Talk:Hewlett-Packard/Archive 1

HP External Links
HP also has added two new portals that aren't listed in the external links section. A Graphic Arts section and a DesignJet section. These are pretty big, especially the designjet one. These should probably be on here Casieg 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * someone may give a link to HP labs please Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Printers
It seems that at least some mention should be made of HP printers, since many people (or at least I) associate HP almost exclusively with printers. --Splashkid2 19:42, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)
 * I've added information about HP's Imaging and Printing division which houses its printer group along with associated informationJvandyke 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Calculators
In March 2002, Hewlett Packard announced that the company would no longer produce calculators, disappointing many long-time fans of such a famous product line.

As of 2003 Fred A. Valdez, General Manager of HP's Calculator Division says, "HP calculators are here to stay and they are going to be better than ever, giving our customers more than ever."
 * I've incorporated above quote into the article.Jvandyke 06:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

HP logo
I guess/hope displaying the HP logo in this article is "fair use", copyright-wise? --Wernher 21:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how HP just deal in Computer Peripherals. Perhaps a change to this is needed. Perhaps computer systems and peripherals???

Direct Links
How come 'HP' directs here, where as 'hp' goes to a disambiguation page? I understand the disambig page, but I can't find any instance of hp using capital letters in their logos anywhere. It's not that I really care, but I though that I would mention it. --T-rex 21:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that happens because WP always assumes an initial cap thus "hp" is read as "Hp". This tends to screw things up, see iPod for example. I'm sure that some clever person could fix "Hp" (entered as "hp") to redirect to HP. However I'm not that clever person. Help, someone...  --hydnjo talk 23:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
A criticism section should be added for this company in order to better balance it out with other companies (Microsoft, Apple, Dell, ect...) simply for the sake of objectivity. One must look at the whole picture of a company afterall, not just the positive if they wish to have a truly informed opinion... hence why I think the Microsoft, Apple Computer and Dell, Inc. pages are soo good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.58.43.69 (talk • contribs).


 * Until someone adds some decent Criticism, I have removed this section... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.233.128 (talk • contribs).


 * In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have added it, but I know personally that they are difficult to take apart, and are marketed as easy to upgrade when, in fact, they have warranty stickers eveywhere. Unfortunately, this is my personal experience, so if someone could find a source, maybe it should be put back in. Quantum 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I re-added the Criticism section and moved information there including criticisms including the providing technology used in Iran/Iraq war, outsourcing, restructuring, etc.Jvandyke 05:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Zzblue 01:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Added VooDooPC "Village Prostitute" complaint. Source is https://www.voodoopc.com/myvoodoo/myvoodoo.aspx

Merger of AppIQ with Hewlett-Packard
I've merged AppIQ with Hewlett-Packard. If there are any quarrals, don't hesitate to hit me on my talk page. Kareeser|Talk! 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--> This very minor transaction is given way too much discussion. AppIQ was a tiny company and this is hardly that strategic of a merge. You are giving AppIQ more space than the merger with Compaq!

At best, should get a one line "in 2005, HP aquired AppIQ." HP also announced plans to acquire the larger Peregrine in 2005. -- HP employee, 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've split Compaq and AppIQ into a new section called Acquisitions. I think the Compaq section is too short and the AppIQ too long. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed the afd merger tag to clean the category out. Kevin_b_er 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mergers in general
Here are all the companies that HP has aquired, with dates. I fail to see why AppIQ is given such prominent coverage given that many other acquisitions (Convex, Dazel, Indigo, Storage Apps to name just a few) were so much more strategic. AppIQ is a pimple on the butt of HP, quite frankly, compared to most of the other acquisitions. No doubt someone that used to work at AppIQ inserted it.

If there's going to be a "mergers" section, it needs to be seriously overhauled.
 * Apollo 	4/89
 * AppIQ 	10/05
 * Avantek 	1991
 * Bluestone 	1/01
 * Boonton Radio 	1959
 * CEC Europe 	5/04
 * Compaq 	5/02
 * Consera 	2/04
 * Convex 	9/95
 * Data Systems 	1966
 * Dazel 	6/99
 * DEC (with Compaq) 	5/02
 * EEsof 	1993
 * Dymec 	1959
 * Extreme Logic 	6/05
 * F&M Scientific 	1965
 * Harrison Labs 	1960's
 * Indigo 	3/02
 * ManageOne 	5/04
 * Mercury Interactive  11/06
 * Moseley 	1958
 * Novadigm 	2/04
 * Peregrine     12/05
 * Persist 	11/03
 * Sanborn 	1961
 * Snapfish 	4/05
 * StorageApps 	9/01
 * Symantec Networking 	4/97
 * Synstar 	10/04
 * Talking Blocks 	9/03
 * Tandem (with Compaq) 	5/02
 * TI Data Systems Group 	10/92
 * Triaton 	2/04
 * Trinagy 	8/01
 * TruLogica 	4/05
 * Varian Quantum Electronics 	1966


