> etc, etc, etc.
 
It has always amazed me that, since the advent of PA-RISC, HP seems to
consider the 3000 line to be problem and an embarassment. Of course
they are keeping as quiet as possible anything related to the success
of the 3000 -- they don't want to send what they apparently consider to
be mixed signals to the marketplace. That might lead to (hold onto your
hat) people buying 3000s.
 
I have always believed if IBM had the engineering brilliance to
accomplish what HP has that their sales and marketing people would have
put all competitors out of business. What better protection of your
proprietary system investment than to be able to convert it to Unix if
you ever need to?
 
Instead, HP considers their engineering accomplishments at both the
hardware and operating system levels a deep, dark, secret. On numerous
occasions we have talked to HP shops who called in their HP rep to
order an upgrade of their existing 3000 machine. After the sales rep
got done selling them Unix, Unix, Unix, the poor confused customer
placed all upgrade plans on hold. We have seen this time and again over
the years.
 
Of course, if there is a business reason for doing any of this, it
would seem to lean in the direction of promoting the system that allows
you to get the biggest profit marging from the same hardware, and
everyone knows which one that is.
 
If the best Unix system is good, and the best proprietary system is
good, isn't the fact  they both come from the same company good as
well? Is the fact they are both the same box bad? I'm no marketing
person, but couldn't all this be translated into a coherent strategy
that promotes each platform based on the strenghs of both? Is there a
synergy here? If so, why hide it?
--
Israel Frankel
Business Solutions, Inc.