I agree, If HP had asked for comments before announcing I'm sure they would
of gotten a great deal more. But asking for comment afterwards??? Its like
they did not want any!!!
Dennis A. Wright
<<...OLE_Obj...>>
Information Systems Consultant
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
(804) 354-3662
-----Original Message-----
From: John Pearce [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] The Real Story About HP's
Announcement...
Bruce Toback wrote:
I wouldn't have even bothered to write this were it not for the fact
that
George is taking 49-emails-plus-a-spam as indicative of the depth of
dissatisfaction with the decision. Alright, now it's 50 plus a spam.
John Clogg replied:
So why didn't more people write to HP to protest the decision?
Well, the
word "futility" comes to mind...
I agree with John. When the decision was formally announced, I felt
like
writing a nasty e-mail to Carly. For better or worse, the message
went
to the trash can--why bother when HP has made their decision and
officially
announced the demise of the 3000. I have avoided posting anything
in this
list, until now, due to my anger, frustration and disappointment in
HP
killing the 3000.
My employer bought a new N-4000 in August, in part, on the strength
of the
five year plan and the expectation of moving MPE to the IA-64
platform. Think betrayed.
So George, if you're reading this, make the count 51 plus one spam.
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Pearce <[log in to unmask]> | Bethesda Management Company
Speaking for only myself | Colorado Springs, CO USA
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