 * I'm currently working on adding all of these to the article List of acquisitions by Hewlett-Packard in addition to the companies listed here. Jasenlee (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've tagged the article as it is currently a mixed bag. There is no real introduction to the article and the history is too far up the page. Should be restructured in line with other large IT company articles to expand on important topics and remove or reduce chaff. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken an inital crack at cleanup.Jvandyke 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
how is hewlett pronounced? IPA? Thanks, --Abdull 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "HYOO-let", with "HYOO" having the same sound as the word "hew", meaning to cut wood or the way a careful speaker would pronounce "hue", sounding the "H".


 * I don't speak IPA anymore but perhaps someone can add the IPA to the article.


 * Atlant 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, I'll give to the answer: Hewlett-Packard is pronounced /'hjulɛt 'pækɜrd/ in standard American English. I'm about 98% certain about this. In my (Boston) dialect, it's /'hjulɛt 'pækɨd/.


 * PS: Atlant: IPA stands for International Phonetic Alphabet. It's not something you speak. It's something you write. Wikipedia uses IPA as its standard system of phonetic transcription.

Bostoner (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The eighties and beyond
"However, Agilent Technologies, not HP, bears the legacy of the original company founded in 1939, as evidenced by Agilent's portfolio of electronic instruments descended from HP's earliest products. Agilent was spun off from HP in 1999."

This statement is a personal, subjective opinion phrased as fact. I think it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.40.224 (talk • contribs).


 * This statement is the absolute truth, and you may ask just about anyone who has worked for the company or had contact with its employees. The "HP Way" was divested right along with Agilent, and the company bearing the HP name had very little to do with the founding principles of Bill Hewlett and David Packard.
 * Atlant 11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The present company known as "Hewlett-Packard" has a significantly marked departure from the original constitutional values of the "HP-Way" set forth by the original founders, Bill Hewlett & Dave Packard. The "HP Way" was divested right along with Agilent when it was spun-off in 1999, the spin-off being completed in 2000. I know this from personal experience as an HP/Agilent Alumni after working for BOTH companies for a total of 11.5 years.

Diversity
Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a forum

Please do not post personal experiences on the talk page. Information needs to be verifiable before incorporation into Wikipedia.Wefoij 02:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the Agilent Technologies paragraph to a Criticism section.Jvandyke 05:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I resurrected it as Hewlett-Packard. Disclaimer: I am a former Agilent employee. I am presently an HP employee. The comments made and content created by me at Wikipedia are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer. <>< tbc 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See HP Corporate Objectives and HP Services features for examples of official HP statements on this topic. <>< tbc 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed HPShopping.com and CompaqAtHome paragraph
I removed the following paragraph as it seemed unimportant: Please feel free to correct me by reinserting (although an explanation of importance would be nice.)Jvandyke 04:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * HPshopping.com was launched in 1998 as HP's direct-to-consumer e-commerce store, and in 1999 became incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary. In 2002, Compaq's direct-to-consumer e-commerce store, CompaqAtHome, joined hpshopping.com, creating a comprehensive, one-stop, on-line store for HP and Compaq home and home-office products.

removed "* the UDC (Utility Data Center)"
I removed UDC (Utility Data Center) as the article details that it is a cancelled project.Jvandyke 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

HP pretexting scandal
Their is no mention of the HP pretexting scandal that is making the news.(see ). I am willing to try and tackle it soon if I can find the time but I welcome anyone else to take on the task. The link above should be a good start for a source. Cab88 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added a section on the spying scandal. It could use some more details but I think it's a good start. Their is more info available in the links I provide in the section for someone to go ahead and improve the section. --Cab88 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Groklaw has a few articles on the controversy. Most recent (as of Friday) is this one. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 15:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * New news: Patricia Dunn steps down as Chairwoman, however HP has decided to keep her on the Board of Directors. -  Torinir  (  Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like the CA AG has his sights set on multiple individuals inside HP, if the wording of his public statement suggests anything. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Should the section on the scandal be tagged? Torinir  ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, yes.


