Duane
Was a good machine? Hmmm. I did not realize that it is dead. Why would so
many companies still invest in the HP3000. Let's see "record sales from
August 2001 through today?"
If there are equivalent systems that offer integrated database, "image"
standard, comes with the box, supports Unix porting to and from, has a
relational database, Supports all the tools necessary to run many complex
business applications including "QSS" gee who supports that. Do you not
support the 3k? Mission critical business.
HP is still hip deep in mission critical HP3000 software solutions to run
it's own business and Still migraining to SAP.
Why are there so many 9x7 systems still running applications?
because they do not fail, or fail to meet their objective. Task oriented
systems. Even a small 928 can run many users, and meet demand companies
requests.
I like, no love the HP3000. I have worked on many systems in an environment
where we had IBM, DEC, HP... I never worried about power outages or database
problems. My job was easy. The power returns, the HP3000 systems now up and
running. This gave me time to work on the DEC problems, and call in IBM to
get the systems back up and running days later.
Look if you are going to continue to bash the 3k then get off the list. You
are a negative impact on what the 3000-L is all about. We do not want to
hear about you abilities to move on. People on this list are PRO HP3000.
get off your high horse, move to your NT listserver and tout your image
there.
You are one of the killers of the system. GO away
MOVE ON...nuff said...
-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Duane Percox
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Commitment to a product
John Burke wrote:
[snip]
>Absolutely wrong. In the late '70s it absolutely was a
>superior technology to every thing else on the market.
>This is how I got involved in the first place.
[snip]
This *fact* can be disputed. How about the Vax being
introduced in 1977 with an outstanding o/s and 32-bit
computing. Heck, prior to the vax, dec had a command language
'DCL' on rsts/e in the later 70's that morphed to the vax
that is what the mpe/xl CI is now. That was 10+ years ahead
of hp!
Sure, the HP 3000 was a good cobol machine with an integrated
database and screen handler. I liked it, and still do. But, I
never thought it was technically superior.
But, that provided for a narrow set of possibilities in sales and
a narrow window of time. It took hp 10 years after the vax for hp
to arrive with 32-bit computing! And by the early 80's the vax
had a good screen handling package that eliminated the screen
issue. Add the fact that Oracle was a major player on the vax
and you had a pretty good data processing environment well before
we ever saw mpe/xl. This lead to significant sales opportunities
being lost to the vax and one of the reasons the vax installed
base is 10x the hpe3k.
Or how about type ahead? The first time I worked on an hp 3000 (1979)
I was appalled they didn't have any kind of terminal type-ahead. hp
has never quite figured out terminal i/o like other vendors.
Here's my read on it... hp had a good franchise in the 70's because they
were the first to really make a play for compatibility across systems
and had a good developer architecture. However, other vendors caught
up and passed them in the 80's and hp didn't develop a large enough
installed base to sustain the investment required to keep up. hp was
able to keep things alive because the major investment had already
been spent in making mpe/ix. The costs associated with the development
of the a/n class i/o support and the impending cost of trying to
port to ia-64 created too large a mountain to scale.
duane percox
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
