Jan,

We are talking semantics here, the company I'm working for has two HP3000's and
both of them have different hardware configurations. Same goes for another
company I work with on the South side of town, and another on the west side, and
so on. Many HP3000's, and most of'em have different hardware configurations.
More than likely, if you have more than one HP9000, they won't have matching
hardware configurations either.

I had a CPU board fail, and when the CE's (Two of'em) came to replace it I
decided to watch them. Neither one of them knew MPE, which is another soapbox I
could get on. They took the memory & CPU from the old board, and placed it on
the new one. They installed the new board, and put their own boot tape into the
tape drive, and turned the machine (HP3000) on. The HP3000 booted up HPUX, the
CE's explained to me that no difference exists between HP3000 and HP9000 at the
hardware level, and that my HP3000 would run HPUX, only at this point I would
need to reformat my disc space. They had some Unix utilities that they needed to
do some testing, I think that's why they booted up HPUX. Afterward they used
their laptop to load some firmware into the CPU board, making it an MPE/iX
machine. BTW, NO, you can't run MPE on your HPUX, unless you pay HP to come out
with their special laptop, and do the same to your CPU board.

If you know of some hardware "New fast hardware" that won't run on MPE/iX, it is
due to missing/Unavailable hardware drivers. MPE is mission critical, rock
solid, stays far away from the bleeding edge. I think this is why many people
tend to think the HP3000 is behind the times. Like, take a look at Windows 95,
and NT. Both run on the same hardware, but NT will not recognize all the
hardware that 95 will. Yet NT is more stable than 95.

Best regards,
Michael Anderson.


Jan Gerrit Kootstra wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Is that so, can I have a HP9000 with MPE? Some I performance would be
> better. HP3000 is a piece of hardware, but a HP3000 is not a HP9000. Some
> new fast buscontrollers are not available on HP3000, but are on HP9000
> available.
>
> The hardware does not match any more.
>
> I agree that the operatingsystem is very efficent and reduces the 'lack' of
> high performing buscontrollers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jan Gerrit Kootstra
>
> Michael Anderson <[log in to unmask]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> F4B1826B1A21D211AEC5006008207AF40302DCD0@dogbert.csillc.com...
> > 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
> >