Christine,

> While it is frustrating as an MPE customer or partner to hear any HP
> communication that does not include mention of MPE/iX, it is
important to
> consider the context of these comments.
<snip>
> Many times executives are drawn into comments that are directly in
> response to market movement by our competitors. In these cases, it
is
> critical that our external message is clear and concise. Exclusion
of
> MPE/iX in these situations should not be construed as a lack of
commitment
> by HP or it's executives to the platform and customer base.

Lets be 100 percent clear about the context of the article in
question.
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=c0720309.8zf    The
context includes the topic of proprietary operating systems.   In this
article the "market movements by our competitors" includes specific
references to IBM's proprietary systems.

Paragraph 5 of the article: "But HP's competitors have their
challenges. Sun has been forced to transition its revenue stream from
workstations to low- and high-end servers. And IBM is still
maintaining a broad product line with several proprietary operating
systems, such as VM, MVS and OS/400, that spread its resources."

Paragraph 8 begins:  "But the response from Ann Livermore, president
of HP's Enterprise and Commercial Business, is very direct: HP's
customers are using more than one operating system and, consequently,
"we have a multi-operating system strategy: HP-UX, Linux and NT."

It appears to me that in this case HP's marketing strategy exploded in
our face.

But this is not the worst of it.   Livermore's next comment makes her
out to be a liar.

Paragraph 8 continues: "Nor is HP simply sitting back, waiting to be
told what the customer wants. "I have a problem with being described
as operating system-agnostic," she says. "We have an opinion on which
works best in each situation."     Really?   Livermore seems to keep
her opinions about MPE/iX a secret.

In my mind the clear risks of HP's "don't mention MPE" strategy are
twofold:

1.   There is no way a fair minded reader would know that "exclusion
of
MPE/iX in these situations should not be construed as a lack of
commitment
by HP or it's executives to the platform and customer base".    When
an official says that "we have a multi-operating system strategy:
HP-UX, Linux and NT" the simple conclusion is that MPE/iX is not part
of HP's strategy.  The appearance to a reasonable reader is that HP
does suffer a lack of commitment to the HP e3000.

2.   The "operating system-agnostic" stance appears two faced.
Saying that HP has an opinion about the most appropriate OS for a
given situation but then consistently not saying the name of one of
the good options doesn't feel "agnostic" to me.    The appearance
again is that HP is "agnostic" as long as the options are limited to
HP-UX, Linux, or NT.

For both reasons the marketing strategy makes HP appear untrust worthy
to me.   In my case at least I've given up trusting HP for some
things.   It just gets too weird explaining to HP 3000 clients why
they shouldn't pay any attention to the pronouncements of the most
visible HP officials.   That is the cost of the current strategy and
practice.

- Cortlandt