Rich,
I think your are incorrect on several accounts. Compaq has trimmed its PC
overhead very aggressively where it's margins are relatively good compared
to the rest of the industry.
Secondly, Tru64 was ported to the IA64 family more than three years ago
before the Compaq merger. I think we all lament the end of the Alpha, but
while sales of Alpha Servers have been pretty decent as of late, the
current market downturn has hurt the entire industry. Just look at Sun's
stock, and SGI is not even on the radar screen.
Rich Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, Dan Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Quote from story from NY Times on HP buying Compaq...
> >
> > "Both Hewlett-Packard and Compaq have been hurt by price wars
> > in personal computers, where it has been difficult for makers to
> > differentiate themselves when all except Apple Computer are
> > offering operating systems from Microsoft."
> >
> > Linux is a differentiating factor.
> > (However, once world domination is achieved, it won't be.
> > Any monoculture is bad.)
> >
> > Of course, the real problem for Compaq, et al is commoditization of the
> > PC.
>
> While I don't doubt that Compaq has been hurt by the commoditization of
> the PC, they've been hurt much more by their own actions. How many people
> remember when they bought Digital, the infamous quote about how all VMS
> users should move to NT? How about storing the PC setup program on the
> harddisk? How about using custon designed parts (including those damn
> screws) instead of commodity parts? I could go one....
>
> I beleive someone once told me that Dell has 12 hours of inventory on its
> books, that when you buy a Dell PC, they actually use your money to buy
> the parts. Compaq just never seemed to understand that.
>
> > More OS choices might help, but they could be commoditized too. With
> > Linux, et al, however, you have more ways to configure the desktop. This
> > reduces the commodity aspect, and could return some semblance of brand
> > perception.
>
> True, but that might upset MS, and Compaq are very close to Microsoft. I
> think you'll find that most of their sales still involve MS products. It
> would have been silly to alienate MS for a few more Linux boxes (from a
> business perspective).
>
> > We provide general tech support. Quite often when we ask what type or
> > brand of computer a client has, they don't know or they're wrong. (They
> > say they have a HP, but they have a Gateway, for example. Or they just
> > say Windows.) I feel most users don't really distinguish the different
> > makers or care. (Of course, I never have a Mac or Linux user get it
> > wrong.) Since the user doesn't care who makes it, they just buy the
> > cheapest.
>
> Yup, users don't care who made it, they just want to know why it isn't
> working.
>
> FWIW, I see this merger as a last effort by the CEOs of Q and HP to "make
> their mark" on the industry. Both were brought in with much fanfare and
> have done little (in anything) to improve their respective companies. I
> think the saddest part is that many Compaq people in the NE will be let
> go. I just can't see HP choosing Tru64 over HP-UX (the later is already
> running on Itaniam, the former isn't, not officially), and as for poor
> VMS......
>
> Of course it does shed additional light on why Q licensed Alpha to Intel,
> HP would never have swallowed that one.
--
--
Gerald Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Boston Computer Solutions and Consulting
ICQ#156300
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
