On Wednesday, May 07, 1997 1:05 PM, Denys Beauchemin wrote:
> There have been a number of people chiming in on this issue.  Some have
> offered alternatives such as 2 suitcases full of equipment, or perhaps
> smaller systems such as the 917, etc.  This is all well and good, but I
go
> back to my original question.  A company has put a portable, laptop size
HP
> 9000/712.  Why can't this be done for the HP 3000?

Alfredo pointed out that with the standard MAC or PC notebook/laptop, you
can connect to the 3k from just about anywhere, including the airplane.
 However, if it is still a high interest, Cathy FitzGerald pointed out in
her quotes in the earlier CW article that 3rd parties are welcomed to do
these types of projects (and she specifically mentions the small 3k).  If
there really is a market for this machine, CSY has offered to work with the
3rd party(ies?) interested in pursuing this project.  It can be done for
the 3k.
>
> The secondary issue of software license is indeed not secondary but
rather
> important.  As a developer, I subscribe to Microsoft's MSDN program,
> whereby I get ALL Microsoft software for about a grand and half per year.
>  The software is updated every few months and comes on CDs.  (I have CDs
> coming out the ying-yang.)  I brought this up at IPROF and haven't heard
> since, but I wish HP would consider doing something similar.  It would be
a
> great boon to developers and support staff.

I don't specifically recall this at IPROF, but I could of easily been in
another room (or world:).  However, Cathy did discuss this at the
SIGSoftVend meeting in late January.  Birket may recall the actual words,
but I believe the paraphrased version is, "Please call me (Cathy) if you
have a need for this small machine and the current price for the smallest
3k is an issue to you."  Now, I don't know if this was only addressing the
purchase and not the support, but I'm sure Cathy knows.

I'm sure it's not a surprise, but the 3k doesn't have quite the same number
of developers as the MS-based machines:)  This could be one reason there is
a formal MS program like this.  However, I do recall someone (Birket?)
complaining about purchasing the developers beta kit for any number of
versions of Windows/WFWG/NT/95.  Something was said about MS having the
most profitable beta program; while the rest of the software world
practically begs for beta sites, MS charges (one was @$1,200).  Should we
do the same with our betas?  (Tongue firmly in cheek:)


--
Larry Boyd ([log in to unmask])
Hewlett-Packard
These are my opinions and not necessarily those of HP