Re: Proprietary Systems...

[ken shields <kjs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris Rehm wrote:
>
>
> running on S/36s could be run on HP with almost no trouble. I could tell
> he knew this was quite an accomplishment.
>
> I was being very honest when I asked him, "Why would anyone want to do that?"
>
> I thought he might tell me about increased performance or cost savings or
> something, but I guess he hadn't been trained past the part where it could
> be done. He paused for a minute, stumped, and I left.
>
> It's too bad, maybe. Because if I had thought that was useful I'd have kept
> it in my toolbox for when it fit someone's need. But I never gave it a 
>thought.
>
> -

        HP was right, as I found out.
        I didn't make my determination on the basis of what the
        salesman happened to say about the machine.
        Like MS in the 90's, IBM took a big hit from HP, simply
        because on a 30 point scale HP made a superior
        computer.
        This was in the years 80-88.
        The biggest sales point, apart from performance, was
        the fact that HP supported X.25 communications(80),
        long before IBM offered it up.
        The savings in comm costs alone, justified the
        purchase.
        When the /36 was introduced, the HP3000 could still     beat it hands
down.
        It's the same kind of attitude we witness today, with
        MS.
        I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Bill in a buy-out
        scenario for IBM
Ken