Talk:Hewlett-Packard

The Spying Scandal

This seems like old news. I don't think it really warrants an entire section on it's own. Should this be moved to a sub-article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.111.221 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

This is a sub section of the Spying Scandal and it contains reference to a link : www.hplies.com whose domain has expired and hence does not provide any information. I suggest this be changed to some site that still provides information on "HP Lies" like www.forum.notebookreview.com Radek1491 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC+5:30)

HP Compaq merger

I think there needs to be a LOT more information on the HP-Compaq merger since it was such a big deal. Infact, i feel that an entire article should be dedicated to that .

---

I just changed the entire section as it contained incorrect information, incorrect spelling, and grammatical errors galore. Also, it lacked citation (unsurprisingly). But, I do agree with whoever wrote the above that there should be more added over time. 75.53.206.83 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Snapfish

i need people to edit the snapfish section!i made it with only 1 sentance because i couldn't think of anything else.1wax (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The HP Way

The "add more on hp way" can be removed because the 2nd external link provided - "Bill Hewlett Remembered" has enough info on the HP way of management and working (if thats what HP way means) --Jay 01:03 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Spinal Tap

"For instance, almost every HP voltmeter or signal generator has one or more extra clicks of its knobs than its competitors." Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 15 December 2006 (GMT).

Environmental Record

Disclosure: as you'll see on my user page, I'm an HP employee. I was tipped to HP's #1 Newsweek green ranking by a colleague today, so I added the info to the article. But the paragraphs citing 1998 and 2002 incidents looks like old news. I see that User:Brawrg1 added those paragraphs [1] and the section hasn't been touched until my edit today. I left him a message, but I also wanted to reach out to the community who watches the overall article. I'd like to remove the 1998 and 2002 paragraphs. Does anyone have any objections? -- tbc (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

2009: HP demands of its employees "voluntary" wage waiver (about 5% - 10%)

Where is the right place to report on this matter. Shall I write about it inside the section "Controversy", "Culture", "History"?

Swiss television reported about HP demanding of its employees "voluntary" wage waiver (about 5% - 10%) although CEO Hurd earns +66% and about several threats of a boycott. For more details see here: [2] [3] (swiss newspapers; sorry, only in german language)

--Hannesn (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the reduction (dating back about six months now) is mandatory in the US and perhaps some other countries with similar less enlightened labor regulations. Former EDS employees were subjected to further reductions. 99.191.106.234 (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[Note: The following statements are for the benefit of anyone reading this section; I no longer have access to the documentation to back this up, as I left my position with HP in December 2009. For that reason and others, they don't belong in the article proper.] As a former EDS/HP employee myself, I can attest that the "lost wages" were paid out at the end of 2009 as a bonus. (Whether this will occur again, or if pay rates have or will be restored, I do not know.) Furthermore, according to internal company communications at the time of the pay cut, the decision was between this course of action, or laying off a number of employees (about 20,000 if I recall correctly). The "outrage" about what appeared to me as a near-brilliant compromise in terms of business decisions still confuses me. MolotovH (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As of this date, pay rates remain at the reduced rate and discussion at the time the 'bonus' mentioned above was paid out was that it was a one-time event, even while the company continues to earn billions of dollars a quarter in profit and buy back billions of dollars per year of its own stock. 99.191.106.234 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

HP Sauce

I have never heard of HP referred to as "HP sauce," though it is commonly known as "HP." Where does this come from and is it widely used?Siddharth9200 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not. "HP sauce" is a brand of steak sauce. It has no relation to Hewlett-Packard. MolotovH (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Longest lived commercial tech product?

HP200A Audio Generator is described in the article as "At 33 years, it was perhaps the longest-selling basic electronic design of all time." I think the Simpson 260 multimeter may have it beat. It went into production about 1941 and is still being built & sold. RobertTaylor21 (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to my photos of HP headquarters?

It looks like the article has been heavily vandalized. I'll have to fix that soon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Would like to add the HP Global Citzenship site to the external references

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/ especially since the corporate responsibility section is tagged that it needs expansion. Anyone object? JLRedperson (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that site meets our external link guidelines. You are welcome to expand the text of the article itself from the information contained within this website and then cite the website as a reference. See our pages on verification and citing sources for more information on how to do this. ThemFromSpace 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is what I will do. Thanks so much for the advice. JLRedperson (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me ...

