Wayne.Brown wrote:
> I suppose changing the name might help attract more attention to the
>HP3000.  However, you should keep in mind that there are (at least a few)
>people like me who react in just the opposite way to your intention.

I think it was mentioned earlier, and in combination with what someone else
said (I think it was Wirt...)

We have nothing to be ashamed of with the HP3000 - a great box that can do
great things.  One idea that was mentioned earlier, that I really liked though,
was to add an "e" in there...

  The "HP e3000 Business Server"

             or

  The "HP 3000e Business Server"

It says it all - and adds the "e".  Like it or not, this box will be playing in
the e-services arena.  How many AS400s out there are still running green
screens?  Lots of them, but is IBM touting their SDA-driven screen-based,
host-based apps?  No!

Likewise, the HP3000 will be running VPLUS-based (or QCTerm-Based) host-based
apps, and likewise, e-services apps, java-based apps, interoperability with
other systems - but CSY (or a wholly owned subsidiary, or whatever), needs to
me emphasizing what the decision makers are looking for.  Sure, it will be
doing all of the things it has done extremely well for over 25 years -- and
then some.  We have stability, we have reliability, and we have the newest
technology built on top of this reliability and stability.

Yeah, that "e" needs to be in there - and BEFORE we hit IA64.

Joe
(Marketing?  What's marketing? :)