 * Atlant 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Added tag. Torinir  (  Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like charges could be handed out within a week. Torinir  ( Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 06:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I also found this tidbit and it looks like a Boston security company is one of the "outside contactors" being targetted by this investigation. Torinir <sub style="color:red;"> ( Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 06:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Spin-off from the scandal - Shareholder lawsuit against HP, accusing top members of the Board of breach of duty. Torinir <sub style="color:red;"> ( Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole HP scandal is expanding as Verizon President Lawrence Babbio has been linked to the incident, and identified as an HP board member. Seems he's caught himself on both sides of the pretexting fence, defending Dunn's actions while denouncing pretexting as the President of Verizon. Torinir <sub style="color:red;"> ( Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 01:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * More from the front lines: Looks like this is a lot more involved than previously thought.  Looks like the investigators from HP tried to install a logging utility on at least one journalist's computer as part of the investigation. Good Game? Torinir <sub style="color:red;"> (  Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even more headlines on the Pretexting Scandal - Apparently, emails were also sent with software attachments to track forwards. Torinir <sub style="color:red;"> (  Ding my phone  <small style="color:green;">My support calls <sub style="color:blue;">  E-Support Options  ) 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)




 * I agree with User:Kookykman. I don't believe cartoons in the public domain have any place in Wikipedia.  We should only use cartoons from a major source, which probably means they're copyrighted. Amy Crescenzo 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What's with this newspeak: "pretexting"? Seems to me that what we're talking about here is fraud.

The section on this scandal is getting too long for the main HP page. I have copied that section in its current form to the page "2006 HP Spying Scandal", and added the current event tag to that page. We should work on cleaning that article up, and making a short summary of the incident on the HP page while directing to the main article for additional information. --Rosensteel 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone think it's time to remove the "current event" label?WasAPasserBy 05:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fiorina written out of HP history?
I know Carly was an object of derision throughout much of the IT industry, but is it right to say so little about her in the HP article on Wikipedia? After all, it was through her that HP obtained Compaq, and with it the remnants of DEC and Tandem. -- The preceding comment was written by Amy Crescenzo on 17. september 2006, 07:59 ] My recollection of the shareholder vote is that it was incredibly close (51:49), and there is strong suspicion that this was only achieved through Fiorina phoning certain investment banks on the final day of voting. Yet there is no mention here of this knife-edge decision which could have dramatcially changed the company's history. -- The preceding comment was written by Amy Crescenzo on 17. september 2006, 08:02

It's hard to avoid the publicity for her forthcoming book. I'm not proposing that anyone should buy it, but presumably her side of the HP story will provide a little more content for this article. -- The preceding comment was written by Amy Crescenzo on 17. september 2006, 07:59


 * Contributing your inforation in Talk is just as important as desiring for some content that you deem important to be in the HP article. You can ask for comments in WP on the HP article (has a backlog). You can add inforation to the Carly Fiorina article and refer ˇto it here in Talk. There is also a category called Hewlett-Packard people and Fiorina is clearly listed there. -Mardus 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of the HQ?
It seems kind of funny that no one's been able to take a picture of the HQ. I would do it myself, but the problem is that I am so busy with lawyer stuff right now. The few times I've happened to be in Palo Alto recently, it's very late in the afternoon and the lighting angles are all wrong. The damn HP HQ sits on a slope at an awful angle so that probably the only time it's not in shadow is around 10 AM in the morning. And I thought the Googleplex was hard to photograph!

--Coolcaesar 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I finally made time to drive by this morning and it's just as hard to photograph in the morning as in the afternoon. The problem is that the corner of the building which probably has the best lighting would be the eastern corner (the complex is on a diagonal to the compass), but that corner is fenced off with a barbed-wire fence like much of the HP complex.  The only part of the complex that is open to the public is the parking lot at the northern corner which faces the main entrance, but that corner is probably in shadow all day long thanks to the shape of the building and the terrain.  Anyway, I'm posting my best attempt right now.  --Coolcaesar 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mardus just asked on my talk page for an update. I haven't tried to take a better photo of the HP complex in the past six months because I've been too busy with lawyer tasks like taking depositions.  In my spare time I've been photographing easier targets like Kensington Technology Group.  It seems to me the only people who could get a good shot of the HP HQ would be employees who could access the secure parking lots, although posting such a photo to Wikipedia would probably get such persons fired (we are talking about a company paranoid enough to spy on its own employees).  --Coolcaesar 08:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the leaves have finally grown in again on the trees and the sun's position has changed; it's spring again. I will try again in May and perhaps I will get lucky.  It's such a hard building to photograph.  Come to think of it, I can't think of any other important Silicon Valley corporate headquarters with a lobby positioned at such an inconvenient angle. --Coolcaesar 07:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"HP's Noughties and the Law of Unintended Consequences" section
I'm not sure this section is appropriate for Wikipedia. Although it does cite sources for some facts, it then draws conclusions based on these facts, which may violate the WP:NOR policy. Stylistically, the eight level bullet list is problematic. Last, what are "Noughties"? Factual info should be moved into the pretexting scandal section, if there is anything in this section that isn't already covered there. The personal analysis should probably be deleted. Rhobite 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the benefit of this section is that it provides the glimmer of an explanation over why Fiorina was sacked. It also mentions Michael Capellas, who is incredibly important to the server and PC history of HP.  (Interestingly The Register today speculates that Capellas may return, if Hurd has to resign.  Such speculation has no place in Wikipedia, but mentioning Capellas's historic role in HP would help the reader of such gossip understand his import.)


