In article <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask] says...

> > Why wouldn't it be the same for other companies.
> > Without new customers coming in the income will just go down
>
> That logic doesn't necessarilly follow -- remember, unlike a "commodity" system, buying an HP3000 usually resulted in maintaining a support contract [meaning two things: (a) you RETAIN your customer base, and (b) your income doesn't decline]  My point was that HP was losing customers on the "support" front, so yes fewer customers would strongly imply lower income...

Maybe not necessarily but in reality it does.  At some point the
customer will go bust, get taken over or have to replace hardware for
some reason or other and there'll be a chance they switch at that point.

> > didn't ditch it they'd not be interested in making money.  So the
> > company wouldn't last so long.
>
> Where is it written that a company MUST grow?  Sure, it's a nice goal to achieve, but it doesn't HAVE to be that way -- consider, for example, a local "mom-n-pop" grocery store or similar -- they'll maintain a base of customers for YEARS without growth -- they simply make "enough" money to cover expenses and live comfortably.

I believe that if you don't grow, you'll get taken over (in this
industry at this time).  The computer industry is relativley new and
there's a lot of consolidation going on now.  Look at the number of car
and motorbike manufacturers in the early 1900's to now.  I think the
same thing is happening in the computer industry though I'm open to
ideas on that.

> [...]
> > the HP3000 did NOT have "built in/planned obsolesence", so
> >
> > What OS has built in obsolesence?
>
> I'm not talking about the operating system -- I'm talking about the HARDWARE.  Marketing and "buzz" has created a perceived need for "faster" systems in the commodity arena, so commodity systems have evolved.  The HP 3000 has "kept up" with this to a degree [faster processors, etc.] but often what a customer buys originally actually manages to meet their needs for a considerable length of time.  The fact that what you buy --today-- will have enough "horsepower" to meet
your needs --three to five years down the road-- is what I'm talkging about by not having "built-in" obsolesence  [commodity PC's really don't need to advance either, but as I said, marketing has created a perceived need for newer/faster/better systems]

Sorry - I didn't spot the distinction on H/W & OS.  Do we care about the
hardware? I thought the OS was more important.  I often don't even see
the machines I'm working on or know anything about the exact hardware
spec.

On the idea of increasing demands.  At least in the PC world it's due to
the way we change what we expect from a computer.  In the 1980's I
wouldn't have dreampt of storing 1000's of digital pictures on my home
computer.  Now digital video is coming in which will drive demand
further - not the marketing really - just the change of usage.

To be honest the last PC upgrade at home was due to the wife wanting the
latest version of some computer game!  I've got a friend who works in
the home PC market and it's interesting how he has a completley
different view on things.  He thinks the home market drives the
requirement for more processing power where as I always assumed it was
large servers.  Who's right?  The servers are certainly more powerfull.

With the server market you've got higher level languages. Less hardware
or OS specific and supposedly easer to produce systems with and more
portable.  These increase processing power required.  Is that a market
thing or a more practical way of developing software?

> well, I'm starting to ramble, so I'll stop for now...

Same here but at least we're sort of on topic. :-)

--
http://www.beluga.freeserve.co.uk

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