[This note has been sent to the following InterNet address(es):
[log in to unmask]]
 
 
Cynthia Bridges-Fowler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
>I'd like to add that in almost 20 years working on HP3000 systems (Series
>II, III, 44, 68, 42, 948 and now 958) I've only experienced 3 instances
>of a system failures--2 due to disk drive failure and one due to a 5.9
>earthquake in Southern California (October 1987)! The HP3000's I've
>worked on have been the most stable, reliable systems I've ever worked
>on (and, yes, I've worked on IBM).
 
...and Alfredo Rego wrote :
 
>Three, THREE, t-h-r-e-e system failures in 20 years?  That's quite high,
>compared to the zero-system-failure average that people have grown to
>expect from the standard computer systems that stock analysts adore :-)
[snip]
>Even so, my total system-failure count on HP3000 computers since 1974 can
>still be held, comfortably, using 4 bits.  Most of those system failures
>were due to my own stupidity back in 1978 and 1979, in the early Adager
 
Steady on people ! I know that we all love to sing the praises of the HP3000
but lets stick to reality here. To just cite one example, aren't you forgetting
the multiple system failures experienced by many shops on account of the 7933
"white powder" problem ? ( yes , I know it was a disk drive problem but a SF is
a SF). Personally, I have worked at a site that used to experience several
system failures a day among their ten HP3000s and this eventually was reduced
to zero in a whole month but that was a cause for the champagne to flow! While
I appreciate the durability of the HP3000, I know I cannot fit the count of
system failures that I have experienced into 4 bits (perhaps 5!).
 
Cheers,
John Dunlop