 * Without this section, mentions of Fiorina in the entire HP article are minimal, and it reads as if it were written by an obsessive who wants to remove all traces of Fiorina's existence. Compare that with the amount of space that the current pre-texting scandal gets on this HP page.  Have a look also at the IBM page, which admittedly is over-heavy in explanation of what went wrong for the company, but at least it provides an explanation.


 * I don't think this HP section is personal research or opinion. It's a factual history of what happened.  The bullet style is awful, but we should retain the section's meaning.  Thegn 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how sentences like "HP, under the chairmanship of Fiorina and Dunn, seemed adept at finding poor solutions to its problems. Both seemed to assume that aggressive behaviour would win the day. In every case, the resentment that this aggression caused resurfaced later" are anything but OR. Why not split this into a separate article?  It's starting to build up steam beyond HP (Congressional hearings, privacy concerns, etc) and there should a separate article for something of this complexity. Then people can go into more detail of the overall history, starting from Fiorina onwards.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Ricky81682. Those passages go too much into motive, which is notoriously difficult to prove (after all, I am a lawyer) unless all the key players have agreed to be interviewed or one has direct access to their document/email archives.  Even then, a lot of inferences would have to be drawn, which goes directly into the realm of original research.  That is the realm of historians and journalists who cover HP, not Wikipedia!  When they finish documenting this event with the benefit of hindsight, then we can cite and quote appropriately.  Until then, we need to focus on documenting what is objectively known to have happened for certain, as opposed to what some people think may be going on inside the company with regard to internal politics. --Coolcaesar 06:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I know when I'm beaten. My overall concern about this HP article is that it is very trainspotter-ish -- a whole heap of facts for use in 'Trivial Pursuit'' games, a long list of HP products which might look nice in an HP sales catalogue, and almost zero analysis or explanation.  I've recently been reading the Wikipedia article on the Anglo-Saxons, and that article, along with the history / arts / law articles that branch off it, is a model of description, explanation, and summaries of the various theories concerning their origins and movements.  Above all else, it is very interesting.  I regret that I don't think the HP article, though it starts reasonably, sustains this level of interest.  It is very, very patchy, and unbalanced in the amount of space it gives to certain subjects.  Fiorina deserves more; pre-texting deserves much less. Thegn 07:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that the analysis shouldn't be done. The issue is that Wikipedia is not the place to publish said analysis.  That falls under the heading of original research.  If someone else performs this analysis, and publishes it in a reliable source, it can be reported on, cited, and verified.  In particular, articles must "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (WP:NOR, Section 2, Paragraph 5).  With that in mind, take a look at the section in question.  For example, the fifth bullet point.  The source cited makes no mention of phone calls by Fiorina.  The bit about shareholders wondering also violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  The whole section is like that -- filled with speculation and analysis.  It is Original Research, pure and simple.  It may be accurate OR, but it still violates core Wikipedia policies.  I'm deleting it as such.  I personally think the dark side of "the new HP" should be covered, but it has to meet Wikipedia standards.  I will applaud anyone who can add such content that meets policy (in particular, citing a source so others can verify it).  --DragonHawk 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If I could step in here. I don't believe the section was original analysis -- have a look at this recent article from the reputable Arik Johnson of Aurora:   He refers explicitly to Fiorina's phone calls: That vigilance had no doubt been heightened when a voice mail from Fiorina to Chief Financial Officer Robert Wayman regarding last-ditch efforts to find support from big institutional investors ended up in the press. One high-ranking former executive tells BusinessWeek that the initial concern was that an employee who opposed the merger had hacked into the corporate voice-mail system. which seems to provide 3rd-party support for the fifth bullet in the section.
 * Arik Johnson's article provides 3rd party support for all the gaps in the original Wikipedia section, as far as I can make out. I know deletion is so easy, and some Wikipedians seem to enjoy pushing their weight around.  I don't believe that deletion of this section was the right answer.  It just needed a bit of editing. Gavin Wilson 11:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know who Arik Johnson is, but that page appears to contain a lot of primary source opinions, as per WP:RS. (NOTE WELL: I'm not saying everything on that page is.)  •  Regarding my choice of delete vs edit: The entire section was, originally, unsourced.  Someone (you, I think) added a scattering of links, labeling them all "Source".  I attempted to verify using said links, and found the sources did not, in fact, back-up the content.  It was thus content that failed to verify using the sources it explictly cited.  That's a pretty big failure.  •  I'm not "pushing my weight around".  I don't have any particular weight here; I'm not an admin, or a long-timer, nor do I have a huge edit count.  •  Please understand that WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are fundamental Wikipedia policies.  They are not negotiable.  •  As it happens, I agree with the original analysis here, as well as Arik Johnson, but my opinion does not matter on Wikipedia.  It's not about what you and I think, but about creating an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --DragonHawk 02:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Much of what you say seems right.  I don't think anyone has been using this article as a soapbox, which to me is a device for would-be politicians to make political speeches.  I don't know when Wikipedia started, but I suspect the HP-Compaq merger had happened, before Wikipedia had much energy to devote to the matter.
 * I have a concern that corporate histories on Wikipedia could become simply what these companies and their executives, perhaps through the threat of legal action, want Wikipedia to say. I have absolutely no idea what Fiorina's autobiography is going to say when published next month, but no doubt it will influence what is written in the HP article.  I don't think that what she says about the era should carry much more weight than what the IT press at the time wrote.  I think Wikipedia needs to be ready, with its own version of the Fiorina era based on IT press reports of the time, so that it can slot in Fiorina's own comments in the right place.  But at the moment, the Fiorina era is virtually bare here in Wikipedia, so she will have the initiative.  Fiorina's version of events could well become the official Wikipedia version.
 * The writing style in much of the IBM article is dreadful, but it contains a lot more opinion and suggested explanations. If I were a business studies student again, I would find the IBM article, despite its speculative and turgid nature, a lot more useful for ideas and criticisms than the HP article.  The HP article here seems to suffer from precisely the corporate HP suppression that Arik Johnson criticises in the link that Wilson provided.  Company entries on wikipedia should not be mere product catalogues and copies of the approved company history from their Web site. Thegn 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A soapbox is also a box on which a madman stands to better announce his conspiracy theories. That is what everyone here is afraid of. After all, a legitimate politician would use a real podium, not a soapbox!  I agree with you that the tumultuous Fiorina era should be documented in this article, but any details, particularly those concerning motives or reasoning for actions, must be carefully documented with citations to reliable, verifiable sources (see the Verifiability policy).  For an example of a properly researched article, see my work at Lawyer or Roger J. Traynor. --Coolcaesar 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is posting pictures of the charged persons' houses appropriate for this article?
Hi everyone:

