Post by thread:[EE]:: 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

"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

Quoting Bob Blick <spam_OUTbbblickTakeThisOuTsbcglobal.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

> "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

> I imagine the product lines will be "Lenovo-ized"? Say it isn't so! Gak..

2007\10\16@011811 by Xiaofan Chen

On 10/16/07, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspam@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

On 10/16/07, Russell McMahon <apptechKILLspamparadise.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

>> 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

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

On 10/15/07, Bob Blick <.....bbblickKILLspam.....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

William Couture wrote: > On 10/15/07, Bob Blick <EraseMEbbblickspam_OUTTakeThisOuTsbcglobal.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

On 10/16/07, William Couture <bcouturespam_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

On 10/16/07, M. Adam Davis <@spam@stienmanKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > On 10/16/07, William Couture <KILLspambcoutureKILLspamgmail.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

> 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

>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

What does Lenovo-ized mean, exactly? - Martin K Bob Blick wrote: {Quote hidden}> "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\17@112251 by Bob Blick

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 <RemoveMEmartinTakeThisOuTnnytech.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> What does Lenovo-ized mean, exactly? > - > Martin K > > Bob Blick 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 imagine the product lines will be "Lenovo-ized"? > > > > -Bob > > > > --

2007\10\17@143019 by Martin

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}> 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 > >

2007\10\17@155613 by Mark Rages

On 10/17/07, Martin <spamBeGonemartinspamBeGonennytech.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 TakeThisOuTmarkragesEraseMEspam_OUTmidwesttelecine.com

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