Duane wrote:
>
> I have seen evidence of things that make me wonder about HP:
>
> 1. IBM's coherent plan to make object technology available on
>    all their platforms, especially the AS/400.
>
 
They appear to be providing Web support, too. And the market is
big enough that Microsoft wants a piece of it with SNA Server.
 
> 2. A new announement from Unisys, as reported in PC Week (4/22):
>
> "Unisys clears path for legacy, C/S Integration"
>
[snip details]
> The article mentions these operating system can be run: NT, Unix, MCP/AS,
> and OS2200 in the same box. See: http://www.pcweek.com/
 
I believe IBM bundled a Intel processor with the AS/400, also.
 
>
> 3. No word from HP.
>
> I would hate to find out that HP is getting trumped in their own backyard
> by two of the old-line mainframe companies. It seems that IBM and Unisys
> are learning from their failures. Unfortunately I think that HP's success
> has blinded it on some fronts.
>
 
But, isn't HP a hardware company (OpenMail and OpenView aside) and we're
talking software here, aren't we.:-) Oops. The Intel processor is
certainly hardware, but HP is one-upping the mainframe companies by
the HP-Intel processor(s). Maybe they plan a multi-Operating system platform,
and just aren't ready to tell us (and the competition), as yet.
 
The funniest thing is the HP-SCO-Novell alliance for 64 bit Unix. While
Microsoft, Sun, Novell, IBM, Oracle, and most everybody I can think of, are
reogranizing around Internet development and support, HP is outsourcing it, so
as to position itself as an "equal" player for Open Systems (just like HP's
database strategy).
 
Do businesses really want to piece-part computing with a little application
here, mix a database from there, stir in a Web server, with hardware generic?
Perhaps! In any case, HP can compete on hardware reliability and support
(generally).  It appears to me that HP thinks Operating Systems are a
necessary evil to sell hardware - of course, then I can't understand why HP
wouldn't put NT on PA-RISC!
 
HP seems to have separated what it perceives as successful software (e.g.
OpenXXXX products) to live or die on their own.  Too bad the Image lab didn't
select "OpenImage" instead of "TurboImage" for the revised name, then build
versions for other Operating Systems, while integrating SQL relational
support on top of it (transparently).  Of course, it probably would have left
MPE far behind.  Today, they would be provide multi-purpose, bolt-on support
for any number of current hits, like OLAP, OO, Datawharehousing, or even a
distributed database.
 
Can anybody tell us why HP promoted OpenMail over HPDesk? Is it simply
because HPDesk was tied to MPE (hence not portable)? With Posix and today's
low cost (small user license), high performance MPE system, HPDesk could have
a whole new life and compete very well against the LAN email systems (and
OpenMail, too) - given a few development resources.
 
>
> 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
>
 
I agree with Duane, either HP doesn't get it, or it is the only one that does.
Sounds to me a bit like our promotion of MPE, does it?
 
--
-- - - - 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