I have been too busy to do much research for Wikipedia recently. But yesterday when the HP arrest warrants were posted online by the AG's office I couldn't help but notice that Kevin Hunsaker's residential address is not that far off my route home. So I got a photo of his house while driving home this evening. Do you think it would be appropriate to add that photo to this article? Hunsaker was on the front page of the San Jose Mercury News this morning!

I also happened to see Hunsaker and his wife leaving as I turned onto their street. She was driving him in a white Mercedes SUV. They both looked totally stressed out. I would have taken a picture but it was already dusk and they were driving fast. Anyway, now all the WP editors on the Peninsula know what vehicle to look out for! It's time WP got some newsworthy photos properly licensed under the GFDL that don't have to be brought in under the fair use defense.

Also, if Hunsaker's house is not newsworthy enough, how about Dunn? Not that I would be in Orinda any time soon, though.

--Coolcaesar 02:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a picture of someone's house has any value for an encyclopedia article. jaco ♫ plane  02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jaco, why does Wikipedia need a picture of someones house? The Spotted Swans 22:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Producers of HP hardware
It had been good to have a list of companies who makes the HP hardware and which parts and where they are located. One of the companies in Zhejiang Provincial who makes parts for HP and others has been caught making low quality products by the Bureau of Industry and Commerce. In thise cases it's good to know if your hardware is comming for a such plant (I have a quite new laptop that got it's motherboard exchanged twice and still not working). --Trizt 09:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Oregon??
Why is this under the Wikiproject Oregon banner? Yes, HP has a significant facility in Corvallis, but it also has them in the Bay Area (which is the company's HQ with sites in Palo Alto, Cupertino, Mountain View, etc.), Boise, Houston, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Atlanta, New England, Aquadilla PR, Costa Rica, India, etc. etc. It seems a stretch for the Oregon Wikitypes to adopt this article as one of their own. 15.235.153.104 16:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not, my take of the "city/state/province" type projects is that they want to cover the entire realm of their local Geography. The major firms that have a significat presence in the area are part of that story, and so a multinational which has significant conections might appear in several, with _HOPEFULLY_ many folks tweeking the article.  Why not see if the other areas have a simalar wiki-project and add them in cmacd 16:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not add WikiProject California?cmacd 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The short answer, 15.235, is that the Wikiprojects are out of control and ungoverned. Some have done very good for Wikipedia, but most just "claim" articles to increase their numbers, then do very little to improve the articles. Wikiprojects have become something like categories; except less useful. -- Mikeblas 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak for all of WikiProject Oregon, but I know I for one am not "claiming" articles for the project to increase our numbers (seriously, we have enough to do). I'm surprised to hear that that is the goal of some WikiProjects. Our active project has done a lot to improve many articles and we keep down the vandalism on the articles in our scope. H-P has a significant economic impact on Oregon, I assume that's why one of our members tagged it. And I certainly hope we are more useful than a category. I invite you to check out what we're working on, and address any concerns you may have to our talk page. Thanks! Katr67 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently H-P is the seventh-largest employer in Oregon and has its biggest campus here. Good enough? And yes this info should really be in the article. Katr67 04:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

