I understand and agree for the most part.  But until a better
system/package comes along, the 3000 isn't expensive to run.  In fact, it's
quite the opposite.

John Lee





At 11:44 AM 8/19/03 -0400, Tom Tont wrote:
>I don't think it is so much the expense of keeping the 3000 running.  That
>is the easy part because the reliability and the low cost of replacement
>parts if needed.  I think the expensive part (at least in the eyes of a CEO
>or CFO) is the risk of losing the company's competitive advantage.  For
>example: a manufacturing company using a software package (lets just use
>ManMan for this example) is not only facing a platform that will eventually
>be outdated in the ability to keep up with transactions per second (compared
>to what is available on other platforms) but also faces the problem of using
>a solution that has limited updates.  Yes, the machine still does what it
>was purchased to do (and still does it well) - and yes, the software with
>all the tweeks and custom code works for the organization; however, the
>market and technology change faster than we would sometimes like.  Just
>doing what has always been done simply because it works is a death wish.
>The competition (especially in manufacturing) is always looking for ways to
>speed up transactions, increase the network bandwidth, process decision
>making reports faster (sometimes several hours faster) and to increase
>productivity based on all the above.  The cost of another platform and even
>the cost of a new application is small compared to the possible cost of
>closing the business due to not being able to keep up with the competition.
>I know it sounds awful to say "you should keep up with the Jones'" but to an
>extent it is true.  Okay, yes we offer a total  ERP/MRP solution that runs
>on HP-UX but I came from the 3000 world and can honestly say that the always
>up - always on message carries over to HP-UX.  We have helped customers make
>the move and it is not as painful or costly as one might think (with a good
>plan).  And yes, the 3000 can still run in the background if it makes
>everyone feel better or to keep historical data.  The point I am trying to
>make is that you have to stay competitive to keep the overall cost of doing
>business manageable.  The HP3000 users I spoke with at HPWORLD said they
>would run the 3000 till the bolts fell off and I can appreciate that;
>however the few C-Level (CEO/CFO) people I spoke with are concerned about
>the risk of doing that.  I think there is a serious difference of viewpoints
>at the different levels of the organization.  Is this based on experience,
>fear or concern?  I am open to other viewpoints.
>
>Tom Tont
>The Newman Group
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 10:53 AM
>Subject: Re: Customer Eval
>
>
>> I don't understand what could be expensive about keeping a 3000 running?
>>
>> John Lee
>> Vaske Computer Solutions
>>
>> :
>> >Gavin writes:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>  But for most people it *isn't* a long term solution.  Ultimately most
>will
>> >>  move to something else, but many will do it only because they're
>forced to
>> >>  by changes in their business or because they can't afford to keep the
>3000
>> >>  running any more.  Quite a few (many of the smaller customers) will
>> finally
>> >>  make the transition catastrophically when the 3000 dies and can't be
>> >>  resurrected, or the backup tapes can't be read, or it turns out that
>the
>> >>  last backup was done in 1995 :-)
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >
>
>
>