HP3000-L Archives

May 1998, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Trudeau <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
James Trudeau <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 May 1998 12:54:06 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Mike,

My comment?  Yep, it's a rip.

Back when we had a 947 which has become a 987 in the same box, I spoke with
an HP CE (nameless).  He indicated (decoded - plain flat said) you change a
chip, and you have a 9000 instead of a 3000.  This was long enough ago that
I don't have the details handy, plus at the time I wasn't interested.

I remember the good old days when IBM on certain upgrades sent not one but
two CE types.  The first was to keep you busy talking or whatever.  The second
was to change "the chip" then look busy for awhile.  Needless to say the upgrade
cost a lot more 'possum grease than "the chip".

jt

----------
From:  Michael Berkowitz[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:  Monday, May 04, 1998 1:39 PM
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  3000 prices vs 9000 prices, what a rip

I received a fax from an HP used equipment dealer that shall be nameless
and was glancing over the pricing.  Four prices leaped out at me.

3000-995  Additional processor  $9,500
3000-996  Additional processor  $16,200

9000-T500 Additional processor  $4,000
9000-T520 Additional processor  $7,000

I always thought the additional value of the 3000 was with MPE, not with
the hardware boards that are supposed to be the same on the
3000-9000.  Any comments?

Mike Berkowitz
Guess? Inc.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2