Re: HP Buys Compaq

On Tuesday 04 September 2001 04:58 pm, Jim Damato wrote:
> We're in agreement that Compaq's purchase of DEC didn't fulfill its
> potential.  As for HP, who knows?  I think it will be different.  Compaq
> was a small technology player trying to get big.  HP's a big, mature entity
> trying to fill gaps.  I'm not saying it will or won't go well -- I just
> don't think we can necessarily use Compaq's history as a model.

Okay.

> >Wasn't that the concern of the
> >Compaq/DEC purchase? That it gave Microsoft entry into enterprise serving.
> >Well, if HP's plans are in this line, isn't this a much bigger threat?
>
> I think that Microsoft's entry into enterprise serving was inevitable.  I

Yeah, I'd agree.

> wouldn't be surprised if you're right that the Compaq/DEC and HP/Compaq
> acquisitions will help the process.  Still, one way or another servers are
> going to grow to meet NT and Win2K's potential.
>
> Gee, if you feel that HP's acquisition of Compaq would cause them to
> stumble do you think it could set back Microsoft's progress?

I didn't mean to imply that this purchase will cause some form of spiral out
of control or something. But the last few times I've seen these, the
resulting company lost some market share. Unisys plummeted, but I wouldn't
expect the same here.

And I don't think anything will come along to set back Microsoft's progress.
I was just reading the description of XP today and trying to decide when I'll
be forced to buy it when it occured to me it is quite the same desciption I
read of NT. My issue with that is I just don't know how much is true and how
much is fantasy. So, I really don't know what "Microsoft's progress" really
is.

Anyway, if NT is a valid tool, then it has a place in the market. As it
matures, it becomes more valid in the enterprise server market.

> I don't think that Windows presence as an enterprise OS will be a bad thing
> in the long run.  Microsoft's business practices irritate me, and I've been
> annoyed that they've gotten by on potential and promises for so long.
> (Folks I know would counter that with IBM's equally annoying business
> practices and their inflexibility.)  I'd still rather work on the mature
> integrated operating environment that Windows will eventually become than
> on Unix or Linux.  The more I work with Unix the more I hate this thin OS
> concept.  As someone bred on System 38's and AS/400's I hate having to
> develop or buy things for Unix that I thought were supposed to be part of
> the operating system, and I hate having to integrate dozens of
> infrastructure solutions just to provide an operating environment and
> database.

I can't say I really agree. Sure, I was raised on the S/3x line, but that
doesn't mean I think that really is the only way to go. Tying things to the
OS has some advantages, like better integration. But the payoff is you get
progress only at the level the vendor wishes to provide. Often we'll see
complaints in that area. I think the user has more to gain if they can opt
for what they want on their system.

I think that *nix has a lot of growth to go through, and so does NT. Now, if
OS/400 was being marketed as a desktop OS, I'd say it needed work, too.

Well, I'm way off the point of this thread so I'll cut out here.

I do think this new company can be a big boost to Microsoft even though I
don't see it as being the market monster it has the apparent potential for.

> As far as HP and Compaq go, I'm excited for the moment.  I've done a lot of
> business with both companies.  For better or worse I'm interested to see
> where it will go.  This thread has helped me to imagine a lot of positive
> and negative possibilities.

Same. In the end, anything that shakes up the market and puts additional
competitive pressure is good for us.

> -Jim
>
> James P. Damato
--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.