HP customer satisfaction
I wonder what people think of the company. I hate it because the products are terrible and the customer service is atrocious. Is there a source out there for that kind of information (customer opinion)? What do other users think? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just the right Slashdot story cropped up very recently: HP Dishonors Warranty If You Load Linux, which refers to the original article.


 * The Slashdot discussion itself reveals much about the current computer help desk portion of the industry in a situation of razor-thin margins and stuff like that.
 * -Mardus 16:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please remember that Wikipedia "talk" pages are for discussions about how to improve the article, and not places to discuss the subject of the article per se.


 * Atlant 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is a need to include the bad things about HP, as using production plants that delivers substandard quality for which the end user is still paying full price, that HP don't refund an illegally bundled 3rd party product when buying a HP-product and that they do cheat customers from upgrading parts by making the BIOS not work with other hardware than originally shipped. Of course that could be a sub page to this page, but those things should be mentioned.
 * Trizt (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something missing
When I looked through the HP article I pretty sure I didn't see HP's invention Quickplay mentioned anywhere. I don't see why it would not be mentioned as it is a major selling point for HP laptops as the operating system doesn't have to be loaded to play DVD's. If it is in there and I just missed please tell me on my talk page, but otherwise it should be included. Xtreme racer 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding tech support
I want to add HP's tech support sources at fixya. Please post your thoughts. 217.132.157.198 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Not a lot of space is necessary, maybe just a section "tech support" and a link readers can click. :--Knowsetfree 23:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to add additional section on criminal / illegal conduct
Currently there is a section called "controversies", but such a section does not adequately address the severity of illegal and criminal conduct which I would think should go in its own section. There is currently known the criminal act of spying as related to the board, and just recently the SEC announced a violation of federal law occurred by the failure of HP to announce the reason behind the resignation of the director. I won't add the content without the wiki approved references, but I just want to get input from other Wiki editors before I ad something. My thoughts are that while HP is an excellent technology company with an overall fantastic record of innovation and an overall very good corporate ethic, the purporse of Wiki is not to be an advertising or PR service, so readers should be allowed access to the information. What do other editors feel about the subject? Would "criminal conduct or illegal conduct" be an appropriate section title? :--Knowsetfree 19:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having worked at HP and known several employee's of HP, I completely agree with Knowsetfree's comments. The current 4 "controversies" are complete bologna if you ask me. The statement behind the entire "Calculator controversy" is unreferenced (besides, is this REALLY a controversy?!?!?). The Iraq "controversy" is actually pretty funny in my mind, and i guess this is much more encyclopedic than the calculator one. The "Outsourcing Controversy" is complete bull. Unless we put a statement like this in every single corporation's article about outsourcing, this should be removed. The same goes for the Greenpeace "controversy". come on people, these are not real controversies...


 * I move to place HP pretexting scandal and Traceable E-mail under Controversies, as that is what these are; to create a REAL controversy section regarding the actual controversy that is worth anything, which Knowsetfree mentioned, if we agree to remove the calculator controversy, the outsourcing controversy, and the Greenpeace controversy. This is what employees are talking and worried about. I'm pretty sure CNN didn't report on the so called calculator controversy or the Greenpeace controversy. I would like to formally open up a "vote" on this.


 * Remove the calculator controversy, the outsourcing controversy, and the Greenpeace controversy, for reasons stated above. Key <font color="FFE303">lay  31 <font color="FFE303">hablame 23:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Knowsetfree and the others, but I'd like to point this out: there are really two separate issues, one is "Shouldn't there be a section on the illegal activities of the board members?" (YES); and "isn't the "controversies" section rather silly? (YES).


