This thread reminds me of a frightening episode at a previous employer.  A
user somehow was able to get the attention of upper management by suggesting
that we throw away our HP-3000 (Series III?) and replace it with a very
beefed-up PC simply because the clock speed on the PC was faster than the
3000 (and therefore just *had* to be more powerful than the 3000).  Never
mind that the 3000 had more I/O channels than the PC and was designed for
multi-user operations, etc.  At that time, "client-server" and "NT" were not
even buzzwords then.

I wonder how many other DP managers and sysadmins had to defend their 3000s
because of such idiocy.

Tom Madigan
Media, PA

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Scott [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 1:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] CPU Speeds


Gary writes:
> I'm sure that others will respond with the appropriate URL(s) but I wanted
> to point out one caveat.  When people ask about processor speed they
> immediately begin to compare the MHZ on a PA-RISC machine to that of the
> latest whizbang Intel/AMD processor and infer that the PA-RISC is slow.

On the other hand, the fact that the person asking about the MHz probably
has a PC that is twenty times "faster" in the MHz department might leave
them impressed at the amount of work that that "slow" e3000 is getting done.

And you can always point out that they can upgrade to an e3000 with a much
more impressive clock speed if they want to (but may not need to).

G.

P.S. All 917 through 947 models have a 32MHz clock.