HP/DEC/Compaq

Fascinating. What a dream job (guaranteed job security) for one lucky guy. Problem is, anybody good enough at PDP-11 stuff is probably not going to want to work for another 37 years.

And the people who DO want that kind of job security can't get the training professionally anymore.

This is funny, because it's ignoring some pretty important parts of HP history. In the late 90's, HP had a well-regarded minicomputer system, with a large installed base, a deep roadmap, and a solid plan to migrate to IPF. I'm referring, of course, to the HP 3000 line and its operating system, MPE/iX. MPE was beautiful, with a high-performance, easy-to-maintain database (IMAGE) and a large number of ISV's providing software for the platform.

Then HP bought Compaq.

As soon as HP had its paws on NSK and VMS, the MPE roadmap went out the window. The IPF port was cancelled, and the half-baked VMS-on-IPF port (seriously, benchmark it side-by-side with HP-UX/aCC sometime) went ahead as HP's sole minicomputer option. MPE support and sales ended a couple of years ago, and now there's a thriving community of businesses providing support for those "homesteading" on MPE.

Meanwhile, HP's VMS development has been nothing but a chain of fuckups for the last several years. Support for new processors has lagged behind HP-UX and even Windows, performance is still behind other IPF systems, and only some Integrity systems can even run it. (No Superdomes for you, VMS users!) HP says that they know of 2500 unique customers on VMS, which, if accurate, implies some deep, deep fuckups on HP's end. I've never seen solid figures on VMS installed base when HP bought Compaq, but I'd be surprised if it was under 10000; the other major remaining minicomputer platform, IBM i, is claimed to have 100,000 unique customers.

Basically, the message here is not "oh noes, HP murders its acquisitions in favor of inhouse stuffs!!!!" but rather, "everything HP touches turns to shit."

Always wanted to play with an HP 3000, but never got my hands on one. They sound like solid machines.

Want to try HP 3000? Well, good luck with that .

Only in the post-1996ish world of HP. They used to be really good.

Yeah but this is a borderline nutcase/Luddite view and aside from you and me there are obviously not enough people who subscribe to it. Time goes on whether we like it or not. Running antique (cough) vintage (cough) hardware and software is just a temporary respite. When you get up from your chair you have to face the world moved on from there. Not for the better but there's no stopping it.

"My advice to you is to start drinking heavily" -- Bluto ... and then in the secret meeting of the Greek Counsel "Blowjob! Blowjob!"

Not only did we (who were there) get along fine back then we also had jobs that mostly weren't getting "outsourced" or "downsized" or "rightsized" or "reorganized" or "restructured" or "nearshored". I don't even know what the latest word for that is but I do remember what it was like to smoke cigars and drink beer in the office- during working hours- and still get a bonus at the end of the year. It was nice to work with the same guys for a few years instead of shaking hands with the consultant-du-jour or moving offices twice a year during the acquisitions that came later. It was nice to be able to ask questions of people who worked on a product for 20 years how things ought to be done.



Well I think we can all bet money HP didn't buy Compaq for VMS. They wanted the PC business and they got it. Companies today really don't want crappy little 100M/year business lines cluttering up the financials. If it doesn't make half a billion it's probably going to die in a big merger or acquisition. It has nothing to do with how good something is or how much people love it. They don't want to manage it.

Do you have a cite for that Stroustrup quote btw? I've read quite a few statements by him that suggest he knows which end is up notwithstanding the fact he invented C++.

Yes, they used to be prime stuff. At some point they transitioned to the world of commodity crapware.

First off, the fact that most people don't subscribe to a viewpoint has no relevance to its accuracy. I'm not saying that people don't think they're a million times better off now than they were in the dark ages of the '70s and '80s, I'm saying that they really weren't - no matter what they think.

Additionally, it's not as inescapable as all that yet. For the time being, we still have the choice of whether or not to be involved in a lot of things; I don't have a Facebook account, and I never will. I do have a cell phone, but only in case of getting stranded on the road in the snow or somesuch, and I don't hesitate to turn the damn thing off when I want some quiet time.

And anyway, even if it is inevitable, who says we have to approve of it?


Right here. That whole page is worth reading; the man is so far removed into the realm of sensible and sane from the IT industry at large that it's not even funny...

I agree with that. What I hard find to explain is how few other people do. But in the end it doesn't matter what we think because the majority rules. The sheeple have spoken! Or at least their unelected governing bodies have...




Thanks. But I don't understand what you meant in your sentence above. I find his comments refreshingly accurate. It's even more remarkable that an academic is connected to reality. That alone is noteworty!

Indeed, Stroustrup's comments are a breath of fresh air; what I mean is that it's sad that the rest of the industry is so lost in the wilderness compared to this one prof...