I note that you deleted a previous review criticising this article. I agreed with many of the points raised in the deleted review (although they were a little blunt) and hope that the deletion was an error rather than an inability to accept criticism.
Having worked for EEsof at the time of the Hewlett Packard acquisition, for the combined entity for a year afterwards and currently for AWR, Agilent-EEsof's largest competitor in this space I feel I am qualified to make some comments on this eulogy which I felt bordered on the sycophantic. As the previous review pointed out it is also misleading.
Firstly I must take issue with the statement "Agilent EEsof has continued to flourish". Within the last 6 months Agilent EEsof has laid off around a hundred people, lost its divisional status and been merged into the Component Test group. In addition, the former divisional VP whom you quote in your article, Jim McGillivary, has "resigned" from the company and there is hardly a week goes by when I do not see a CV from an Agilent EEsof employee (both current and ex-employees) - in fact my company has hired six ex-Agilent employees in the last year. Does that sound like a "flourishing operation" to you? I suggest you pay attention to the various message boards populated by Agilent EEsof employees rather than corporate statements if you want a true picture of the current situation there.
One statement I can agree with is "With the merger in 1993, the mood is said to have instantly changed." It took Agilent several years to understand that supporting an EDA product was very different to supporting instrumentation and they tried to shoehorn EEsof support into the HP support system which predictably failed. You note in your article that both EEsof's founders left within a year but in addition more than half of the EEsof sales staff gave up the uneven battle with HP "we know best" attitude and also left the company within two years of the takeover. I should also point out that EEsof's sales were almost double HP's EDA sales at the time of takeover rather than being about the same as you state.
In common with the previous (deleted) reviewer I hope the second half of this article is more balanced and mentions, for example, the 5 years of customer nightmares transitioning from MDS/Series IV to ADS.
I did enjoy the article as it's always interesting to look back at how the industry has evolved, hence my rating of 3/5. I just felt it wasn't a balanced assessment of the experiences of the employees or the users both in 1993 and 2010 - hence the title of my review. I accept that as an employee of a direct competitor I have an obvious bias but I think you will find all the facts stated in my review are correct.