HP3000-L Archives

March 2002, Week 2

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:
Greg Cagle <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Greg Cagle <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:01:49 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
"Ric Merz" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message news:a6p09i031fh@enews3.newsguy.com...
> I know there is a lot of hard feelings within this list concerning the
> discontinuance of the 3000.  I was trying to put it into prospective by
> comparing other mainframe computer manufactures that have/have not
> abandoned customers.
>
> For example: In the 60's, IBM stopped making their 1401 line, but the
> System/360 could run the 1401 code in compatibility mode.  Same for the
> Classic 3000 running on the MPE/iX O/S.  Now I feel that HP has abandoned
> the 3000 customers because there isn't another line of hardware that the
> existing software can be executed on "as is".
>
> I remember the following manufactures:
>   Burroughs
>   NCR
>   Sentific Data Systems => Xerox Data Systems
>   Honeywell
>   General Electric
>   Dec
>   Prime
>
> Many were "merged" into other companies, but which ones left their
> customers without a simple migration path.  (I think going out of business
> is an acceptable excuse.)  Is HP starting a new trend, or just continuing
> an old, but unliked, option.  Remembering that HP is still a viable company
> that "choose" to discontinue the 3000 line due to $$$$.  Come on list, I
> know the information is out there.  Lets put this decision into prospective.
>
> We may find that they haven't done anything unusual.  Or maybe they did.....

Actually it's in character - I look back to the Apollo acquisition of 1989.
Many promises were made but few were followed through on, and virtually
nothing of the Apollo technology has survived. It was a simple market share
grab - HP was #1 in workstations for one year in 1989.

And there was *no* migration path; no capability of running the Apollo OS
on PA-RISC, no emulation, no nothing. As a software vendor, we were told
it was HP-UX (which was, er, not fully formed then) or nothing.

Sound familiar?

The interesting thing is that people bit the bullet, did what they had to,
and embraced the 700 series workstations. They were difficult to work
with compared to Apollo Domain, but they were miles ahead in performance.
--
Greg Cagle
gregc at gregcagle dot com

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2