John R. Wolff writes:

> Of course, MPE/iX uninhibited would run rings around a similar speed
> HP9000  --  it would be most embarassing for HP to have to admit that
> the obsolete MPE/iX is faster than the modern wonderful HP-UX!  I
> must conclude that it has nothing to do with keeping prices low or
> some technical issue or other altruistic claims.  This is simply a
> mis-guided marketing strategy gone wrong with the goal of getting rid
> of MPE/iX in favor of HP-UX.

Scenario: an Engineer is called into the Boss's office at CSY (perhaps in
the mid- to late 1980s?) and told, "The Company wants to sell more HP-UX,
but jacking up the price on MPE boxes and licenses hasn't helped HP-UX sales
enough. Marketing says we're making the UX division look bad. We need to
come up with a way to slow down MPE, give the other guys a chance to catch
up performance-wise, relatively speaking. Can you add some extra no-op
cycles or something to MPE?" (Assuming a somewhat PHB here -- no offense
intended to anyone!) Who knows, he may have even reassured the engineer
with, "Don't worry, once HP-UX sales take off we'll be allowed to pull out
the idling code. We'll send out a patch and tell the customers they're
getting a 'performance enhancement,' that'll make everyone happy. We just
need to put it in temporarily. For the good of HP as a whole, you
understand."

Assuming this scenario, if that engineer (or group of engineers) would come
forward and tell his/her/their story, *that* would be the "smoking gun."

Patrick (What did I say about not believing in conspiracies?)

"The truth is out there." - [log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patrick Santucci
HP e3000 Systems Administrator
Computer Operations Team Lead

http://cornerstonebrands.com

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