Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM!thompson
From: thompson@PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM (John Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: re: Open Letter Response
Message-ID: <9106212238.AA14083@pan.ssec.honeywell.com>
Date: 21 Jun 91 22:38:27 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 82


I suddenly had a thought.  (Intelligence -- what a concept)  I had forgotten
what the exact reply from HP/Apollo had been to USENET LETTER 1.  Since I'm
a pack-rat at heart, the reply has been sitting in my current-issues mail 
folder for lo these many moons.  Let's just see what they had to say back
then --

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       ...
>       Hewlett-Packard appreciates that electronic services are
>       very important to workstation customers.  HP is committed to
>       creating and delivering services that meet your needs and
>       help your productivity.
> 
>       Currently, HP's strategic investment in electronic services
>       is HP SupportLine.  HP SupportLine is ....
>       HP wants to make HP SupportLine available to those
>       customers, via the Internet.  Clearly, the Internet is very
>       important, because it is a de facto communications network
>       standard among a large number of our workstation customers.
> ...
>
> HP is committed to providing the best support in the industry and
> continually gets a high ranking for customer satisfaction.  We
> have done this by listening to our customers inputs and
> responding to your needs, both in terms of product quality and in
> support processes.  The upcoming ADUS conference in San Diego
> will provide further opportunities to better understand customer
> needs, and HP will be well represented there.  We value your
> input and thank you for the time and effort that went into the
> Open Letter.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm.  HP is committed to creating and delivering services that meet our
needs?  Well, we have a need here.

Hmmmm.  HP says that the Internet is very important, and is a network
standard among a large number of customers?  Seems to me that HP/Apollo 
should be leading the industry in conforming with standards.  After all,
"Better isn't better -- standard is better."  It appears that we may have
to revamp that phrase a little bit.  Maybe it should be "Better isn't 
better -- our whim is better."  That doesn't seem to roll off the tongue
as cleanly though.

HP has done this (gets high ranking on customer satisfaction) by listening
to their customers' inputs and responding to their needs?  Well, it seems
that you listened.  Where's your response?


Some people have seen this letter as a DN10000 future and support letter.  
That's partially true, as the lack of a future is very important to the high-
end user.  However, it's much more than that, and this touches on the comments 
that HP should be aggressively pushing the 700 series (as they are) --
o   HP/Apollo _should_ be pushing a transition to OSF and the 700 series.  To
    not do so would be negligent.
o   HP/Apollo needs to be extending Domain/OS in this transition period.  This
    was stressed in 'Issue 2' of the letter.  We need to be able to talk to 
    the OSF systems from Domain/OS, and we need to access the Domain/OS 
    systems from the new, whiz-bang boxes that HP/Apollo would like us to
    buy.  What were we offered?  No interoperability until late 1991, limited
    interoperability until mid-late 1992, and reasonable interoperability
    (though certainly not what we'd want to have) a year and a half after
    the 700 series was released!  In a year and a half, the system will be
    a run-of-the-mill 60 MIPS machine -- nothing compared to the gazillion
    MIPS, GFLOP, $4995 system that WhizBang Computers, Inc will have out by
    then.  (In short, it'll be obsolete, old-hat equipment.)
o   HP/Apollo needs to be pushing a _transition_, not a blind leap.  This was
    stressed in 'Issue 3' of the letter.  As Domain users, we cannot just
    push everybody onto an OSF system today -- even if it were available.
    We will need to be on Domain/OS for quite some time (multiple years),
    but we can't just stay on our current hardware, or even the 9000/400
    series nodes.  We need the power, and we need to support other people,
    who may be going to OSF altogether.


-- jt --
John Thompson
Honeywell, SSEC
Plymouth, MN  55441
thompson@pan.ssec.honeywell.com

Avoid the rush -- Procrastinate Now!