 * "Controversy" sections are generally to be avoided; they are useful, in that sometimes they make it possible to soothe arguments and revert wars, and simply present both sides of an issue from a neutral point of view; however, articles are generally better in the long run if such issues are integrated into the main text of the article. -Pete 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pete, I just wanted to mention that I am not trying to create a consensus here, just open this up for discussion before I remove the section. Key <font color="FFE303">lay  31  [[User talk:Keylay31|<font

color="FFE303">hablame ]] 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand your distinction ("consensus" vs. "discussion") - but I think you're in the clear! be bold! -Pete 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User Keylay31 alerted me on my talk page of the discussion here, which is good because I think the HP article is in dire need of updating as to the illegalities on the board. The issues have been addressed in the press, but as HP is probably the #3 dollar spender of PC advertising and #1 in printers, etc. we should not expect the focus and intensity to survive.  This is the type of thing Wiki needs to include.  Obviously, there will be countless "controversies" involving any type of competition, including business.  Image if Wiki attempted to recite every "controversy" regarding pro sports.  But what we are talking about here is criminal conduct by the highest levels of a leading corporation.  We have a computer company acting illegally as big brother spying on people.  Spying not just on their competitors or customers, spying on their own ranks.  So, first we have the illegality of the spying.  Then we have further illegality in the form of SEC violations.  Whenever a director resigns due to a dispute with the operations of the company, the issue must be disclosed in an 8K and/or other SEC filings.  This is like Watergate, the cover up is inflaming the original crime.  The relevance and importance to citizens can not be understated.  A separate section needs to be devoted to this major controversy IMHO.  Right now it looks woefully inadequate.  So just to summarize, I would agree that the "small controversies" do not seem of lasting reference value for the wiki article, but the criminal misconduct in the spying and SEC violations does warrant a separate section. --Knowsetfree 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Knowsetfree, I agree with everything you said, with the exception of "Spying not just on their competitors or customers, spying on their own ranks". Is there any proof of them spying on anyone except themselves? Key <font color="FFE303">lay  23:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from HP ProLiant
Procedural edit. Somebody tagged the HP ProLiant article for merging last October but, if it was tagged here, I can't find it. Some discussion from that time at Talk:HP ProLiant. No opinion. Pairadox 06:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link to HP Services Online Support resources
Responding to above, "Adding Tech Support" I attempted to add HP Online Support Resources, I tried to add a link but it was immediatedly deleted. Why? TaraPan 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)TaraPan

"Organizations that use HP"
I've removed this section for the second time today, because I don't think a bunch of links to HP press releases constitutes encyclopaedic material. Are these companies renowned for the fact that they use HP equipment? Is HP renowned for the fact that these companies use their equipment? I don't think so; this is non-notable information. Oli Filth 23:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wholly concur. Especially since millions of people use HP equipment, like me. I am typing this on a HP Pavilion and I have a HP LaserJet 1200 printer nearby.  That does not and should not make me a subject of this article! Similarly, there are just too many organizations and companies that use HP to make any individual example notable or worth mentioning.  Such a list would quickly overwhelm this article and would be inappropriate anyway for an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information, per What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 08:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

toshiba
why isn't here any mention on toshiba cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.110.46 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Should there be... I don't get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.250.232 (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge from HP ProLiant
Article merged: See old talk-page here --Skywolf talk/contribs 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC) You merged it but there is still a link in here to the old page that leads, not suprizingly, back here.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.68.113 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced chatter
While knocking out some vandalism I also took out the following block from the Iraq section:

"For whatever reason, the soldier appeared to have tried to directly contact George W. Bush about the issue with that specific printer, rather than seek support from the Army's support system, which would then be responsible for contacting Mr. Bush. This was more of a responsible waste of government property than a rebellion caused by faulty printing. It is not clear from either the video or the article why the soldier did not use whatever system the Army has for supporting equipment that it buys and ships into battle zones."

A) It has no source, and B) it doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.172.3 (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement
The company has a website that describes its product lines in great detail. Are these sections appropriate for an encyclopedia?


 * 2.1 Imaging and Printing Group (IPG)
 * 2.2 Personal Systems Group (PSG)
 * 2.3 HP's Enterprise Storage and Servers Group has product/technology including:
 * 2.4 HP's Software division has products/technologies:
 * 2.5 HP Labs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.19.110 (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:15.203.169.126
Some recent, rather self-congratulatory talk about HP's success with outsourcing was written into the arricle by User:15.203.169.126, an anonymous IP address that traces back to HP. Another editor has since removed the puffery.

Atlant (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Vista
HP has problems with Vista and refuses to aknowledge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.171.13 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Move acquisitions to new article ?
With the acquisitions section expanding day by day, can we have a new article and mention all acquisitions there ? Sibi antony (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

HP Ceritfied Professional
Was looking at the Wikipedia page on Professional certification (Computer technology) and while it mentions that "sponsor various certifications related to HP Technologies" there is no link to HP Certified Professional wikipedia page..

