Terry C. Shannon wrote:
> "Larry Barnes" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
> news:a9mqkl01ofg@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>As someone stated before, since the merger has passed, HP will be so
>>consumed with the merger they will forget (all ready forgot how to do) the
>>day to day business.  This will place HP in a prime mode to be bought out,
>>probably the nemesis 'ibm'  :(
>
>
> Well, some of HP's competitors might argue that HP has been pretty darned
> distracted ever since the Risky(?) Merger Scheme was announced. Every day
> this soap opera continues is another SUNny day under the BIG BLUE skies.
>
> T'would be ironic if HP's fate turned out to be as suggested above, as the
> underlying "urge to merge" was precipitated by a desire to be able to
> compete more effectively with IBM. All the focus on printers and peecees
> seems to be a bit short sighted and narrow.

Cringely's latest column is interesting reading, where he takes IBM to
task in a number of ways. Easy to do in the wake of surprisingly bad
financials, but it does make you wonder about Carly's stated desire to
make HP more like IBM.

--
Greg Cagle
gregc at gregcagle dot com

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