1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 24 Jun 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 347       Contents: <None> Any people use KEA! 420 ? - Re: Compaq sponsor The Inquirer with VMS kit? ( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( RE: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( RE: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( RE: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?& Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformation& Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformation& Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformation& Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformation& Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformation& Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformation  Re: Databases available for VMS? Re: DSN/AES shutting down?9 Re: DSN/AES shutting down? - Use Mozilla browser instead?  Re: FORTRAN question Re: FORTRAN question H-P EOLs PA-RISC Architecture  Re: Marketing Rantings #3  Re: OpenVMS Applications Re: PostingsH Re: Power Supplies: VAXstation 4000/60 and (yes AND) DEC 3000/(300 IRRC)H Re: Power Supplies: VAXstation 4000/60 and (yes AND) DEC 3000/(300 IRRC) setting up DECNET+ RE: setting up DECNET+  Ignore# Re: Setting up Mail, WEB page, etc.  Re: Submitting Batch Jobs ( Re: The end of Computer Associates ?????( Re: The end of Computer Associates ????? VMS on IA64 (technical)  Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)  Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)  Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)  Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)  Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)  Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)  Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)  Your opinion (UNIX,VMS)  Re: Your opinion (UNIX,VMS)  Re: Your opinion (UNIX,VMS)  Re: Your opinion (UNIX,VMS) : RE: [Q] Is there a non-CA replacement for Console Manager?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 22 Jun 2001 20:00:33 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)  Subject: <None> 3 Message-ID: <kR9PNxXHIeic@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <3B3397DF.2CDC7219@videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes: > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote: O >> I have been hinting at changes articulated in a 12 June transformation memo. O >> I suspect the transformation stuff that will be announced, will be announced  >> within, say, a week.  >  >  > Mr Matco,  > P > I am curious as to how your intelligence can be disseminated to your customersP > without raising the eyebrows of Securities and Exchange Commissions ? Wouldn't0 > that constitude some form of insider trading ? > M > Suppose you knew (for the sake of discussion) that Compaq was going to sell N > Alpha to AMD because of your covert spying inside of Compaq. Would revealingP > this information to your customers put you in some form of danger from the SECA > pont of view because it would be consider insider information ?  > N >> I am not in a position to comment on the rumour to which you are referring.K >> What I can say is that EV7 is on track, Marvel systems are on track, and B >> Tru64 and OpenVMS customers have nothing to be concerned about. > O > Did you purposefully omit NSK from that ??? :-) :-) ;-) :-) :-) :-) (Hey, you 8 > have to expect us to try to read between the lines...)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:32:32 -0300 1 From: "Valdemir J. Santos" <valdemir-@uol.com.br> " Subject: Any people use KEA! 420 ?5 Message-ID: <00ac01c0fc2c$040b8bc0$d347bfc8@valdemir>   , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  + ------=_NextPart_000_00A9_01C0FC12.DE05B220  Content-Type: text/plain;  	charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable    Hello all guys:   H I=B4d like to know if is there any person in this group using KEA! 420 = for OpenVMS.  J I=B4d like learn how to create little macros to automatically connect in = the system,=20  & open and read data in files, etc...=20   macro examples are welcome...    Thank you in advance...=20  + ------=_NextPart_000_00A9_01C0FC12.DE05B220  Content-Type: text/html; 	charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD>3 <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =  http-equiv=3DContent-Type>9 <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>  <STYLE></STYLE>  </HEAD>  <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>= <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hello all guys:</FONT></DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> E <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I=B4d like to know if is there any =  person in this=20 . group using KEA! 420 for OpenVMS.</FONT></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> H <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I=B4d like learn how to create little =	 macros=20 ? to&nbsp;automatically connect in the system,&nbsp;</FONT></DIV> 4 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>F <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>open and read data in files, etc... =
