asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) (11/07/90)
A Note: Because of a bug in NNTP, I cannot, currently, read News. Thus, I
would request that any responses to this that you want me to respond
to, or just see be sent via e-mail (feel free to post them, too,
as I will not be able to post a summary).
Perhaps I'm just seeing conspiracies behind every curtain because I'm too
paranoid. Or, perhaps not. Either way, what I have to voice here has no
basis in cold hard facts, and is simply conjecture. This is my opinion
and is not (most likely) the opinon of my employer, my mother or George
"The Brocolli Man" Bush.
For the past 4-5 issues HP/Apollo has made the front page of "Unix Today!".
In the beginning it was the Intent to move OSF/1 to the Apollo line, then
the "Open Letter" followed by HP's response. In with the article about the
response I was quoted on my feelings (mostly bad) about dumping Domain/OS
for OSF/1. Around this time there was a debate on the net about the future
of Domain/OS and some people even formed a group to try to dissuade HP
from going to OSF/1 as an OS (perhaps as a Domain/OS environment, or just
as an HP OS, replacing HP/UX).
Then came HP's announcement that the DN line would not have OSF/1 ported to
it because it would be "obsolete" by the time OSF/1 was out (Probably true,
but not for the reasons that they are siting :). To this there was hostile
user-reaction from both camps (note that this gives both sides of the OSF/1
debate a common cause, a major step in controling group dynamics). Then,
in the next (the most recent) issue of "Unix Today!", HP was quoted as saying
that they would be porting OSF/1 to only the DN's that had the Motorola '040
CPU.
######## Conjecture ALERT! #########
IMHO, this was an obvious attempt on HP's part to take public scrutiny off
of the fact that they were dropping Domain/OS by threatening to do
something far more damaging to the Apollo line (like drop it entirely).
I don't think that they ever had any intention of dropping the DN's. I
think that the plan from the start was to scare the user community into
comming together, and then giving them a reward like a trained dog.
I consider this to be unforgivable, and I will NEVER buy HP hardware or
software again, as I feel that I just can't trust them (I still have plans
to buy a used Apollo sometime in the future, but that would not support HP).
I am not proposing an all out boycot, just letting people know what I'm doing.
Of course, I will probably have employers who will purchase HP. I will warn
them of my opinions, but then it's their problem, and their risk.
Sorry if I come off sounding like a fanatic, but I'm fed up with HP thinking
that they can jerk us around like this because we're "just users". I
would have followed Apollo to the ends of the Earth, because they respected
their users, but now HP has betrayed us, and I don't see them turning
back.
BTW: the "Old/Classic Coke" comment in the subject reffers to what I belive
Coke intended when they introduced New Coke. I don't think that they
ever wanted to market it, they just wanted to take the sugar out of
Coke, and did so by re-introducing it as "Coke Classic" which did
not have sugar (it has corn-syrup instead). Now I hear that they've
discontinued the "New Coke" and changed "Coke Classic" back to just
Coke. Imagine that.
