Jeff Kell wrote:
 
>On Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:34:58 CST Richard Gambrell said:
>>Rick Ehrhart wrote:
>>> I think another important question is if MPE is going to be put
>>> on the HP/Intel chip set.  If this happens, then maybe you can
>>> get a small version on MPE.
>>>
>>> Rick "don't send to [log in to unmask]" Ehrhart
>        "then change your mail alias from [log in to unmask]" :-)
>
>>This, to my way of thinking, is the big question facing the future of MPE.
>>It must be ported (evolved?) to 64bit processor environments and it must
>>support the new long-instruction word compilers.
>
>Indeed.  If <cough> <choke> HP does *NOT* have any intention to put MPE on
>the next generation RISC chips, Sun is starting to look damn good.  If they
>do go to that extreme of screwing me for my 20 years of loyalty then even
>my HP calculator is going to end up in the landfill and this mailing list
>will be forwarded to alt.folklore.computers.
>
>What do you mean "*IF*" MPE is going to be put on the HP/Intel chip set?
>(Presuming you aren't talking about the 30x86 successor, but rather the
>next generation HPPA chip).
>
>Instead, I would hope as Richard suggested, that on this "migration" they do
>it "correctly", preferably in a co-ordinated CSY/GSY effort.
>
>Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>  "Wishing this is a misunderstanding"
>
 
I think Jeff and everyone else might be making a big assumption here. I
think the real question for HP is: "do they want to be in the os business?".
And especially the proprietary os business (mpe).
 
It is not a stretch for me to see a future where the following occurs:
 
1. pa-risc with hpux
2. pa-risc with nt (using the intel/hp project)
3. mpe gets put to pasture
 
Unless mpe systems continue to be purchased, then what motivation does csy
have to continue to support a proprietary os? If in fact, as others have
noted, that csy derives revenue from *new sales/upgrades*, then there might
come a day when the cost to support/enhance mpe to be current might be more
than they generate in sales.
 
So, I think we need to press them on the following:
 
1. are you committed to advancing language technology on mpe?
2. are you committed to providing multi-tier c/s solutions to mpe
(distributed objects)
 
If you ask them: are you going to continue making 3k/mpe systems, they will
always say "yes"... anything else would be foolish.
 
However, you can determine their true motives by what effort they place on
advancing the development features of mpe.
 
And reading between the lines, given that csy is always talking about
"budgets, we have budgets"...I get the impression that the cycle has already
started. I wouldn't be surprised if corporate is allowing 3k/mpe/csy to
continue as long as they operate within a corporate limit of resources
(budget). Unless something changes this budget will get smaller and smaller
and smaller...until they decide its easier to "pull the plug".
 
Those who know can't respond. And those who don't (like me) can only speculate.
 
 
 
Duane Percox  (QSS)
[log in to unmask] (415-306-1608, fax 415-365-2706)
http://www.aimnet.com/~qssnet/
 ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/qssnet/
"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas." -- Linus Pauling