Wirt writes:
...
> I am very concerned that the HP3000 is going to become inordinately complex
> over the next few years as it tries to be everything to everyone.
...


"Trying to be everything to everyone"?  Nah...the HP 3000 doesn't have
to *try* to do that.  It's been there, done that!


Keep in mind that the HP 3000 is a *general purpose* computer ... and as
such, *is* trying to be (almost) everything to (almost) everyone.

One of HP's biggest mistakes that they've made again and again is falling
for the fiction that the computers can fall into nicely delineated boxes.
(E.g., "business" vs. "technical").  They don't.  They won't.  (Sure, there
are some exceptions...but I'm not worrying about how a Cray fits in :)

I've seen HP 3000s being used as number crunchers, as interactive
servers, as batch servers, as file servers, and as print servers, as well
as serving as personal computers.

So...do we have to worry about the HP 3000 being pigeon-holed today?
Yes.  The current sales plan seems to say "it can only survive in
a few special niches" (e.g., direct marketing, HMOs, etc.).
I have no problem with it being sold into those niches ... as long as
that doesn't imply to sales people or management that it's restricted
to being in those niches.

Rather than being concerned that any set of specific enhancement proposals
risks turning the HP 3000 into an "inordinately complex" computer,
I'd rather be concerned that R&D dollars go into enabling new (possibly
undreamt of) future possibilities ... not into relatively tailored solutions
for small subsets of the current users.  E.g., I'd rather see IMAGE effort
put into performance-measurement tools than solving P/P+/signed/unsigned;
I'd rather see CI efforts go into user-provided functions rather than
a few new commands.  In short, as I've argued for years, the user community
(and HP) is always better off putting R&D dollars into *enabling* technology
instead of into solutions.

Stan (heck, I've lost track of the thread!) Sieler