> Mark writes:
> > have been doing the same thing amongst yourselves? Maybe it is time to
> > explore this with some sort of "3000 Consortium" or some such.
> >
> > Am I opening a can of worms?
>
> Yes, but one that is worth opening ... it's hard to go fishing without
> worms. :)
>
> I brought up the same subject a year or so ago, but found little interest.
> Maybe things have changed?
>
> Of course, I remember asking HP in 1984/1985 if I could buy the rights
> to IMAGE...no luck.
>
> --
> Stan Sieler
 
 
My experience with HP leads me to the conclusion that HP would much rather
kill the HP3000 than sell it.  I do not believe that HP cares to compete
against their own product.  Particularily if it were in the hands of people
who really believed in it and pushed its business friendly features (hands off
maintenance, rock solid reliablity, built in DBMS, superior multi-tasking
features, low cost of ownership, hardware longevity, reduced need for OS
mandated hardware upgrades, etc. ad nausium).
 
If you get to talk to the CFO of an organization in terms like these for any
period of time anyone else who comes in with a UNIX or NT "solution" sets off
the BS detector.  HP got to its current position by setting its own course and
following it, come hell or high water.  They didn't run after Abobe PostScript
for their lasers and they didn't chase Intel or DEC for computers.  They did
things their way.
 
Now of course, the HP WAY is officially dead, and HP now appears to be
devoting its time to keeping the pension funds happy.  Got keep those stock
prices up no matter what it does to the company.  Well, Chrysler tried that
and it doesn't work.  It nearly killed them and it is going to hurt HP too.
 
But after all, what does my opinion matter? I'm only a customer, and we know
that customers are way down on HP's priority list.  Numbero uno are propects,
people with money to spend.  Customers are just former prospects whose money
you already have, what do they matter?
 
As for the HP3000, why sell a machine that will probably outlast the life span
of the company buying it when you can sell something that the client is just
going to have to replace in two or three years?  Why sell an operating system
that really doesn't need support when you can flog something that is going to
generate support revenue?  Why sell a complete package when you can get some
mug to buy it a piece at a time at twice the price because its "open" (open
ended committment is more like it)?  E.T. Barnum would be proud.
 
I can see it now, "HP kills 3000 line to preserve corporate profits".
 
Ahhhh, some day I just get so damned depressed with it all.
 
Regards,
--
James B. Byrne                  mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited            http://www.harte-lyne.ca
Hamilton, Ontario               905-561-1241