Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!mhres!jv
From: jv@mhres.mh.nl (Johan Vromans)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: HP9000 500 versus 800
Message-ID: <1714@mhres.mh.nl>
Date: 1 Apr 88 09:59:55 GMT
References: <830004@bgphp1.UUCP> <1340009@hpclscu.HP.COM>
Organization: Multihouse N.V., The Netherlands
Lines: 23

In article <1340009@hpclscu.HP.COM> shankar@hpclscu.HP.COM (Shankar Unni) writes:
>>[stuff about the 500 being a solid machine]
>Thanx for the compliment. The 825 is pretty solid, too. Our s800 HP-UX (on
>a different CPU) has not had a crash in over 2 years. The only problem we
>ever had were a few mysterious swap errors which were traced down to an old,
>faulty disk with a bad head.
>
>The 500 had the unfortunate problem of being squeezed from both above (by
>the new s800's) and below (by the s300's - 680x0 based boxes).

As a software producing company we are using a dual-cpu model 500 for
development. We are committed to X/Open, System V etc., and these are the
things we are *NOT* going to get on our 500.
Buying an 800 system is a no-no. Besides, when will this machine be phased
out due to whatever reasons?

A frozen system is very stable, but not in a moving market.


-- 
Johan Vromans                              | jv@mh.nl via European backbone
Multihouse N.V., Gouda, the Netherlands    | uucp: ..{uunet!}mcvax!mh.nl!jv
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"