The Ne[w|utered] HP (was: RE: The effects of employment)

From: Zane H. Healy <healyzh_at_aracnet.com>
Date: Thu Dec 12 17:14:01 2002

> Not production ready, but it was supposed to be close enough that I could test
> some of our scientific software on it. It wasn't even close, given how often
> it would fall off the network and do other weird things, like spontaneously
> reboot...

Ouch. As far as I know, we're not having major problems with the systems
we've got running Linux. However, I'm not part of the team that's
responsible for them.

> Well...definitly better then the Itanium boxes. But it's pretty much a big PC,
> with the build quality that would imply. kind of disappointing, compared to
> their older workstations...

The Itanium boxes I've seen reminded me a lot of some of the more recent HP
workstations I've seen in (actually those HP's are probably 3-5 years old).
I've worked on HP 9000-750's and as I recall they were well built, the newer
PA-RISC systems scared me to the point I won't even consider having one at
home!

> I'm really just disappointed overall with their decision to kill Alpha and
> PA-RISC. Itanium really isn't that good, at least not yet, and they're going
> to lose a LOT of customers by doing it.
>
> - Dan Wright

The problem there being, if they loose customers, it's going to either be to
IBM or Linux (or maybe Sun, but that strikes me as a big maybe, and I for
one prefer Solaris). Killing the Alpha is the one that ticks me off, but
I'm not to sure if it's Compaq or HP that should get the blame there.

                        Zane
Received on Thu Dec 12 2002 - 17:14:01 GMT