On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:51:44 +0530, VamsiSudha Mamidipaka
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Can anyone provide me with a brief listing of differences between HP3000
>and HP-UX systems.
>( Operating system features, utilities and Other features )

Wow, where do I begin?  I am afraid this may be more than brief.

We have both HPe3000 and HP9000 (HP-UX) systems and so I can speak from
first hand experience.  As you read this, please keep in mind that I am
totally biased in favor of the HPe3000 MPE/iX as a vastly superior
operating system.  This is a conclusion reached as a result of substantial
experience with both.  The differences are not necessarily listed in any
order of importance, although they are all significant.

1) File system - With MPE everything looks like a file, including
peripherals.  All files have a structure, including record sizes and a
choice of many types of files and structures (ASCII, Binary, message files,
circular files, flat files, database files, etc.).  Files can have labels
and be differentiated by file codes.  Files can be locked to avoid multi-
user integrity problems.  The definition of a file is a function of the
operating system (MPE) and not each individual application program.  MPE
has a transaction file manager which insures robustness and efficiency.
MPE provides logical device numbers for peripherals such as printers, tape
drives, etc. for easy reference.

HP-UX has only simple character based files (like a PC) without structure
that cannot be locked.  Every application has to manage the nature of its
files as the operating system provides little help.  Devices are referenced
crudely by file address and are clumsy to manage.

(In my opinion the file system is the most important difference between MPE
and UNIX.)

2) Spooler - MPE has a robust built-in spooler that is easy to manage.
HP-UX has a crude spooler that comes with it, but most people shop for
better ones as an extra cost option.

3) MPE is far and away a much more reliable operating system that rarely
crashes or needs to be rebooted.  We only boot ours when we are patching or
updating the operating system.  HP-UX should be re-booted at least once a
month to prevent crashes.

4) MPE has a much more flexible security system than UNIX.  Files, accounts
and users all can be given capabilities and/or access restrictions to
suit.  UNIX has a crude security simply based on ownership, group
membership or just being anybody.

5) MPE actually has the concept of application accounts to separate users
and applications from each other.  There is no account structure on HP-UX,
this is a mind game that depends on perfect security setup and membership
in a group (of members; not to be confused with a group of files on MPE).
In MPE users can be defined with varying degrees of capabilities from weak
to system manager and everything in between.  In HP-UX there are only 2
user categories: root (the system manager) and everybody else, with no
capabilities to distinguish the abilities of non-root users.

6) There are many programming languages available for MPE (COBOL, Fortran,
C+, Transact, SPL, RPG, Basic, etc.).  You can even have different flavors
of COBOL or Fortran, for example, on the same computer.  MPE is a superior
development platform which is why it is often chosen for custom programming
applications.  Of course, to get the full benefit from the HP3000 you have
to utilize the many proprietary features offered.  To do otherwise is to
question the choice of MPE in the first place.

HP-UX is usually limited to one instance of a given language per computer.
COBOL and C+ seem to be the popular choices on HP-UX, but there are
others.  We do not write programs for HP-UX (too difficult), but just run
canned applications.  I have written many lengthy scripts which is
tedious.  The tools are basically low level, some are quite powerful.

7) MPE comes bundled with an outstanding database called Turbo IMAGE.  This
is a fast, robust and easy to use database, but is not relational.  MPE
also has a relational database called ALLBASE, which is extra cost and not
as popular.  Many fine third party utilities are available for IMAGE, such
as Adager which allows the restructuring of an existing database for
various alterations without having to unload and reload the data within.

HP-UX comes with no database at all.  Oracle or Sybase or HP Eloquence can
be purchased at extra cost.  HP Eloquence is often mentioned as an IMAGE
substitute for HP-UX.  I do not know if it has Adager like capabilites or
even supports B-trees.  However, my suspicion is that to use it would be a
leap back 25 years to the early days of IMAGE on the HP3000.  IMAGE is
built into MPE.  On HP-UX databases are bolt-on products that the operating
system is not aware of.

8) MPE has an easy to use and robust command language (JCL) with many
commands for both operation of the system and for user applications.

HP-UX has a crude, cryptic set of commands which are clumsy to use and
requires much care to learn.  Some commands are built-in to the shell.
HP-UX comes with a choice of several shells.  Most commands are little
programs that have been added over 33 years from various sources.  Commands
usually have many tedious and cryptic options to choose from.  Some of the
commands are very powerful (even dangerous) and make for interesting
computer science in university settings.

