Regarding the comment "there is so little hardware difference",
Can I relate an
experience we had a couple of years ago ?
We lost a processor, the machine crashed and came back up on the
two remaining processors and carried on with a degraded
performance until the HP engineer arrived with a replacement.
We shut the machine down replaced the offending board and brought the
machine up.
It stayed up for overnight but crashed again the next morning and dropped
the new board.
Engineer arrived again with another board and replaced it etc. turned out
that HP had
sent a HP9000 board ( there was some subtle difference HP told us ).
Surely it's going to depend entirely on hardware differences as to whether
we
can rely on replacement parts being manufactured, taking into account the
most
subtle of differences between HP9000 and HP3000 hardware ?
Bill
> * +44 (0)151-235-3055
Fax: +44 (0)151-235-3151
> * mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
One day in retrospect the years of struggle will strike you as the most
beautiful.
-Sigmund Freud
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Scott [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 27 November 2001 21:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [HP3000-L] I don't think you get it.
In spite of the years of experience evidenced by many posts to this list,
there seems to be a great lack of common sense. All the talk about Open
MPE and Image and MPE emulators etc., etc., exhibit either extreme naiveté
or a colossal pipe dream.
HP has announced the end of the 3000, but not the 9000. Since there is so
little hardware difference between the two, what HP is saying is "We
don't want MPE or Image around anymore. We don't think it is in ANYBODY's
(anybody that HP cares about anyway) best interest for MPE to
continue on." If this assessment were incorrect and HP just didn'w want to
foot the bill for MPE development and support, HP would have
announced aggressive plans to release all MPE to some open source plan and
would continue to manufacture hardware (in the form of the 9000)
that MPE could run on.
HP has announced the end of the OS. They have their reasons, which make
dollars and sense to them. An open MPE would muddy their water and
compete with the great plan their actions suggest they are following.
After working on the 3000 for more than twenty years, it pains me as much as
anyone to face this. Recognize HP's lip service for what it is, but
don't hold your breath waiting for OpenMPE. I just don't think it will ever
happen.
Matt Scott
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
***********************************************************************
Confidentiality: This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the
above named recipient(s) only and may be confidential and/or
privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action
based on them, nor must you copy or disclose them or any part of their
contents to any person or organisation; please reply to this e-mail
and highlight the error immediately and delete this e-mail and its
attachments from your computer system.
Security Warning: Please note that this e-mail has been created in the
knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communications
medium. We advise that you understand and observe this lack of
security when e-mailing us.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and
its attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping
with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are
actually virus free
***********************************************************************
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
