> -----Original Message-----
> From: VANCE,JEFF (HP-Cupertino,ex1) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MPE/iX Licensing and Distribution for an Emulated
> Environment
>
>

<snip>

> I think the issue, at least for me, is more the tone of your
> reply. Maybe there is not really a negative tone in your
> words, but it seems so to me. If you had worked hard at something
> and then let the public know about it, and the first few pieces
> of feedback were all negative -- not even a thanks for working on
> it -- how would you personally feel? Remember, the board is
> spending their personal time, spending their own money on
> toll conference
> calls, spending their own money on low cost promotions at HP
> World, etc.
> I agree with Mark, if you are motivated and have insights that
> are important to the homesteader/emulator community, you ought to
> spend more of your own time and money and join the board.
>

You take issue with my tone but support a board member who attacks the
community for not reacting with the joy he felt the board deserved...
interesting.

> > Make up your mind, do you want participation or not.
>
> Everyone wants constructive participation. That doesn't mean
> you have to agree, just share ideas on how to make it better.
>

As I said before, this was the first chance for the community to see the
results of the boards work so far. They responded with questions and
concerns about the terms of the licensing and were basically called
ungratefull for it.

> > If not, just get one of
> > those tapes of an audience applauding and play it to yourself
> > every time you
> > think you have reached a milestone and save yourself the
> > frustration of receiving feedback you do not like.
>
> Pretty rude, so I don't think my initial impression was incorrect.
>

True, but I also found his post offensive so I guess we are even on that
account.

> ...
> > Since HP was unable/unwilling to complete orders for software
> > and hardware
> > when the 3000 was a supported product, why is it I should
> > have any greater
> > confidence they will do so now that it is unsupported?
>
> MPE is still supported by HP and will be even when the new licenses
> are available. I don't understand the first part of the sentence.
> I can't imagine that HP took an order for s/w and then was
> unwilling to fill it.
>

Well lets see...

6 months to finally receive a new subsys tape after placing numerous calls.
Each time on call back I am told the name of the person I wrote down from
the last time has never been heard of.

2 months trying to order a nic and hard drive when the sales manager finally
gave up when she could not get me a quote with the correct part numbers and
pricing. Directed me to a 3rd party.

Paid for installation and configuration of the nic and hard drive. Engineer
shows up with a work order showing the hard drive install with no mention of
the nic install and configuration.

2 hour downtime turns to 8 because engineer incorrectly configures hardware.

4 hours downtime during production hours because engineer incorrectly
configure the network for the new nic.

Incidents like these combined with response center engineers responding to a
call with a "MPwhat?" is the reason that, after more than 15 years of paying
HP for support, I went with 3rd party support.

> > As long as they control the distribution of the licenses, they can
> > kill MPE again but simply following the same process of neglect they
> > used to kill the 3000?
>
> True, and HP plans on keeping control of the license process.
> However, we would not be spending time doing any of this if we
> wished to kill the PA-RISC emulator efforts. We are trying to
> make the process to buy MPE over the Web as simple and low cost
> as possible, so there is less chance for "neglect".
>

Perhaps, but just a month before the 3000 was killed we were being told of
its glorious future.

You may not like my overall tone or less than joyous unquestioning reception
of the announcement. But The New HP has not generated a great track record
in following through on its promises.

Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.





CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic message is legally privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or any
attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be
corrected and delete it immediately.