Jon asks:
>    o  Which Powerpatch (first, second, third, ...?) is the appropriate
>        one to "Push"?  What criteria should HP use to determine which
>        Powerpatch is the "Push"?

The most common comment I hear from customers about major new releases is
that they are looking forward to the first power patch which they assume
will fix all the bugs that they assume exist in every major new release, at
which point they'll think about installing it if there's something in it
that they want/need.

If HP pushed the PowerPatch 1 version of each OS rather than the base
release, I think more people would actually install it.

>    o  Should we "Push" at all?  Would you prefer simply to receive the
>        Communicator once we come out with a release, and you can decide
>        whether you want it?

If there were a really painless way to request a release via a web page
which allowed you to confirm that you would be getting all the correct
SUBSYS products etc. (and which was not "always-on-fire" like the ITRC is)
then people would probably be happy to pull their own releases on demand.

Of course it's in HP's interest to get as many people to install new
releases as possible, so one question is just how many people install a new
release *because* HP "pushed" it at them.  If this is a high number, then
eliminating push releases will slow down the progress towards new systems,
but if it's a small number then HP probably comes out ahead by not having to
produce all these tapes which will never be used.

Another issue is that it might be more economical for HP to produce and ship
a large batch of <mumble> thousand tapes as a "push" than to handle the
creation of even a lesser number of tapes in an "on-demand" manner.

G.