... or does this article read like having being written by the HP public relations department aiming for minimal bad press?!? If you have a look on the Compaq page, it is a lot more critical. Also, the EDS merger has not been friendly, pleasant affair. I know that criticism sections are discouraged nowadays, but a bit less HP PR work would go a long way.

HagenUK (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

---

No, it is not only you. I also agree. I worked for EDS and only we know how bad it was. Job cuts, salary reduction, more job cuts, etc. HP is a good company but it has its downsides... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.104.55.242 (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

added a couple tags

Noticed the line "The Fortune list is considered the authoritative report card on corporate reputation". That sounds really subjective so I added a Citation Needed and a By Whom (to the Considered). 214.13.82.22 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

The list in the infobox is misleading. A subsidiary is a legal entity; the list includes brands (e.g. "ProCurve"), divisions (e.g. "HP Enterprise Services", ex-EDS) and prior acquisitions (e.g. "VoodooPC"). I believe that none of the names listed in the infobox currently operates as a subsidiary. --gribeco (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

---

I work for Hewlett-Packard CDS, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard. It is not listed. Here is the description found on HP CDS website (www.hpcds.com).

"Hewlett-Packard CDS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard and although an integral part of Delivery Operations EMEA, is a separate legal entity providing true multi vendor service capability for HP customers.

The HP service offerings are contained in a single portfolio of HP branded services, which are delivered by both HP CDS and HP service teams. HP CDS specialises in on-site delivery for multi vendor products and services.

HP CDS was formed after the acquisition of Synstar plc which has over 40 years' experience of delivering multi-vendor services across Europe. Our company has a long tradition of delivering highly customised services and we pride ourselves on our commitment to customer satisfaction. This broad range of skills coupled with an agile workforce creates flexibility in service solutions which can be tailored to individual customers needs.

HP CDS embraces all of HP’s values and commitment to employees and customers alike." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.104.55.242 (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

i7 processor problem

I remember I bought an HP pavilion computer in 2009. I kept getting a BSOD, which turned out to be an inherently defective motherboard for the i7 chipset. HP was sued many times for selling defective motherboards. I actually sued them in my state and won. Should this issue be included in the Controversy section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.9 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Do you have citations from reliable sources about the basis and extent of the suits? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

[4] and [5] are a couple of sources I've found so far. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Justia docket info: [6] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 08:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm no lawyer, so I'm low on Clue here, but it appears (from just a quick look-through so far) that Kent became a class action suit, is still pending, but that the litigants might settle in the next few days. Is that what you know about it? Are you aware of other suits (like suits in state courts) beyond this one in U.S. District Court? Any idea of aggregate damages paid or litligation costs incurred by HP? (If it all comes to, say, $30,000, it'll hardly be worth mentioning.)— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pending a settlement after a second amendment of claim. They have two weeks from the date of the motion to complete their negotiations. As far as damages go, the plaintiffs in the class were looking for $5m USD, and if HP gets nailed for any of the competition law violations (assuming settlement talks break down), expect significant punitive damages as well. As far as litigation costs, who knows. This has been ongoing for about a year+ now. That isn't going to be cheap for either side. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: The lawsuit hasn't even hit the discovery phase yet, from what I can tell. If they don't settle, expect it to be at least another year or longer. Minimum. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fraud case

There should be some info about this here. https://www.hpinkjetprintersettlement.com/ MK (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Company logo

I think the company logo has changed to a black one. See http://www.hp.com John Hyams (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hewlett vs Packard coin toss

Wikipedia needs factual content. The founders' coin toss is disputed. The true version must be located in a reliable source and correctly cited. Failing this, the mention of the coin toss episode will be deleted.--Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What was a reason to remove an important fact about HP history?

