Michael Anderson wrote:
>
>
> 'Inter operability' is key to the longevity of the HP-e3000 and MPE, but let me
> add this;
>
> The role a PC should play in 'Inter operability' is only to be a Terminal to a
> more reliable system. PC's have replaced the Terminal in most cases, and done
> so very well. They have replaced the typewriter, the FAX machine, the Photo
> copier, Answering Service, Telephone, Radio, TV, VCR, Newspaper, and
> calculator. Today a PC can replace almost everything on your desk, older ones
> double as paper weights and/or door stops too. PC's even do limited data
> processing, but it is limited. The PC is way over it's head as soon as some
> inexperienced 'College Grad' gets the bright idea that the company can run
> everything on a PC. It's becomes an enormous problem real quick.

If you are speaking in the context of the "desktop" pc, I agree, however as far
as servers are concerned:

<devils_advocate mode="enabled">
        <can_of_worms="opening">

I think that clustering application servers whether they are PC's, mainframes,
or an HPe3000 has a definite future.  Our HPe3000 is very reliable, but it has
crashed causing some rather tense moments.  It would be nice when it crashes to
get an e-mail stating:

Server A (type=HPe3000/MPE/ix) has failed.
Server B (type=HP9000/HPUX) operational.
Server C (type=Linux) operational.
Server D (type=WINNT4.0) operational.
Server E (type=HPe3000/MPE/ix) operational.

And thus Servers B,C,D,E covering for Server A.

        </can_of_worms>
</devils_advocate>

Evan Vaala

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *