Searching \ for '[EE]:: Tektronix to be bought out' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=tektronix+bought
Search entire site for: ': Tektronix to be bought out'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Tektronix to be bought out'
2007\10\15@171107 by Bob Blick

face picon face
"the marriage of Tektronix's top technology with
Danaher's manufacturing efficiency"

oops, there goes the neighborhood. Wall Street seems
to be happy with the news.

I imagine the product lines will be "Lenovo-ized"?

-Bob

2007\10\15@173257 by Spehro Pefhany

flavicon
face
Quoting Bob Blick <spam_OUTbbblickTakeThisOuTspamsbcglobal.net>:

> "the marriage of Tektronix's top technology with
> Danaher's manufacturing efficiency"
>
> oops, there goes the neighborhood. Wall Street seems
> to be happy with the news.
>
> I imagine the product lines will be "Lenovo-ized"?
>
> -Bob

Wow, Danaher owns a LOT of very good companies.
I doubt they`ll change much for the worse.




2007\10\15@182101 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> "the marriage of Tektronix's top technology with
> Danaher's manufacturing efficiency"

HP <- Compaq <- DEC <- Wang labs ...

:-(.

One day maybe

Dell <- IBM :-) :-(

??? <- Microsoft


       R




2007\10\15@194100 by David VanHorn

picon face
> I imagine the product lines will be "Lenovo-ized"?

Say it isn't so!    Gak..

2007\10\16@011811 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
On 10/16/07, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > "the marriage of Tektronix's top technology with
> > Danaher's manufacturing efficiency"
>
> HP <- Compaq <- DEC <- Wang labs ...
> :-(.

Why sad?

I do not think this is that bad. Wang Labs does not catch up
with the innovations. Does Compaq has any spectacular technology
other then the ones it acquired from DEC? Even though DEC
has some good product/technology (VMS, Alpha, etc), I think HP is
in much better shape than any of them in terms of innovation.

Xiaofan

2007\10\16@012257 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 10/16/07, Russell McMahon <apptechspamKILLspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> One day maybe
>
> Dell <- IBM :-) :-(
>

This does not make any sense to me.
How do you think this is even possible? IBM is a great company.
Dell? The once leader in the commodity PC market who does
not have any great technology other than good execution.

The other direction does not make sense either since
IBM rightfully shed the commodity PC market to Lenovo.

Xiaofan

2007\10\16@024109 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> One day maybe

>> Dell <- IBM :-) :-(

> This does not make any sense to me.
> How do you think this is even possible? IBM is a great company.
> Dell? The once leader in the commodity PC market who does
> not have any great technology other than good execution.

Dell**

It was mostly light hearted.
But, do note

       HP <- ... ... ... ... <- Wang Laboratories.

There was a time when what Wang was doing was exciting and different
and even leading edge.
I recall a document acquisition, storage and retrieval system so
leading edge that they may have never managed to sell one in NZ. Dim
memory says "WIIS" *** is what it may have been called.

It's hard to see that the assimilation by DEC did anything positive in
that respect.

There was a time when DEC were the 600 pound gorilla of their corner
of the forest. They made new and exciting and interesting and leading
edge products. Who can forget the world beating PDP11 family? (Most
people probably :-( ).

I have walked through a PDP?12? - not a PDP11 superset but an analog
processing orientated scientific experimental version of the PDP8.
Came in two small-room sized cubes in the engineering lab. You
literally opened one of the two doors, one per room, and walked
inside. Try that with your ThinkPad. Played my 1st ever computer game
on it ("Space War" ) THAT was exciting. All two ships and a few 'eggs"
of it. Many a happy hour.

DEC's assimilation by Compaq was a sad day.

Opinions may vary re the once giant killing "fastest personal computer
in the world, Intel 80286 based ..." Compaq's assimilation by HP.

Saddest of all without a doubt was the once proud giant killing
innovating technically daring masters of the universe HP's
assimilation by HP. Shame. The dark side assimilated the light side
and even the escape-pod (open the pod bay door, HAL*) spin off of a
shadow of the real HP under a psedonym didn't save enough.

Whatever.
Back to work here ....
Deadline now looming very very large.

** Maybe a compromise - HAL international Business Machines.



           Russell

* Did you know that what you find if you move all the letters of "HAL"
one along the alphabet was intended by Clark? **

*** Gaggles - yep - Wang Integrated Image System.
Hmmm 1982 :-)
Memory seems to be working still - Core!













2007\10\16@033600 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
We just got an invitation in the mail this morning, to attend Tektronix's
seminar on October 30th (it's local).

When we were looking for a scope two years ago, theirs was the best fit for
what we needed cost/performance-wise.

Not all buyouts are bad, at least they're not suspending the seminars. :)

2007\10\16@093011 by William Couture

face picon face
On 10/15/07, Bob Blick <.....bbblickKILLspamspam.....sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "the marriage of Tektronix's top technology with
> Danaher's manufacturing efficiency"
>
> oops, there goes the neighborhood. Wall Street seems
> to be happy with the news.

I used to work for a small company (Accu-Sort) that was
bought out by Danaher.

Then the corporate evil and managment stupidity started.

I found another job.  I was not alone.

Bill

--
Psst...  Hey, you... Buddy...  Want a kitten?  straycatblues.petfinder.org

2007\10\16@130353 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
William Couture wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Bob Blick <EraseMEbbblickspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> "the marriage of Tektronix's top technology with
>> Danaher's manufacturing efficiency"
>>
>> oops, there goes the neighborhood. Wall Street seems
>> to be happy with the news.
>
> I used to work for a small company (Accu-Sort) that was
> bought out by Danaher.
>
> Then the corporate evil and managment stupidity started.
>
> I found another job.  I was not alone.
>
> Bill
>

I work at a small company that once sold products to a company that was
bought out by Danaher.  Overnight, they instituted a "pay no sooner than
90 days" policy.

Overnight, we instituted a "ship no product before a check arrives"
policy.  They held their breath: "we're serious!". We laughed.  Finally
a check arrived and we shipped product to them.

Then letters would arrive saying if we attempted to make *any* price
increases, we had to first fly to their headquarters and plead our case.

Before things could get much worse, they closed down the company, sent
it's assets to another one they owned who not being familiar with the
product line, dropped it.  Sales hit zero.  A lot of good people there
making good products went elsewhere.

The last communication I remember was some new person calling to order
more stuff after not buying any for a year.  When informed we could not
fill the order as we no longer manufactured said equipment, she told me
"You have to fill this order!"

2007\10\16@131556 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 10/16/07, William Couture <bcouturespamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> I used to work for a small company (Accu-Sort) that was
> bought out by Danaher.
>
> Then the corporate evil and managment stupidity started.

The process that yields those results makes sense from a certain
standpoint, though.  It's too bad the means ruin the end.

A big company has a lot of 'lessons learned' and knows how to organize
a large infrastructure efficiently.  When it absorbs another company,
it necessarily transmits lessons learned downwards, absorbs (to some
degree) lessons the smaller company learned and determines how to
apply it organizationally, and then it removes redundant structure and
functionality.

But then that happens in any large organization, and under capitalism
every successful organization must become larger.

-Adam

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/

Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com

Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/

2007\10\16@135151 by William Couture

face picon face
On 10/16/07, M. Adam Davis <@spam@stienmanKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/16/07, William Couture <KILLspambcoutureKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> > I used to work for a small company (Accu-Sort) that was
> > bought out by Danaher.
> >
> > Then the corporate evil and managment stupidity started.
>
> The process that yields those results makes sense from a certain
> standpoint, though.  It's too bad the means ruin the end.
>
> A big company has a lot of 'lessons learned' and knows how to organize
> a large infrastructure efficiently.  When it absorbs another company,
> it necessarily transmits lessons learned downwards, absorbs (to some
> degree) lessons the smaller company learned and determines how to
> apply it organizationally, and then it removes redundant structure and
> functionality.
>
> But then that happens in any large organization, and under capitalism
> every successful organization must become larger.

If "Corporate evil" (as in "you are our employee, so we own your soul and
your life and will sell it to whomever we choose without your permission")
is a "lesson learned", then it's no wonder that corporation behavior has
been clinically diganosed as sociopathic.

Bill

--
Psst...  Hey, you... Buddy...  Want a kitten?  straycatblues.petfinder.org

2007\10\16@172701 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> A big company has a lot of 'lessons learned' and knows how to
> organize
> a large infrastructure efficiently.  When it absorbs another
> company,
> it necessarily transmits lessons learned downwards, absorbs (to some
> degree) lessons the smaller company learned and determines how to
> apply it organizationally, and then it removes redundant structure
> and
> functionality.
>
> But then that happens in any large organization, and under
> capitalism
> every successful organization must become larger.

No.
Even reading your above process makes it clear that assumptions are
required to make that true.

If, by Capitalism you mean "pure and unbridled capitalism untrammelled
by lesser things, which always gets its man etc" then by definition
you are right, but we are safe as reality never works that way.

If you mean "capitalism in all its real world glory", then you have to
assume that the above processes always work better than other people's
ones in all cases forever. The eg utterly amazing Roman Empire may
have lessons to teach about that. And Google is no threat to anyone,
as it started smaller than it's competitors and so must never be able
to climb past them.



           Russell



2007\10\17@042735 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>I work at a small company that once sold products to a company
>that was bought out by Danaher.  Overnight, they instituted a
>"pay no sooner than 90 days" policy.

hah, reminds me of the TV program I saw some years ago, about how motor
racing developed, and the bit I remember was about prohibition in the US,
where both the gangsters and the police were getting their cars tuned at the
same local garage. The interviewer asked the (now retired) mechanic who got
the better cars. His reply was something along the lines of 'the government
paid on 90 days account, the gangsters paid cash, I'll let you work it out
...'!

>When informed we could not fill the order as we no
>longer manufactured said equipment, she told me
>"You have to fill this order!"

<cough> <splutter> ... please excuse me while I recover from rolling around
on the floor.

2007\10\17@094128 by Martin Klingensmith

face
flavicon
face
What does Lenovo-ized mean, exactly?
-
Martin K

Bob Blick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\17@112251 by Bob Blick

face picon face
Lenovo bought out IBM's consumer computer division, so
they make Thinkpads now.

And from what I've heard, there have been changes.

Cheerful regards,

Bob


--- Martin Klingensmith <RemoveMEmartinTakeThisOuTspamnnytech.net> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2007\10\17@143019 by Martin

face
flavicon
face
Right, I have a Lenovo "IBM" ThinkPad, and it works great. I'd buy
another. Maybe their other non-standard laptops have changed or something.
-
Martin K

Bob Blick wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\10\17@155613 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On 10/17/07, Martin <spamBeGonemartinspamBeGonespamnnytech.net> wrote:
> Right, I have a Lenovo "IBM" ThinkPad, and it works great. I'd buy
> another. Maybe their other non-standard laptops have changed or something.

They started selling a line of low-end Lenovos, which are not up to
ThinkPad standards.  As far as I know, the THinkPad branded laptops
are still good.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
TakeThisOuTmarkragesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmidwesttelecine.com

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...