 </FONT></DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> 5 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>macro examples are =  welcome...</FONT></DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> 0 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thank you in=20+ advance...</FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>   - ------=_NextPart_000_00A9_01C0FC12.DE05B220--    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 22:47:22 -0700- From: mike.magee@theinquirer.net (Mike Magee) 6 Subject: Re: Compaq sponsor The Inquirer with VMS kit?= Message-ID: <9745423a.0106232147.71890641@posting.google.com>   e LESLIE@209-16-45-102.insync.net (Jerry Leslie) wrote in message news:<6PqV6.4390$%L5.52991@insync>... 5 > Terry C. Shannon (terryshannon@mediaone.net) wrote:  > : M > : Mike runs Windoze at home (sad but true), dunno what's on the server that  > : hosts his page.  > :  > C > According to www.netcraft.com, www.theinquirer.net is running on  % > WebSitePro/2.5.4 on NT4/Windows 98.  > ' > --Jerry Leslie   leslie@clio.rice.edu 1 >                  leslie@209-16-45-97.insync.net = >                  leslie@209-16-45-102.insync.net is invalid   B Yeah - that's what it runs on. Doesn't have to run on that though.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:59:49 -0400 ) From: "Neil Rieck" <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> 1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? ; Message-ID: <_K4Z6.61373$Vl2.3640691@news20.bellglobal.com>   7 "Sean O'Banion" <seanobanion@home.com> wrote in message " news:3B34C276.94380BAB@home.com...? > What worries me, though, is not the technical impact, but the  > FUD-feeding power:E > "If  after all the 'We support Alpha', Compaq can give away or sell J > Alpha, what's to stop them from dropping VMS or Tru64 just like they didF > NT/Alpha?  Where does that put us in 3 to 5 years?" says management.J > Even if the distrust simply stalls decisions for a year or so that go toH > VMS or Tru64 in any case, the resulting dip in sales would also become > more FUD-fuel. >   I Agreed. But it really makes you wonder why Compaq bought DEC in the first H place? Compaq is giving up the "crown jewels" (Alpha technology) just toJ become another Wintel OEM channel.  I thought that Compaq management wouldK turn around the DEC division but it seems that Compaq management is just as 6 capable of small-minded sort-term thinking as DEC was.  K In my own employer's company (the name can't be disclosed here but we're in H excess of 30K employees) many of the mini and mainframe people have beenJ lobbying upper management for some time (18 months) to move many away fromK Wintel back to OpenVMS (specifically OpenVMS on Alpha). The reason this has K taken so long is that our company spun off most of the IS/IT work 24 months I ago to contractors who prefer to support Wintel and/or UNIX. The shine is K starting to come off that decision (many foobars) and we were just starting 0 to make some headway when this bomb was dropped.  
 Neil Rieck Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  Ontario, Canada.! http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:06:21 -0700 ! From: Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> 1 Subject: RE: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIOECFCNAA.tom@kednos.com>   I Compaq certainly didn't buy Digital because of Alpha.  It was the service  organization that F they wanted.  I suspect that the cost to keep pace with Intel is high. Never understood0 why Digital didn't pursue the mips architecture.   > -----Original Message-----0 > From: Neil Rieck [mailto:n.rieck@sympatico.ca]( > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 11:00 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 3 > Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?  >  >  > 9 > "Sean O'Banion" <seanobanion@home.com> wrote in message $ > news:3B34C276.94380BAB@home.com...A > > What worries me, though, is not the technical impact, but the  > > FUD-feeding power:G > > "If  after all the 'We support Alpha', Compaq can give away or sell L > > Alpha, what's to stop them from dropping VMS or Tru64 just like they didH > > NT/Alpha?  Where does that put us in 3 to 5 years?" says management.L > > Even if the distrust simply stalls decisions for a year or so that go toJ > > VMS or Tru64 in any case, the resulting dip in sales would also become > > more FUD-fuel. > >  > K > Agreed. But it really makes you wonder why Compaq bought DEC in the first J > place? Compaq is giving up the "crown jewels" (Alpha technology) just toL > become another Wintel OEM channel.  I thought that Compaq management wouldB > turn around the DEC division but it seems that Compaq management > is just as8 > capable of small-minded sort-term thinking as DEC was. > @ > In my own employer's company (the name can't be disclosed here > but we're inJ > excess of 30K employees) many of the mini and mainframe people have beenL > lobbying upper management for some time (18 months) to move many away from= > Wintel back to OpenVMS (specifically OpenVMS on Alpha). The  > reason this has C > taken so long is that our company spun off most of the IS/IT work  > 24 months K > ago to contractors who prefer to support Wintel and/or UNIX. The shine is ? > starting to come off that decision (many foobars) and we were  > just starting 2 > to make some headway when this bomb was dropped. >  > Neil Rieck > Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,  > Ontario, Canada.# > http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/  >  >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 06:04:30 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) 1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? 3 Message-ID: <IA4MAQNGofF8@eisner.encompasserve.org>   t In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106222348250.27043-100000@world.std.com>, Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:  J > It matters not to me what engine is under the hood of my VMSmobile. WhatH > *does* matter is the affordability of the solution. And if one were toI > speculate about VMS on IPF chips, one might conclude that said hardware < > would dramatically reduce the entry cost to VMS computing.  E The quality of my VMS machines depends very little on the cost of the F chips.  It depends enormously on the cost (quality) of the surroundingB hardware, which is _standardized_ and officially tested by the VMS development group.  D If VMS ran on something as popular as x86, it would waste great gobsA of VMS development group effort chasing after problems in various  hardware implementations.    