Discussion

(This section copied from User talk:CliffC) I mean that you removed - from the article about HP - the following paragraph: On September 7, 2010 H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO Mark Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board. . Three business days after filing suit in a court HP reached a settlement with Mr. Hurd. After all the “Hurd Saga" was another convincing illustration that it is almost impossible in California to legally prevent the transition of an employee to any lawful job, including even a job for a direct competitor of his former employer. Any your clarifications will be greatly appreciated, Thanks --Knff (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Hi, it was removed because the language "After all the “Hurd Saga" was another convincing illustration that it is almost impossible in California to legally prevent the transition of an employee to any lawful job, including even a job for a direct competitor of his former employer" is editorializing, and does not reflect Wikipedia's required neutral point of view. Even if that were exactly what netvalley.com said - and I don't see that in the linked citation - it would likely be immaterial, as netvalley.com does not appear to be a reliable source. If the original author had stopped right after "Three business days after filing suit in a court HP reached a settlement with Mr. Hurd", and cited that statement to a reliable source such as the NY Times article here, that would have been fine. It might be worthwhile to copy your question and my response to Talk:Hewlett-Packard so that the original author User:Brigclark can see them, what do you think? --CliffC (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but I cant't buy these your clarifications. The paragraph that we are talking about is a direct quotation from NY Times. The source of the last phrase is one of the most reputable Web site in regards to IT history (Silicon Valley History, Top 100 Computer Companies, ... well known since 1995). Why did you decide to remove the paragraph that contain an important fact of the HP recent history? This looks like a classical attempt to censorship the Web. I still suggest that the paragraph we are talking about should be restored first and then we can talk about it in any forum that you prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knff (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC) PS. I've read the last phrase -- that you are doubt about -- again and finally agree that language can be changed to more neutral. Why not restore the paragraph first and then address to Brigclark this our concern? We can keep an option to remove the last phrase of this paragraph later as our last resort ... --Knff (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) I reverted the entire paragraph for the reasons stated above; I chose not to pick through it to keep what was salvageable. I see now that this is a bigger problem than violation of neutral point of view and lack of a reliables source. As you say, "The paragraph that we are talking about is a direct quotation from NY Times", something I did not realize when I read the material cited to it. The entire string "...H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO [Mark] Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board" is indeed a direct quotation from the Times, a copyright violation that Wikipedia does not permit. If you or User:Brigclark want to rewrite that material in your own words and restore it, please do so. The material cited to netvalley.com should not be re-added for the reasons noted above. I'm not attempting to "censor the web", I'm explaining why your edit was deleted and encouraging you to re-add it, written in your own words and properly cited. Any further discussion should take place at Talk:Hewlett-Packard. --CliffC (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Got your point. If I understood you correctly, now you suppose that quotation with direct link to source is an act of "copyright violation". Do I need to provide you with long series of examples of quotation, that you can find in almost any of wiki-articles? --Knff (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC) That won't be necessary, I have no doubt that other undiscovered copyright violations exist, but we're talking about this one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. Why not just fix it? --CliffC (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Does it mean that even wiki-special format presentation was designed for this kind of "undiscovered copyright violations": How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission? Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.. Thank you for your time and have a great week, Knff (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC) References for above discussion of HP I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Hewlett-Packard, where it is more likely to be seen by other interested parties. I will respond to your copyright question over there. --CliffC (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't understand your question, in part because I don't know what you mean by "wiki-special format presentation". U.S. Copyright Office rules are irrelevant to this discussion; Wikipedia has its own carefully-considered copyright rules, these are summarized in the legal policy linked to above by the term copyright violation. It's important for you to read and understand the material at that link, which allows brief quotation of copyrighted text. As far as I can tell, there is no Wikipedia definition of how many words constitute a "brief" quote, but I think lifting three lengthy sentences exactly as published in the NY Times goes beyond "brief", and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. This is easily remedied by rewriting the material in your own words. --CliffC (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Sounds good. We successfully reduced the scale of our disagreement to the simple question concerning the quotation's size limit. It seems to me that the length of following quotation from NY Times: September 7, 2010 H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO Mark Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board. . can be considered as appropriate and you don't think so. Am I correct?--Knff (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The original Times editorial seems to be more about California law than it does about HP. How is this fact highly significant to HP as such? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Do you also think that "Hurd Saga" should be a hidden chapter of the wiki version of HP history? The first group of arguments was about the sources and size of quotation. Now we are going to the next level: "How is this fact highly significant to HP as such?" What else? The censorship at its best! --Knff (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Users who cry "Censorship!" usually have short careers here. Try to answer the question: Why is this item important to the history of HP? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) ______________ 1. "... given the fact that the company's market cap has doubled and the company has substantially and consistently grown revenues and profits since Hurd took the reigns five years ago..." it looks obvious that should be a serious reason did not mention the "Hurd Saga" at all (lawsuit's circumstances, settlement, ... - nothing related to this topic can be found in the article). Do you have any other explanations? 2. "Users ... usually have short careers here." Thank you for comprehensive clarification some of the basic rules at this street. --Knff (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC) The cry of "Censorship!" is typically connected with an attempt to push a particular point of view. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) ___________ Sometime people use a warning sign for wrong purposes. It does not mean that we should always ignore any signs. Let me remind you, that any case of real censorship is typically connected with an attempt to hide a particular point of view. Back to your question: 'Why is this item important to the history of HP? I hope you got my answer. --Knff (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC) ____ Hi CliffC, let me comment also the following your statement: "netvalley.com does not appear to be a reliable source". Google's book section provides long List of books that were printed during recent 10 years and used netvalley.com as one of the most reputable and reliable source. For your convenience below please find a couple of the tittles of this kind of books: Encyclopedia of new media: an essential reference to communication ... Encyclopedia of computer science and technology Sergey Brin and Larry Page: the founders of Google Statistics: the art and science of learning from data Information resources management: global challenges Roles and perspectives in the law: essays in honour of Sir Ivor ... Innovation and the communications revolution: from the Victorian ... Law, economics and cyberspace: the effects of cyberspace on the ... Financing economic development in the 21st century Politics on the Internet: a student guide The Internet: a historical encyclopedia Dictionary of media and communications Science and Society . . . . . You can get your own version of this List (that include the citation's page # and it's screen shot), if you will type "netvalley.com" at the Google search's book section. If you don't rely on traditionally printed book and prefer online sources only, you can take a look for instance to the Encyclopedia Britannica that provide link to the "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" section of netvalley.com from the following page: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291494/Internet Best, --Knff (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I'm confused. Is your goal at Wikipedia to improve the HP article by expanding on Hurd's career, or to get a link to netvalley.com installed? The "censorship" you're complaining about, is it censorship of facts about Hurd, or of your link? You seem to be lobbying, above and on your talk page, to have netvalley.com accepted as a reliable source. Self-published sources are not generally accepted as reliable. In any event, there are probably few "important facts" (not opinions) about Hurd available at netvalley.com that have not already been published by mainstream media, and thus become available for use as superior citations. I personally think that Hurd and the lawsuit merit a brief mention as part of HP's history, others may disagree. You are encouraged to contribute sourced material. Summing up earlier suggestions, (1) write about them in your own words, not someone else's, with proper citations (but watch out for WP:UNDUEWEIGHT); (2) omit any editorializing about California employment law; (3) do not use netvalley.com as a source. Finally, and I think this is what Baseball Bugs is suggesting, (4) if you want to write about California employment law, do so in another article, this one is about HP. --CliffC (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC) ___ 1. "Baseball Bugs" is right in noting that both of these sources discuss the recent event of HP’s history from the context of California law. This is precisely why these are the only sources that can be referenced in discussing the article at hand. Any other source would necessarily have a biased perspective on this conflict. One might be on the side of Hurd, while someone else might take position HP, and such partisan approaches would be unwelcome in the given article. The two articles that were proposed as sources are not concerned with deciding who was right or wrong. Rather, they discuss the fact that California law does not allow even the biggest hot-shot lawyers to interfere with a person’s right to go work for the competition after being fired by a company. This approach to the issue allows the articles to avoid qualitative assessments, effectively making them neutral as regards the company’s image. In other words the existing approach offers a more balanced, unbiased rendering of events than any other approach could offer. 2. Jojhutton submitted good info on my talk page. In this regards I asked him what sort of sources can be linked to the wiki article addition. I described to him (without naming) one of the sources that is currently in question. You consider it lobbing because you have no rational answers to my questions. Your justification is that NYT needs to be rephrased whereas NV is not a credible source. I have attempted to show you more than once that neither of the approaches seem justifiable. --Knff (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC) The discussion continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and is archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Mar_1#netvalley.com. --CliffC (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential content

