My favorite MPE story comes from several years ago when we were
pressured into looking at IBM for a "better" solution. IBM was "partnering"
with us and willing to donate a mainframe! The catch was that we had to
pay for operating the sucker and the software/database migration. We
eventually got local IBM management to admit that it was more cost effective
to upgrade the HP3000 (from a series 70 to a 967) because the cost of
the upgrade didn't even cover a year of operation of the machine they wanted
to donate. That was a while ago...
 
Recently we selected a hp9000-K400 for future academic computing support
(email, web server, programming, lotus notes), but at the same time we
will continue to use the HP3000-967 for our student records, aid,
fiscal, payroll, HR, development, etc., etc. - all administrative transaction
work. We selected the UNiX box because some of the software we needed
(e.g. Notes) was not available on MPE and it allowed us to take better
advantage of the Internet's resources of software -- Otherwise
we would have selected MPE.
 
I don't know if cost is a factor, but there is no difference to speak of
between HP's 9000s and 3000s. I recently compared hardware costs for
the K400 vs 959 - almost all optional and peripheral equipment is identical.
The hardware cost is almost identical - the difference is that with MPE you
pay for Image. If you add ALLBASE to both, the price difference goes down
(in effect, bundled ALLBASE on MPE is cheaper that optional ALLBASE on Unix,
with the difference that under UNix you can specify the number of users
of ALLBASE to be different than the O.S. user lisence.) MPE and Image
is about a $ 20,000 premium, which is cheap compared to the add-on products
necessary for UNIX - and even cheaper for a great database. (This comparasion
takes into account our current discounting structure).
 
Another factor, we also evaluated HP Netservers (with NT or Netware), including
a new, not yet orderable, version that has quad-pentium processors, F/W SCSI,
dual PCI - all kinds of goodies. Taking into account discounts on both sides,
hardware costs were just about even between HP's Netserver line and the 9000s
or 3000s. However, NT is cheap. Netware costs like MPE - but isn't worth it.
NT is easier to manage, but not ready for prime time and Netware certainly
isn't. Then also, PA-RISC and the new 1 GHz. processor bus on the
9x9 (K series) is really something special also.
 
So, we selected UNIX, but wished it could be MPE even though HP's UNix
is getting more like MPE. The staff training and add-on software we are
buying just to make Unix manageable (OpenView "Omni..." and "Open..."
products) would buy another machine.
 
A few other ideas:
Try HP's video on "Betting Your Business".
 
Also, see HP's press release from SouthWest Airlines - why are they using
3000s?
 
I've administered Unix boxes for 12 years, while also working on HP3000s
at the same time. Unix has matured a great deal and HP's 10.0 HPUX
is a good choice, but MPE was already there a long time ago. Why use
something "new" (e.g. the journalled file system on HPUX), when you
can use something tried and true? And, MPE keeps getting better. I hope
HP continues to position MPE as a high-end solution, where only the best
will do for OLTP - no matter if traditional or client/server.
 
HTH - and good luck!
 
--
-- - - - Speaking for myself and not necessarily anybody else - - - - - -
Richard Gambrell        | Internet: [log in to unmask]
Mgr. Tech. Services     | POT:      504-483-7454     FAX: 504-482-1561
Xavier University of LA | Smail:    7325 Palmetto, New Orleans, LA 70125