> I was wondering how many others viewed the slick presentation on
"Defining
> the New Enterprise", broadcast this morning (Wed.) around the world by
HP.
> Not a single mention of the 3000, or even a _hint_ by anyone involved,
that
> HP knew about any operating environment other than UNIX or NT. Rich
Sevcik
> (sp?) even used "mission critical" and UNIX in the same sentence!!! I
> thought "mission critical" was the forte of the 3000. Shouldn't Rich
know
> better?
 
Unfortunately, I missed the broadcast and I had hoped HP would include
the 3000 since the show was about the future of IT in the Enterprise. As
for "mission critical", I regard our 9000 just as mission critical as
our 3000 and I'm *glad* HP sees the 9000 as needing mission critical
support - just like the 3000 - because we need it to be. So far, in 9
months of running, our 9000-K400/200 (running HPUX 10.10) has not
crashed. It is rebooted regularly to get rid of odd behavior and hung
processes (something we don't have to do on the 3000, but others do),
but it has not crashed nor has it lost any data. Perhaps HP would listen
just a little better to us if we reduced the Unix bashing - it is really
unnecessary and unrealistic.
 
However, I am concerned that HP didn't include the 3000 is a discussion
of the future of Enterprise computing. Even if they only see the 3000 as
a workgroup solution or targeted industry solution, it still plays an
important role in the Enterprise and I'm disappointed in HP. If they are
going to embrace NT (so it is not just a GSY thing) and present a view
that cuts across HP's computing divisions, then the 3000 should be a
part of this and not ignored or separated. The problem appears to be
that, to HP, the 3000 is not strategic - it makes money and has many
loyal customers, so it won't be abandonded - but it doesn't seem to have
a place in HP's strategic view of the future of computing.
 
Comparasions with IBM are interesting, not so much from the support of
the AS/400 vs. the HP3000, but from the view that IBM no longer seems to
have any cohesive strategic view of computing and appears to think this
is a good thing. IBM is now "just" twice as big as HP, while HP keeps
growing, but I wonder which has the better view of the future? IBM's go
with the flow or HP's attempt to define it as Unix and NT? We're
probably looking at a profound change in IT (the "information highway"
becomes more of a "entertainment/lifestyle tollway" and all of our lives
change). This isn't just like the entry of minicomputers and CRTs or the
PC, it is more like the industrial revolution.