I hear ALOT of this from customers who use both.

John Lee
Vaske Computer Solutions

At 10:43 AM 12/16/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>What a coincidence...
>
>Just a few days ago, I talked to a customer who is switching his
>HP 3000 to "archive lookups only" mode because they have migrated
>to an NT & Oracle based package (or have been "migrated" by their
>application vendor?).
>
>He was not quite happy with the new "fancy schmancy" solution.
>
>The NT database server has 1 GB of main memory, much more than
>his 3000 had, but still doesn't "fly". The database needs constant
>fiddling to keep it alive, whereas on the 3000 he had some batch
>job running once per week to auto-increase dataset capacities etc.
>
>His 3000 had downtime problems maybe once or twice a year, whereas
>his new collection of application servers (notice that the "fancy
>schmancy" architecture needs more than one single computer) tends
>to have something like one app server outage per week.
>
>He also had some comments on spooling or spoolfile handling on NT,
>but I don't recall the details (something like "when a printer goes
>down, I cannot simply SPOOLF x;ALTER;DEV=another").
>
>As far as I got the impression, he'd rather be back on the 3000.
>
>Lars.
>
>(not meaning to say that NT or Oracle or applications based on those
>technologies are inferior; it's just that this customer's experience
>was "need more hardware, more software, more manpower and still have
>to struggle to get the job done" whereas the 3000 solution was more
>like a fridge... turn it on and let it work for you).
>
>