It would be useful to create this page within HP and a main article for HP Certifed Professionals.. anyone any opinions??? --Jezarnold (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So no response to this.. Going to create section on here, and NEW!! page on Wikipedia.. you can always revert --Jezarnold (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1980's Removed?
I noticed on the recent changes page that the section on the 1980's page had been moved. I am reverting that change. If the section was removed intentionally, let me know. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hewlett-Packard
How do you pronounce Hewlett-Packard ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.72.92 (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's Heeyooleht-Pakard. You're supposed to say "Hewlett" quickly, so it sounds a bit more like "hyooleht". That's all got something to do with "ew" ("eyoo") and not this particular name. Elm-39 - T/C 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

suggesting an archive section
suggesting an archive section

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

opening paragraphs
I made some changes to the wording of the opening paragraphs because the emphasis didn't seem right with respect to a few issues.

First, I phrased HPs core business as the "development and manufacture" of products rather than "building" them. Their comparative advantage is leading-edge product development as much or more than their manufacturing expertise, as it is for say Flextronics, or even Dell. The wording also seemed to give insufficient emphasis to software and services.

Second, the product list was somewhat unrepresentative (e.g. digital cameras are not an area of focus). I reworded the description of the scope of products to align better with company literature.

Third, I moved what they don't do (i.e. the Agilent business) to the end of the paragraph, rather than at the beginning of a new paragraph.

Finally, I removed the plugs for CDW and RICOM, which don't help the reader learn about HP. --Cc68 (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Opening claim
The opening claims HP is the world's largest technology company. I believe this type of statement should specify what measurement (Total worth of assets? number of employees? annual income?) was used. 206.53.196.129 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The claim itself is clickable and is self-explanatory. List of the largest global technology companies. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this article would be better if the measurement was explicit in this article, and not require the user to reference another for explanation. Stating what measurement was used here won't significantly or unnecessarily length this one. 206.53.196.129 (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This sentence is the lead, or summary, and all details don't have to be spelled out in the opening. Just a few lines down, still in the opening section, it states, "HP posted US $91.7 billion in annual revenue in 2006[3] compared to US$91.4 billion for IBM, making it the world's largest technology vendor in terms of sales." I see no reason why we shouldn't assume people can't either click the given Wikilink, or read down a few lines. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? (Type-o)
The 1970's section has the following: "An engineering triumph at the time, the logic circuit was produced without any integrated circuits; the assembly of the CPU having been entirely executed in discretemjn With CRT display, magnetic-card storage, and printer, the price was around $5000."

Problem 1: I'm not familiar with the word "discretemjn", and can't find it in a dictionary. Problem 2: I believe there should be a period, so that "With CRT display, ..." should begin a new sentence. 206.53.196.129 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT :-) <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can add the period, but I have no idea what the author meant by "discretemjn." So, I would rather it be fixed by someone who can figure it out. 206.53.196.129 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the offending edit. I'll fix it. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  19:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

New external link to Hewlett Packard page
I would like to add an external link to my web site: http://www.hpmemory.org

May I ?

Hpmemproject (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * While you can technically "add" the link, it would probably be removed fairly quickly. IMHO the link would be removed by editors referencing things like OR, POV, spam, and self-promotion.  I don't use the term spam in a derogatory way, simply that adding a link to your own site is often referred to as such.  While the site is clean and well done, it is pretty much a positive op-ed piece promoting the HP company.  Perhaps a site like wikibiz would be more the place to add that sort of thing.  Ched (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

TItle/Management Addition
I would like to make this addition to the management section (#9) - Chris Curtin is vice president of the Office of Digital Strategy at Hewlett Packard.76.102.94.114 (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Computer is Personal Again
Thanks to Nabild for creating this article: The Computer is Personal Again, I think it would be better put under Hewlett-Packard or HP Pavilion Pages. What does everyone else think? B64


 * Agreed - Defiantly "The Computer Is Personal Again" is a registered trademark of the hewlet Packard company anyone looking for information on  the trademark would first look at the company’s article. (e.g., Windows, Life without Walls.) Is a Registered Trademark of the Microsoft Corporation SO Naturally It Would Go On one of Microsoft's existing articles? There is no need to create an additional page in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia for a slogan or trademark. Also with its mall size it could be easily made into a level 2 heeding. I would Defiantly Proceed with This Merge, but include a redirect to the HP article. --Koman90 (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, go ahead and merge it. --Hm2k (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we've reached a consensus. Merging. Creating new section in HP called "Advertising", subsection called "The Computer is Personal Again". Airplaneman talk 18:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

HP history by HP
Why not add an external link http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geertivp (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)