rep on the High Council or a member of the Stake Presidency.

I also serve as my ward's membership clerk and our computer died on Jan 30th. As of today April 24th we still have no computer. Another ward's machine went down and has been replaced in the mean time. Also a third machine went down a at the end of March.

To say this is a bit frustrating is to put it politely. It makes no sense to me that they insist on only communicating through a third party.

Sorry for diverting the thread, but how well does FM group work with other STS?

Thanks

lrawlins wrote:how well does FM group work with other STS?

As was quoted earlier, the policy does state that "The stake physical facilities
representative works with the FM group...." It doesn't say anything about the STS working with the FM group. So your FM Group is acting within policy if they request that communication is funneled through the PFR. I can certainly understand why an FM group might be wary of having communications come from multiple sources, especially if they might conflict or there is some question about authorization.

In our stake, I as STS have a great working relationship with the PFR. For many issues (anything building-related such as sound system repairs), I work through the PFR. For computer issues, however, the PFR has worked things out with me and the FM Group so that I work directly with the FM Group. I copy the PFR on important e-mail messages. The FM group manager is happy with this arrangement, and in our case it makes communication more efficient.

But that's just one model for communication -- many others are possible.