Chris writes:

> FWIW, we would have probably had another $2-3M in HPUX servers also, but the
>  HP sales reps blew the original deal to Sun, so all the Unix boxes ( and we
>  all know that keeping those running involves pouring alot more $$$ into
them-
>  hardware upgrades/memory) are Sun boxes...

Although Chris didn't mean it in this way, he outlines what I've always seen
as HP's (or any vendor's) core problem associated with products similar to
the HP3000: if you build a truly reliable, long-lived and appropriate
product, you simply don't sell too many of them, nor particularly often.
There has to be a certain amount of unreliability and complexity to a product
before it sells well. An easy-to-use, reliable, well-designed product garners
no significant third-party investments, no consultants, nor much classroom
time -- simply because none of it is necessary.

However, the necessity of high-priced consultants and large, on-site data
processing staffs are almost certainly signs of an immaturity in the
marketplace. "Planned obsolesence" was de rigueur for the automobilie
industry prior to the entrance of the Japanese, who fundamentally changed the
rules of the market by making their cars significantly better, far more
reliable, and more ergonomically designed than had the Americans.

Ultimately, all products become simple, easy to use, and reliable. I continue
to believe that the HP3000 is better positioned to become that future
representative product than any other commercial database engine currently in
existence.

Wirt Atmar