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0924/HP-and-Meg-Whitman-signs-of-a-Silicon-Valley-in-transition 141.218.36.50 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. The Christian Science Monitor is usually a reliable source. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge HP Executives with HP Alumni

Hi,

I think that HP Executives should be merged with HP Alumni, anyone else agree?

B64

Please discuss that on those Articles' own Talk Pages, not here. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Packard Motors

Should it be mentioned that there is no connection between Packard Motors?

I have heard it often mentioned that this is a subject of much confusion. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:HP Presario F700.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HP Presario F700.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Citations needed

Citations are needed for:

The company was founded in a one-car garage in Palo Alto by William (Bill) Redington Hewlett and Dave Packard. HP was the world's leading PC manufacturer until 2010, losing the position to Apple Inc in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.153.74 (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Since your IP address is from HP, it would be a best practice if you created a username and declared your affiliation. There are examples of disclosures on the COI guideline and you can get more information at the essay COI Best Practices. In any case the lead doesn't normally have citations, because it's suppose to summarize the article without introducing new information. If the statement is false, I would suggest you provide a reliable source with the correct information from a disclosed username. Put {{request edit}} at the top of your request to add it to the queue of edits requested by people with a COI. If the information is true, but uncited, there is nothing to do unless you want to help by providing a citation.

