<While I see your point, I don't think you get mine.  After all,
> we're NOT preparing a legal brief here. We're trying to
> spur interest in a platform that deserves a second look.   . . .
> Besides, with all the totally overinflated B.S. in the world
> surrounding computers, I think this line is but a smidgen, if at
all.

With all the "totally overinflated B.S. in the world" lets make the HP
e3000 a haven of common sense.   I mean that is part of our message
isn't it?    It doesn't make sense to me to position the platform as
the real meaning of quality using low quality claims.     I don't want
to position the HP e3000 as just more of the same.    IMO a  "Unix
quality" ad doesn't make sense for MPE/iX.

The idea itself that the HP e3000 is relatively robust is not a
"smidgen" - it's the main point.    It doesn't make sense to me to
play games with the key selling point.

With all the hype in this industry a no-B.S. ad might stand out.

I am also remembering that our target marketing includes HP marketing
and HP investors.   Our claims should be able to hold up to their
scrutiny.

- Cortlandt

P.S.  I am impressed (seriously) that you have used the dynamic
rollback feature.     It doesn't seem that there are alot of us out
there that have.   I don't personally know of any application still in
production that uses it.

<[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:39a18172$1_2@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> Cortlandt responded to the claim in my ad copy:
>
> With over 25 years of innovations your CSY team has improved
> this platform to the point where it is the most robust OLTP
> server available.
>
> > John,
>
> > That is a bold claim.  Can you quickly justify it?  The "jury"
> > will be the readers of the ad.
>
> > The IT world is full of hype.  If anyone else were to claim
> > that their operating system is THE best in a demanding category
> > like robustness I would be very suspicious.   Lets be sure that
> > our claims are as reliable as MPE/iX.
>
> > I would point out that the dynamic rollback feature of Image --
> > Image's functional equivalent of the SQL "COMMIT" statement --
> > sometimes fails.
>
>
> Cortlandt,
>
> While I see your point, I don't think you get mine.  After all,
we're NOT
> preparing a legal brief here.  We're trying to spur interest in a
platform
> that deserves a second look.  So, I graciously invite "any other
computer
> maker" to refute my claim with hard facts.  I don't think you'll
find too
> many takers.  Besides, with all the totally overinflated B.S. in the
world
> surrounding computers, I think this line is but a smidgen, if at
all.  I
> mean, after all, when it comes to computers, define the word
"robust".
>
> And as far as SQL COMMIT is concerned, I have seen that fail on more
than
> one occasion.  But, you've never seen or heard Oracle admit to that
> happening.  That's a bug, not a feature!
>
> John Hornberger
> Sr. Systems Programmer
> SPX Corporation
>