<While I see your point, I don't think you get mine. After all, > we're NOT preparing a legal brief here. We're trying to > spur interest in a platform that deserves a second look. . . . > Besides, with all the totally overinflated B.S. in the world > surrounding computers, I think this line is but a smidgen, if at all. With all the "totally overinflated B.S. in the world" lets make the HP e3000 a haven of common sense. I mean that is part of our message isn't it? It doesn't make sense to me to position the platform as the real meaning of quality using low quality claims. I don't want to position the HP e3000 as just more of the same. IMO a "Unix quality" ad doesn't make sense for MPE/iX. The idea itself that the HP e3000 is relatively robust is not a "smidgen" - it's the main point. It doesn't make sense to me to play games with the key selling point. With all the hype in this industry a no-B.S. ad might stand out. I am also remembering that our target marketing includes HP marketing and HP investors. Our claims should be able to hold up to their scrutiny. - Cortlandt P.S. I am impressed (seriously) that you have used the dynamic rollback feature. It doesn't seem that there are alot of us out there that have. I don't personally know of any application still in production that uses it. <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message news:39a18172$1_2@skycache-news.fidnet.com... > Cortlandt responded to the claim in my ad copy: > > With over 25 years of innovations your CSY team has improved > this platform to the point where it is the most robust OLTP > server available. > > > John, > > > That is a bold claim. Can you quickly justify it? The "jury" > > will be the readers of the ad. > > > The IT world is full of hype. If anyone else were to claim > > that their operating system is THE best in a demanding category > > like robustness I would be very suspicious. Lets be sure that > > our claims are as reliable as MPE/iX. > > > I would point out that the dynamic rollback feature of Image -- > > Image's functional equivalent of the SQL "COMMIT" statement -- > > sometimes fails. > > > Cortlandt, > > While I see your point, I don't think you get mine. After all, we're NOT > preparing a legal brief here. We're trying to spur interest in a platform > that deserves a second look. So, I graciously invite "any other computer > maker" to refute my claim with hard facts. I don't think you'll find too > many takers. Besides, with all the totally overinflated B.S. in the world > surrounding computers, I think this line is but a smidgen, if at all. I > mean, after all, when it comes to computers, define the word "robust". > > And as far as SQL COMMIT is concerned, I have seen that fail on more than > one occasion. But, you've never seen or heard Oracle admit to that > happening. That's a bug, not a feature! > > John Hornberger > Sr. Systems Programmer > SPX Corporation >