So if I understand this correctly...
-- HP couldn't make any money off of the HP 3000 because the HP 3000
    couldn't compete in the marketplace
-- The price/performance ratio for the HP 3000 was poor leading to poor
    sales
...
And yet the HP 3000 is DELIBERATELY configured to RUN SLOW?!?!?!?!?! Which,
of course, caused its price/performance ratio to be poor?!?!?!?!?

Gee, what logic!

John

At 2002-03-11 08:06 AM, rosenblatt, joseph wrote:
>I think this topic is important. Something may have gotten lost in the midst
>of side issues also contained in this thread. If I may be so bold as to
>recap the essential thread:
>*Doug Becker asked: Can HP remove the mechanism that artificially inhibits
>the A-Class Processors and allow them to run at 400 megahertz.
>*Mark Wonsil asks if there is a technical reason if this can't be done.
>*Jeff Vance replies that there is no technical reason that this can't be
>done.
>*Jerry Fochtman points out, "HP has made it clear that it is related to
>their price/performance curve and has an impact on a variety of other items
>and as such, will not be changed. It was their business decision to make,
>..."
>So accepting all the above we are left with this:
>HP decided for business reasons not to let the 3000 A-Class to run at
>400Mhz. What course of action does that leave us? As I see it our challenge
>is to present arguments that will convince HP/CSY to change their previous
>decision.
>If I have misinterpreted anyone's statements or misunderstood the themes of
>this thread then I apologize.
>The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily those of my
>employer.
>Yosef Rosenblatt
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

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