>I have an account which is politically divided over whether to remain on
>HP3K/MPE/Image or migrate to HP-UX.  Two or three years ago, they did an
>internal assessment, and determined that the HP3K's future was dim.  One
>camp believes that has changed, the other camp hasn't seen the light.
>The other camp carries more political clout and is demanding the HP3K
>friendlies produce an independent assessment of the long-term (3, 5, 7
>and 10 year) viability of HP3K/MPE/Image.  And no, they're not giving
>them much (if any) money to pay for such an assessment.

Boy, this question is first cousin to "is there a God?".

Several years ago, I worked for the computing subsidiary of a large
herein-unnamed aerospace "giant" located in the Puget Sound area of
Washington, and this exact question came up.  I was "downsized" before the
study was complete.  All I know is that about two years ago, there was an
article in one of the HP-oriented magazines to the effect that the large
unnamed aerospace company had purchased 140-something HP9000's.  I do NOT
know whether those were replacements for the several dozen HP3000's they
had scattered throughout the company.

Five years ago, when I assumed my present position, we did a ad-hoc study
of the same question appropos of our move from a model 52 HP3K.  The same
question was asked, and the answer we came up with was that for us, the
HP3000 would continue to be a viable, reliable platform as long as WE chose
to make it so.  We upgraded to a 928RX and have never looked back.  Now,
with all the POSIX porting and client-server applications available to the
HP3K, we have concluded that we made the right decision...for US.

I did have an advantage in that the President/CEO was absolutely an HP fan
after 15 years of reliable, hard-working service by the model 40/42/52 CPU.
 Had they had the problems with that box that early HP9000/Unix boxes had,
the struggle would doubtless have been greater to "stay HP3K".

Bob "only HP3000's, please" Graham