9) MPE is designed for both interactive users as well as jobs which run in
the backround.  It is much more efficient at distributing computer
resources amongst interactive users than HP-UX.  Jobs are real concepts
that can be monitored and managed easily with command support.  This is why
a smaller HP3000 box can do the work that otherwise requires a larger
HP9000 to do the same tasks.

With HP-UX the concept of "jobs" is another mind game.  If you launch a
process that runs in the backround you only get to see if it is still
running in your session while you are logged on.  Once you log off it is
just another process that is difficult to monitor.

10) MPE gives us the major benefit of compatibility from one release of the
OS to the next, each release upgrading capability without trashing
applications and jobs which have already been developed.  Upgrading of
applications can be independent from the OS and from each other!  Thus,
multiple applications can be run on a single computer!  This concept is
what makes MPE unique in today's operating system world of UNIX/Windows.
It is the most valuable business reason to prefer MPE over HP-UX.

HP-UX is a proprietary flavor of UNIX (as is SUN Solaris and IBM AIX) which
does not value compatibility at all.  Each major (sometimes minor) release
of the operating system will usually reorganize system file structures
making scripts and applications unuseable until the applications are
simultaneously upgraded along with supporting tools such as databases.  All
programs have to be recompiled (at the minimum) with new compilers to work
with a new release.  Thus, it is poor planning to run more than one
application per computer because too much down time is involved and the
coordination of various products is a nightmare.  Furthermore, a UNIX shop
should also have an extra development system on hand to work out the
upgrade process while a production system continues to function (twice the
cost).

11) MPE requires and enforces the separation of code and data which has
several benefits.  It allows program code to be used by several users since
it does not change.  This also is a major reason why MPE is much more
reliable.

12)MPE protects itself from damage, even from the system manager in many
cases.  Obviously, the system manager can wreck the system if he wants to
but more effort is required.  In HP-UX the root user is able to do anything
to the system, even by accident, with no questions asked.

13) Transition to an upgraded HP3000 or replacement of the system disc is a
relatively simple matter of reloading the system and data from tape.  This
is a nearly automatic process and has been taken for granted by HP3000
users ever since MPE was first developed.  It seems only logical that a
system should be able to boot itself from tape as well as disc, but this is
a foreign concept to most UNIX and Windows users.  This is probably a
fundamental shock to many HP3000 users that have not ventured to the UNIX
world.

HP-UX does not work that way.  HP-UX requires a fresh, plain vanilla load
of the OS which then must be configured so that it can even find the tape
to load data from.  However, just loading a previously configured OS over
the virgin OS from tape will likely cause a crash because of configuration
differences of devices, etc..  HP has attempted to address this problem
with a product called Ignite.  A specially prepared and current Ignite tape
MUST be on hand at the time of disaster.  However, it requires much
interaction and use by an expert to restore a system from tape.

14) MPE comes with robust backup and recovery tools that users can easily
master.  HP-UX comes with crude tools like fbackup, tar, etc. that the user
must cobble together with some sort of script as the first task to do upon
owning and managing a UNIX system.  Feedback from these tools is tricky to
determine success of a backup process.

15) MPE can dynamically disable bad memory allowing a system to be
gracefully shutdown.  HP-UX panics in such a situation and crashes.  Two
different approaches with the same hardware.

.....

The above items are simply some of the highlights of differences that come
to mind when comparing the two operating systems.  I am sure others can
embellish and expand on this list.  Each item mentioned above can be
expanded upon for more detail, but this is not the place to do it.

Current HP3000 users being stampeded to migrate to HP-UX should think about
these differences and proceed with much caution.  Current HP3000 users that
have developed custom applications have much more of a challenge ahead of
them than those just turning to a pre-existing package on HP-UX.  Before
committing to a major migration, buy a small used HP9000 and really play
with it.  Take classes on HP-UX administration.  Know what you are dealing
with and then make whatever migration plans make sense to you with your
eyes open.

HP tends to gloss over the substantial differences between the systems and
minimize the effects.  HP's infamous "Myth" advertisement currently on the
inside cover of The 3000 NewsWire should be taken with large boulders of
salt.  They try to portray real issues as myths, when in fact their
arguments are actually more mythical than realistic.

I hope this is helpful to you and others.

Good luck.

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