Hope this helps. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2012

hp was founder

85.210.40.181 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, meaningless--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Request removal of uncited addition of 11-Feb-2012.

Please remove the text: "(originally Hewlett Packard Development Company, L.P.)".

There is no reference to this HP Subsiduary prior to 2004

81.96.62.82 (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Ian Wegg (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hewlett Packard Development Company, L.P.

Appears in 2003 10K. Was created at the time of the Compaq merger to hold the HP IP.

15.203.169.125 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Retiring hardware line

I heard, and perhaps read although I don't remember where, that HP will soon retire its hardware line and become a technology consulting firm, much as IBM has already done. Can anyone help to find sources for this? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

HP regularly rolls out new hardware models and retires old ones. The article has current, correct information about this old item. The idea of dropping some broad hardware areas was considered, and HP decided against making the change. Specific lines might be retired, but even when this strategic change was being considered, it would not have included all hardware.

As the article states, HP "contemplated spinning off their personal computer division into a separate company.[31] HP's consideration of a fundamental restructuring to quit the 'PC' business, while continuing to sell servers and other equipment to business customers, would have been similar to what IBM did in 2005.[32] However, after a brief review, HP decided their PC division was too integrated and critical to business operations, and the company reaffirmed their commitment to the Personal Systems Group.[33]." Probably what you heard was based on that old news item. Since the decision to continue with hardware, multiple new server, printer and PC models have brought to the market. (Most of those details probably belong in more specific articles.)

Disclosure/disclaimer. I am currently an HP employee, although not in a hardware division. This comment is mine. I am not a spokesperson for HP.

- RobinLampert (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

HP criticism

blogs.reuters.com

As Hewlett Packard goes, so goes the world / By Peter Sims

http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2011/09/28/as-hewlett-packard-goes-so-goes-the-world/

87.69.14.42 (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

One more thing to add to controversies

http://www.bdsmovement.net/2012/quakers-divest-from-veolia-and-hewlett-packard-9599 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.80.44 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Zero-day vulnerability

Can someone please review the following:

On July 10, 2012, HP's Server Monitoring Software was affected with a [[Zero-day attack|Zero day vulnerability]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.voiceofgreyhat.com/2012/07/zero-day-vulnerability-found-in-server.html |title=Zero-Day Vulnerability Found in The Server Monitoring Software of HP |accessdate=July 10, 2012}}</ref> A security warning has been given to the customers about the two vulnerabilities that has caused these catastrophe and administrators are asked to install the appropriate patches to resolve the vulnerabilities.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://h20566.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay/?docId=emr_na-c03397769&ac.admitted=1342007519871.876444892.199480143 |title=HP Support document |accessdate=July 10, 2012}}</ref> One month later HP's official site of training center was hacked and defaced by Pakistani hacker known to as 'Hitcher' to demonstrate a vulnerability.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.voiceofgreyhat.com/2012/08/HP-Training-Center-Official-Website-Hacked.html |title=HP Training Center Official Website Hacked & Defaced |accessdate=August 12, 2012}}</ref>

I was going to fix the obvious grammatical errors ("...the two vulnerabilities that has caused these catastrophe..", "...Pakistani hacker known to as 'Hitcher'...", etc.), but it seems that are are deeper problems that need to be addressed. For example:

• The exploit was announced on July 10, but the patches were published on HP's website on July 9th. Is this consistent with the definition of a zero-day exploit?
• What exactly was the "catastrophe"? Is this just someone's POV, or were there really serious consequences?
• A minor detail, perhaps, but the reference relating to the Pakistani hacker does not, as far as I can tell, state that his intention was to demonstrate a vulnerability.

82.32.198.178 (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2013

The references in the HP Discover section are all out of date and don't reference any 2013 HP Discover meetings. Gjallard (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Please specify the exact content you'd like to see added.  — daranz [ t ] 19:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

intro corp mba speak inappropriate for wiki

the intro, imo , is corporate mba speak, almost orwellian, and inappropriate for wiki in particular, the timeline is out of date or sanitized; no mention of autonomy and fiorina/hurd/apotheker disasters