Duane Percox wrote: > > Ken (in a definite state of grrrr'ness) said: > > >Duane, Birket, and Svein all posted on this subject: > > > >>>Duane - Last summer I was on a roundtable in Stuttgart. One of the > >>>panelists was from a company that had implemented the first copy of SAP on > >>>an HP3000. SAP and HP came to his company and cancelled their plans for > >>>rolling out SAP on 130+ sites round the world. HP paid for UNIX training > >>>and a sweet deal on the 130 Unix boxes to replace the HP3000's. > > > >>This is a good example of HP doing some anti-recruiting ;-( > > > >>It sure would be good to hear what HP has to say about this. From this > >>discription it looks like HP/SAP had an agenda and the 3000 wasn't on it. > > > >Grrrrrr...... Note especially from above by Birket a key phrase: > > > >".....a company that had implemented the first copy of SAP on > >an HP3000"; i.e.: past tense.... HP should be trying to bring > >*more* world-class applications to the 3000; and here they > >are getting rid of a major package *THAT WAS ALREADY > >RUNNING* ?!?!. Perceived lack of strategic support for the > >3000 at the HP corporate level is bad enough, but this sounds > >like deliberate, active DE-marketing to a customer that *wanted* > >to stay on the 3000 (since from everything I hear implementing > >SAP on any platform is non-trivial, I assume this company didn't > >go through the implementation exercise just for the fun of it)...... > > > >Like I said, grrrrrr.... :-(( > > I would like to rein this in just a little. I had the same response as Ken > does here (grrrrrrr) when I heard this story and it difinitely does raise > some key issues. > > However, I have received some correspondence which suggests there may have > been some good business reasons for SAP to not want to support the 3000 at > that time. In summary, without going into too much detail, this is what > I've been advised: > > 1. there were performance issues on the 3000 due to the nature of the > SAP application code (fork performance and character i/o) > > 2. HP did in fact help iron out and improve upon these issues, but SAP > ended up with a not so standard code base because of application > changes they needed to make. > > 3. SAP didn't want to support the additional version aimed at just one > platform (3000). > > I would say that unless you were intimately involved in these issues and > the decision making tree you probably can't really know what was going > on and what the true motivations were. However, its possible that HP didn't > have the final say here and it was finally a SAP decision which was supported > by HP to keep the business. > > Duane Percox (QSS) > [log in to unmask] (v:415.306.1608 f:415.365.2706) > http://www.aimnet.com/~qssnet/ > ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/qssnet/ > Don't miss the 'Land of QWEBS'... http://qwebs.qss.com Yes, that's basically the story. As SAP has not seen the big numbers of sells as on the U**X side, SAP decided to stop any further development for "niche" systems like MPE/iX (and VMS) and fully focus on U**X and NT as their strategic development platforms. For SAP R/3 on AS/400 you should ask who is paying for this and who is doing this... Ivica Juresa HP CSY Marketing Europe