Ron Burnett ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
: > > Isn't it seen as significant that HP replaced their big blue
: > > world-wide network hosts with HP3000s ... not HP9000s?
: Dan Hollis says:
: > They didn't.
: Anyone from HP care to comment?
 
Neither statement, strictly speaking, is correct as it stands.
 
I was at the "HP Unplugged" event in Palo Alto, where the final powerdown of
HP's mainframe was celebrated.  There were a variety of speakers there,
including HP exec's Sevcik and Platt, both of whom had positive things to say
about the 3000 and the 9000.  The only machine that was vilified was the
mainframe, (as per Sevik's widely quoted remark that "You'd have to be nuts to
buy a mainframe.")
 
As I understand it, HP had been using an Amdahl mainframe (along with a mixture
of HP 3000s and HP 9000s) to run a wide variety of business applications.  The
mainframe applications were replaced with new applications, some of which run
on HP 3000s, and some of which run on HP 9000s.
 
 
-geo