Good post. Your points about HP not getting it right are right on the money.

Today, I am writing some extract programs for one of my oldest clients
which will extract invoice data from their Image database for exporting to
their new SQL Server-based accounting system. Next month, I will be writing
programs to extract sales order data from their Image database for
exporting to their new Unix-based MRP system. I first began working with
this client in 1988. At the time, I think they were using a series 4x.

Yesterday, I sat down with a data security guru to pick his brain regarding
securing patient data in a new health care app I am developing. The
database server will be Linux-based, but I don't know yet which DBMS I will
use (either PostgreSQL or SAP DB).

At 03:34 PM 11/14/2003, Duane Percox wrote:
>So, what are you doing on this 2 year anniversary
>of the fateful day of the HP 11/14/2001 announcement?
>
>No, I don't mean what celebration, but what are you
>working on or doing today that is an indicator of
>what you have been led to explore over the last 2 years.
>
><snip>
>Unfortunately, HP didn't get it right in the first place,
>when they missed the opportunity to completely redefine
>proprietary business computing cost structures with an
>introduction of the a/n class systems at performance and
>price points that would make all CTO/CIO folks take notice
>- and be required to consider in their buying decisions.
>Looking back, the decisions appear to have been made for the
>short-run and not for the long-run in mind. Almost a
>self-fullfilling scenario. You keep the price points in
>line with past practice because you believe the business
>is not growing and you get a guaranteed 'no growth' result
>because you don't stimulate enough additional buying opportunities.
>
>But taking the chance would have been in the best interests of
>the installed base customers for the long run. Especially since
>the way it played out didn't generate much of a 'long run' anyway.
>
>HP didn't get it right, but Stan got it right. When, at the
>SIGSOFTVEND meeting where HP unvieled the soon to be sold
>a/n boxes, after seeing the performance numbers he
>remarked: "They have killed the 3000".
>
>As we all know, you adapt or you die. HP didn't allow the
>HPe3000 to adapt. And now it is dead.
>
>And two final notes:
>
>* HP hoped not allowing 7.0 to boot on 9x7 boxes would spur
>   upgrades of 9x7 boxes to new a/n systems. A better idea
>   would have been to sell systems so dang fast and cheap that
>   anyone with a 9x7 box would be happy to upgrade.
>
>* At that SIGSOFTVEND meeting HP marketing actually said they
>   were expecting customers to buy 'a' class boxes for web servers.
>   These would be the same systems that, while advertised as 110mhz
>   and 150mhz systems, actually performed more like 55mhz/80mhz
>   and run an o/s that has one of the slowest tcp/ip stacks in production
>   and include the cost of a database whether you needed it or not.
>   No, you don't buy the hpe3000 to be a web server. What you do is
>   you hire marketing people who know your products, the industry
>   products, and what people care about when they make buying decisions.

--
Tom Brandt
Northtech Systems, Inc.
130 S. 1st Street, Suite 220
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1343
http://www.northtech.com/

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