"However, what the 3K did
then, and still does today, is require the fewest person-hours to maintain
than any other box in the computer room. "

All of this is very dependant on what you do with the machine, I suppose.  I
personally feel this is a myth, as most of the people on this list know the
O/S so well and in a number of cases the machine is running older more
stable software with less functionality (I expect emails for that remark).

I wrote a few mails a while back supporting Duane's point of view and I
remember being slated for it at the time.  Where IMO, I was just being
objective.  I am a developer.  I suspect, maybe wrongly, that most people on
this list are Operators/System Managers, so I might have a different point
of view, but even if the HP wasn't being discontinued, I don't see it as a
wise technology investment.

With the HP, you have to have specialist staff, there aren't that many
HP3000 experts out there, so it limits company choice with staff choices.
The operating is very different from the most common ones (Unix & Windows),
so the learning curve is steep.  The boxes are powerful, but extremely
expensive and require HP support, again tying you into one supplier.

One simple example to me is the JDBC driver.  Nearly every database under
the sun, has a free JDBC/ODBC driver that enable access to any programming
language.  The HP has them, but you have to pay for them.

Just think of how many Linux servers you could have for the same price as an
HP3000 and with that the amount of choices of DB, Interfaces, Languages,
products, staff, learning tools, courses, etc.

I don't have any reason to hate the HP, I've mainly worked on it and for
selfish reasons would like it to continue, but I'm not so blinkered to
believe that it is the right choice of technology for the future.

Regards


Richard



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Wonsil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 August 2002 17:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Commitment to a product


Duane writes
> 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.

I agree with Duane here.  From a technology stand point, it was hard to beat
the VAX.  DECNet was great, the editor, the debugger and DCL was an
improvement over my 3K.  (Still like Image over DBMS or RDB though and I
think that View was easier to code than DecFORMS.)  However, what the 3K did
then, and still does today, is require the fewest person-hours to maintain
than any other box in the computer room.  I don't know what other machines
that can make that claim and I don't know if the other machines are moving
in that direction or if they are actually requiring more attention.  Where
do you go for "Worry Free Computing?"

FWIW,

Mark Wonsil

* 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 *