I have read nearly all the email that has gone back an forth and now I am
ready to

Express my opinion:



This situation is a PR and Marketing debacle for HP.



Why:  Because the whole situation could have been handled so differently.



I am going to say HP here because I don't know exactly who in HP made

The decision to handle it this way.  I have many friends at HP, particularly

On the technical side.  Let the chips fall where they may.



BTW, if anybody doesn't think this whole situation was poorly handled, all

One has to look at is the opinions expressed here and elsewhere.



Background:



  1.. The 3000 is in trouble, sales are lagging and the CSY ROI just isn't
there.
  2.. The industry seems to be going in a different direction - "open"
systems, etc.
  3.. The 3000 represents s niche market that does not fit in with HP's
strategic interests, although I am not sure exactly what these are.
  4.. HP made a bad move from a PR standpoint in releasing an artificially
crippled 3000.
  5..  Many customers were already making plans to get off the 3000.


BUT while the 3000 does not represent a large percent of HP's business, let
us look at it another way:

1.     There are tens of thousands of them out there are say 40,000 running.

2.     Of these, how many are seriously looking at a non-HP alternative.
Say 10,000.

3.     Now if I were to come to HP and say that I can place 10,000 boxes in
the next two or three years, would I get HP's ear?  You bet.  Note I did not
say 3000's, I mean some kind of server.

4.     Along comes HP saying we will help you look at the alternatives.
WRONG  from a marketing standpoint.

It is my firm belief that one just doesn't market this way.  Sure any good
IT professional understands that there are HP AND non-HP alternatives, but
he expects HP to propose to the best alternative.

 So how should this have been handled to avoid the negative feelings that
this has engendered?  Here is one possible scenario; of course there may be
others:

        1.  HP, with ISV's and/or partners   comes up with what it considers
the best way for  most 3000 users to migrate from MPE.This plan would
include a way to convert CoBOL to a CoBOL running on whatever the target box
was.  Ditto for Vplus and Image.

  2..  HP announces an UPGRADE to MPE with this plan
  3.. At the same time, HP announces that as of a certain date, MPE will run
on the target box (this assumes an HP (000) as of a certain release (not
concurrently?).
  4.. HP will convert 3000's to 9000's, as currently announced.
Of course the above would still have its detractors, but IMO they would be
less than we are currently seeing.  The unanswered question might be "What
about IA-64.  Well if you take this path I think the assumption is that
hp-UX will be converted to IA-64.

This allows those who want to stick to regular MPE the ability to run the
last version of MPE as long as they can keep or get there hands on a 9000
and those who are ready to convert a way to get to IA-64 eventually.

My nickel's worth.

Regards,

Nick Demos

Demos Computer  Systems DBA Performance Software Group

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