John Wolff wrote:

>As a user I respectfully disagree that Standards are more
>important than compatibility.

And I respectfully disagree with Mr. Wolff. That is because
'standards' allow you to be compatible with the rest
of the world, which allows you to evolve and be a
viable product that people will want to buy.

While I have always like compatibility and have embraced
it over the years, I think csy went way overboard and
wasn't able to make the 'hard choices' which could have
saved the platform.

It is the desire of ultimate compatibility that has
helped doom the hpe3000. While it might give the
installed base a fair measure of the warm fuzzy feeling
they desire, it has these other unfortunate side-affects:

* Increased base of technology which must be tested, verified
  and continually carried along for the ride. Over the course
  of 30 years this can really get painful :-)

* Difficulty in moving the platform at speeds the market requires
  to remain a viable option.

* Forces decisions to always error on the side of "we can't do it
  because it will break something", leaving cool things on the
  table and "off the platform".

As always, the above is written in the spirit of IMHO...

duane percox

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *