Lets clarify something first. When you say HP3000, you mean HP hardware
running
MPE/iX. The same exact hardware running Unix is called an HPUX. So (HP
hardware
+ MPE = HP3000 ) and (HP hardware + Unix = HPUX ).

Now then, Not only does the MPE/iX OS run better, with less admin., and
less
technical knowledge required, than say Unix or NT. It's also a faster
OnLine
Transaction Processor, than Unix or NT. Much faster and rightfully so,
MPE comes
with a file system that knows all about record lengths, block length's,
fixed or
variable, binary or ascii. Also, native and exclusive to MPE is the
World class
DBMS, Turbo Image/SQL. By far the simplest, most reliable DBMS in the
World
today. Not only does Image perform better, requiring less hardware to do
the
same job as say ORACLE, or SYSBASE, but Image has very little admin. and
technical knowledge requirements. While your DB admin. makes a full time
job of
ORACLE administrative duties, the same DB ADMIN. person will be finished
with
Turbo Image admin. duties before morning break.

I heard about someone (I'll refer to as They) made some test comparisons
of
MPE/iX and HPUX, on the same exacted hardware. By first loading Unix,
and then
ORACLE for HPUX, and a test app. The test app was setup to do massive
batch
updates for a fixed duration of time. I don't recall the exact numbers,
but the
HPUX did approx. 300 to 400 TPS. Next they loaded MPE/iX (I think this
was in
the 5.0 days) on the same exact machine, and then ORACLE for MPE, and
the same
test app. They said the MPE box blow the 4 digit counter, counting TPS.
They had
satisfied their curiosity, and made no further tests. I would like to
know WHO
really did this test, if anyone, and what the exact numbers were. Not
only would
this add to Mark Ranft' ammunition, but mine and probably others as
well.  I
also wonder how much faster it would of been using Turbo Image instead
of
ORACLE, kind of a three tiered comparison. If "THEY" remain unknown, is
their
anyone on the list that can do this sort of test, and report back to the
list
all the numbers.

My current employer has just replaced one of our HP3000 with a Data
General Unix
machine, to do Online Transaction processing. I was consulted about it,
but
being the new guy on the job, my recommendations didn't go far enough.
The Unix
does OK, I mean Not bad, but we all know that Unix doesn't have a clue
what a
transactions is, or a record length. At least not at the OS level. OTOH,
Unix is
great (More so than MPE) with byte streams. Back in 97 I setup an HP3000
with
Samba, used it as a PC file sever, it worked OK, I mean NOT bad, but MPE
seemed
 to handles each record in the byte stream file with the same overhead
as it
would for any other transaction. The Unix OS does the byte stream file
server
job much faster than MPE. However, when your looking for OLTP, mission
critical,
and if downtime is absolutely not allowed, and if you want better, more
reliable
performance, and you want to spend less money then your competitors,
then
without a doubt, the HP3000 is what you need.

Mark Ranft wrote:

> Hi 3K Fans,
>
> I have a new project.  I am having a lot of fun doing this, and I decided to
> let you join in on the fun.
>
> I have been asked to write a paper to help defend a client keeping their HP
> 3000.  One of my client's clients is seeking an answer to that really stupid
> question:  Why do you keep running on the HP 3000 platform?
>
> I am looking for:
>         Proof of HP's Continued commitment to MPE,
>         names of large companies that still use HP 3000's,
>         and any other ammunition we can find.
>
> As I said, I am already enjoying this project.  (can you imagine actually
> getting paid to defend something you love.)
>
> Mark Ranft
> CEO, Consultant
> Pro 3K
> www.Pro3K.com
> [log in to unmask]
> (612) 701-8182