-AJS
--
| asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu or asherman%cpe@swan.ulowell.edu or |
| {backbone}!ulowell!ul-cpe!asherman |
| "That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------mike@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (11/07/90)
In article <ASHERMAN.90Nov7041609@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu> asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) writes: >Perhaps I'm just seeing conspiracies behind every curtain because I'm too >paranoid. Or, perhaps not. Either way, what I have to voice here has no >basis in cold hard facts, and is simply conjecture. This is my opinion >and is not (most likely) the opinon of my employer, my mother or George >"The Brocolli Man" Bush. Nor is the following my emplyer's opinion! >Then came HP's announcement that the DN line would not have OSF/1 ported to >it because it would be "obsolete" by the time OSF/1 was out (Probably true, >but not for the reasons that they are siting :). To this there was hostile >user-reaction from both camps (note that this gives both sides of the OSF/1 >debate a common cause, a major step in controling group dynamics). Then, >in the next (the most recent) issue of "Unix Today!", HP was quoted as saying >that they would be porting OSF/1 to only the DN's that had the Motorola '040 >CPU. The problem is that the availability of OSF/1 that have '40s does not help us a bit. Why would anyone want to buy upgrades for DNs. It is cheaper to buy new machines which are more powerful. For the cost of a CPU upgrade you nearly get a 425dl. AND you still have the old DNs available. Michael K. Gschwind, Institute for VLSI-Design, Vienna University of Technology mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at 1-2-3-4 kick the lawsuits out the door mike@vlsivie.uucp 5-6-7-8 innovate don't litigate e182202@awituw01.bitnet 9-A-B-C interfaces should be free Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144 D-E-F-O look and feel has got to go! Fax: (++43).1.569697
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (11/08/90)
In article <ASHERMAN.90Nov7041609@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu> asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu (Aaron Sherman) writes: > >Perhaps I'm just seeing conspiracies behind every curtain because I'm too Yes. >Then came HP's announcement that the DN line would not have OSF/1 ported to >it because it would be "obsolete" by the time OSF/1 was out (Probably true, What ever happened to the argument that it was too hard to support OSF/1 on multiple hardware platforms. After all, if the more platforms you get to switch to OSF/1, the sooner you can drop Domain/OS. >IMHO, this was an obvious attempt on HP's part to take public scrutiny off >of the fact that they were dropping Domain/OS by threatening to do >something far more damaging to the Apollo line (like drop it entirely). The problem with conspiracy theories is that they always credit far too much coordination and thought to the "conspirators". I find it much more likely that HP (HP, not Apollo, they'll always be separate in my mind) is simply out of touch with the user community. >BTW: the "Old/Classic Coke" comment in the subject reffers to what I belive > Coke intended when they introduced New Coke. I don't think that they > ever wanted to market it, they just wanted to take the sugar out of > Coke, and did so by re-introducing it as "Coke Classic" which did > not have sugar (it has corn-syrup instead). Now I hear that they've > discontinued the "New Coke" and changed "Coke Classic" back to just > Coke. Imagine that. Really. Old Coke hasn't had sugar in it for years unless the sugar market happened to be temporarily cheaper (and in some markets, for some reason the Coke made in Western Mass often had sugar in it, I don't know if it still does). -- Alphalpha Software, Inc. | motif-request@alphalpha.com nazgul@alphalpha.com |----------------------------------- 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | Proline BBS: 617/641-3722 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
krowitz@RICHTER.MIT.EDU (David Krowitz) (11/08/90)
The reason for buying an upgrade for a DN3500/4500 to an '040 DN5500 is that the CPU is a minor part of the full cost of a system. This is why the product literature in which the manufacturers trupet their latest and greatest CPU line always quotes the price of the "entry level " system -- ie. monochrome, diskless, and with minimum RAM. If you look at the cost of upgrading a color DN3500 with 19" 1280x1024 monitor, 32 MB RAM, 697 MB disk and cartridge tape (about $7000 for the CPU upgrade) vs. the cost of an entry level model 425t (about $9000), then the prices look similar. But the additional 24 MB of RAM (at $4000/8MB) will run you another $12,000, the 19" high-res color monitor option will cost you another $2000 for the color controller and $2000 for the 19" vs. the 16" monitor, two 200MB internal disks will run you another $5000, and the external catridge tape is not on my price list, but general goes for at least another $1500. This totals out to $31,500 vs. $7000 -- and only includes 400 MB of disk vs. 697 MB disk. If you need a machine that has an AT-bus (either because you have multiple network controllers in your DN3500/4500 or because you have 3rd party I/O boards), then the cost difference between a model 425t and a model 433s is adds another $3000 to the price for a total of $34,500. This is not cheap. The CPU upgrades are a *very* good price for many customers who have large investments in memory, periperals, and graphics options. That is why HP/Apollo offered them. It is also why so many customers got so pissed off when HP initially implied at the ADUS conference that they would not support OSF/1 on any DN platform, including the DN5500. -- David Krowitz krowitz@richter.mit.edu (18.83.0.109) krowitz%richter.mit.edu@eddie.mit.edu krowitz%richter.mit.edu@mitvma.bitnet (in order of decreasing preference)