Mark ponders:
> So if the HP3000 was to be renamed, what would people like to call it?

Back when MPE/XL first came out, I asked CSY marketing why they didn't
take the opportunity to give the "spectrum" systems a new name (HP4000
being the obvious one, I thought).  The response was that they wanted
to emphasize the "sameness" not the "difference" of the new systems.
It was thought (probably correctly) that changing the name would make
people think that these were different, and therefore less than 100%
compatible, from what they had before.

So any change away from "HP3000" would have a potentially negative effect
on the existing customer base.  As far as a new name being more acceptable
to the rest of the world, I'm not sure whether anyone will care what the
name is if it isn't "Linux" or "Windows" at this point.

While the name of the "system" has remained constant over the years, the
name of the operating system has been the thing that has evolved to track
changes in the technology.  MPE V, MPE/XL, MPE/iX, etc., and I suspect we
might see another change along these lines when the IA-64 version arrives.

As long as it's the same old MPE underneath, I don't see any reason to
change the HP3000 moniker.  After all, aren't we proud of the system the
way it is?  If MPE were to undergo some fundamental or radical change,
then perhaps a new name would be justified, but the hallmark of the HP3000
is smooth, continuous, evolutionary change which doesn't generally lend
itself to that kind of thing.

Changing your name is often an attempt to cast off your past and start
over fresh.  In the case of the HP3000, I don't think that the past 25+
years of success is something that we want to discard or be ashamed of.

G.