Scott writes:

> Ok, I have done some more digging and I have some more (limited)
> information on this topic. See below...
...
> First of all I think you have expressed the key point in the middle of
> your paragraph above. The MI overhead that some folks "quote" is the
> overhead reported by Glance, which is not the "full story" as you and
> Stan have pointed out.

I have to thank Steve for being the first HP employee to publically
agree (at least somewhat :) with us about the MI overhead.

...
> This entire mystery prompted me to keep digging, and in this case,
> I kind of like what I found. It seems that HP has been listening a little
> bit more than you and Stan want to believe (albeit their could well have
...
> a) the message was heard in the division (ultimately where it counts)
> and some improvements were staffed, etc...
> b) the was a business case, namely the performance implications are
> very important to CSY's current business objectives...

Very good news!

Thanks, Scott!

--
Stan Sieler                                          [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html