Take a good look at HP's current performance.
In San Jose the performace was so low I'd give it a clear "F".
No solution, no help but lot's of talk.
Check my statement about "HP at the Solutions Symposium".
Seen any service? and R&D? any innovation? any solution for the migration?
Sorry, I haven't. They don't know how to migrate their own HP3000 and
software. If what I heard is true, lot's of their maschines still run on
5.5 cause they can't go to 6.0 or higher.
That gives me much confidence in their abilities.
HP-ESD in India now writes an MPE-layer for HP-UX. Just great !!!

I'd love to see Winston calculation on the 50% that were in the process of
migrating away from the 3000 prior to his announcement.
According to Mr. Stachnik, CSY doesn't know how many customers run the 3000.
Therefore how do you calculate 50%? Seems that some managers need to get
back to elementary school to learn the little 1-2-3 or maybe just start
saying the truth. Makes it alot easier not being caught lying.

Michael


On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:36:58 -0400, John R. Wolff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Duane covered a lot of territory in his recent post.  I disagree with
>several of his analogies and conclusions.  But for purposes of this post I
>would like to concentrate on comment #2.  This is exactly the kind of poor
>thinking that HP is in the grips of right now and why the company is
>getting deeper into trouble by raising its exposure to commodity products.
>Too many people believe these arguments to be a universal truth (applied
>out of context).
>
>By the way, Duane, while you mentioned being busy migrating you neglected
>to mention what kinds of applications you are migrating and the strategy
>you are using (Windows, Linux, etc.)  --  I think we would all be
>interested in this, especially since you believe that "most of us" are busy
>doing it too.
>
>Hewlett-Packard was NOBODY in the computer business in the late 1960's (I
>know because I was there).  This was a company that purchased computers
>from Digital Equipment to control their instrumentation and testing
>products.  IBM "owned" every part of the computer market except mini-
>computers.  IBM thought that mini's were not legimate computers worth much
>competition leaving it to the DEC's and HP's of the world.  DEC was #1 in
>mini-computers and "owned" that market, but was eaten by Compaq (giving
>Compaq horrible, nearly fatal, indigestion), a micro-computer company.
>
>Now, how did HP go from NOBODY to the #2 computer manufacturer in the world
>without "owning" any part of the computer market?  The answer was
>innovation (the HP3000), quality of support and service, and R&D investment
>that produced the RISC chip years before anyone else had it or understood
>the importance of it.  All of these things were made possible by the higher
>margins commanded by innovative HP products.  Indeed HP's testing and
>instrumentation business (and reputation) were built on these same
concepts.

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