> I was wondering how many others viewed the slick presentation on "Defining > the New Enterprise", broadcast this morning (Wed.) around the world by HP. > Not a single mention of the 3000, or even a _hint_ by anyone involved, that > HP knew about any operating environment other than UNIX or NT. Rich Sevcik > (sp?) even used "mission critical" and UNIX in the same sentence!!! I > thought "mission critical" was the forte of the 3000. Shouldn't Rich know > better? Unfortunately, I missed the broadcast and I had hoped HP would include the 3000 since the show was about the future of IT in the Enterprise. As for "mission critical", I regard our 9000 just as mission critical as our 3000 and I'm *glad* HP sees the 9000 as needing mission critical support - just like the 3000 - because we need it to be. So far, in 9 months of running, our 9000-K400/200 (running HPUX 10.10) has not crashed. It is rebooted regularly to get rid of odd behavior and hung processes (something we don't have to do on the 3000, but others do), but it has not crashed nor has it lost any data. Perhaps HP would listen just a little better to us if we reduced the Unix bashing - it is really unnecessary and unrealistic. However, I am concerned that HP didn't include the 3000 is a discussion of the future of Enterprise computing. Even if they only see the 3000 as a workgroup solution or targeted industry solution, it still plays an important role in the Enterprise and I'm disappointed in HP. If they are going to embrace NT (so it is not just a GSY thing) and present a view that cuts across HP's computing divisions, then the 3000 should be a part of this and not ignored or separated. The problem appears to be that, to HP, the 3000 is not strategic - it makes money and has many loyal customers, so it won't be abandonded - but it doesn't seem to have a place in HP's strategic view of the future of computing. Comparasions with IBM are interesting, not so much from the support of the AS/400 vs. the HP3000, but from the view that IBM no longer seems to have any cohesive strategic view of computing and appears to think this is a good thing. IBM is now "just" twice as big as HP, while HP keeps growing, but I wonder which has the better view of the future? IBM's go with the flow or HP's attempt to define it as Unix and NT? We're probably looking at a profound change in IT (the "information highway" becomes more of a "entertainment/lifestyle tollway" and all of our lives change). This isn't just like the entry of minicomputers and CRTs or the PC, it is more like the industrial revolution.