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 06:26:57 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) 1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? 3 Message-ID: <wAVhYbG8I1sh@eisner.encompasserve.org>   v In comp.arch article <88525dde.0106220957.73f83c28@posting.google.com>, michaelpettengill@earthlink.net (mulp) writes:  M >The issue of Alpha surviving has little to do with the architecture and more G >to do with what happens over the next few years in terms of supporting ' >existing Alpha customers and partners.  > I >Not knowing what is coming, but hearing that there is an important, big, E >significant, Alpha related announcement on Monday from Capellas, I'm G >guessing that what you are talking about but not saying is the sale of M >"Alpha" by Compaq.  I can only guess as to what "Alpha" means, but certainly  >it means the chip business. > H >Selling Alpha almost has to improve Alpha's odds, since its unclear how/ >Compaq is going to survive another five years.  > I >Its PC business is almost history (and even Dell is going to have a hard K >time surviving with its current structure).  The iPaq is doing well today, K >but either Michael Dell has someone's feet to the fire or his board should M >be firing him, and there will be a dellPaq real soon to grab market - Compaq M >created the environment where the only unique feature of volume computers is J >Windows and Compaq doesn't own that.  Compaq has destroyed DEC's servicesM >business and I'm fairly certain that the companies that Compaq is looking at I >to buy are looking for white knights to save them from destruction.  And M >since the internet/telco market has collapsed, Compaq has taken steps to cut K >costs to show a fake profit today with the side effect of making sure that ? >no new products and technology are developed in the next year.  > 8 >The question becomes who can manage the Alpha business. > J >Intel might be the best bet - it would cause Alpha to go backward for twoL >years until Intel adds some features to the architecture to lockout SamsungK >while confusing the market with new IA-64 announcements, and then it comes K >out strong with Alpha.  This would be the path based on what happened with  >StrongARM.  > M >IBM would be the best from a technology standpoint.  IBM would push Alpha at J >the same time as it was continuing to advance the Power line, but IBM hasL >figured out that its possible to have multiple architectures as long as youH >own them.  (IBM has gone from about a dozen architectures to three: theL >significantly evolved 360, the power family, and IA32, and IBM consistentlyK >loses money on IA32).  By bring Alpha closer to the chip technology, Alpha M >would gain 6-12 months on the performance roadmap.  IBM has gotten very good M >at evolution,  so they would be able to migrate their and Compaq's customers M >into IBM proprietary technology over a five year period without pissing them K >off.  IBM would be able to support competition between Alpha and Power for " >some time which would be healthy. > K >Samsung has clearly not managed turn Alpha into a significant force in its  >overall business. > J >AMD might be doing well enough that they can afford to buy Alpha and thisF >would return Alpha to a significant number of the original Alpha chipL >designers.  As long as the Alpha engineering didn't disrupt delivery of newG >Athlon and chips with Hammer support, AMD would be able to afford some K >confusion while things sorted out.  After that, there would be competition E >between the Hammer and Alpha which would be healthy.  AMD's existing K >customers might be interested in Alpha because it gets them out from under  >Intel.  > F >API might be the holding company for Alpha chip development with AMD,L >Samsung, and Compaq jointly owning the business.  This seems to be the most >likely to me. > K >The key to any significant change in the way Alpha chips (and systems) are G >developed is keeping the VMS customers buying.  These are the ones who I >ensure a steady stream of support for Alpha.  The DEC/CPQ unix customers K >already have more Sun systems than Alphas in almost any case, so they will D >be influenced heavily by the fate of the VMS customers.  If the VMSK >customers are going to be cut off, then that means that they will continue K >to be jerked around and every Alpha unix system will be carefully consider  >based on short term needs.n >4I >IBM might differentiate Alpha from its existing systems by making it itsKI >primary Linux platform.  While they give Linux away for free, they wouldp) >sell (and own) DB2 and the Alpha system.a >sI >As far as Alpha competing technically with IA64.  No problem there.  TheAI >game is reducing the entire system down to a single chip.  Intel clearlyoL >doesn't get it - you have needed three chips for years and still need threeL >chips into the future.  Even with RDRAM, Intel stuck a memory controller inK >the middle which increases cost and complexity while reducing performance.mF >EV7 is doing two things: 1) fixing the bugs in EV6 that resulted fromI >Palmer's failure to invest enough in Alpha development and 2) building aqK >complete super computer system on a chip.  EV8 will be taking the CPU core K >up another notch in complexity while fixing bugs in the supercomputer on a?M >chip portion of the chip.  (The bugs are the aspects of the system that makesK >it difficult to build systems and that limit performance - what happens ismM >that the system fails in wierd ways, lots of time is spent figuring out whatnI >went wrong, then some performance feature is disabled to make the system  >work more reliably.)p > K >IA64 will be spending the next 5 years dealing with architectural bugs andaH >implementation bugs.  Only after those problems are dealt with will theJ >focus be turned to packing the entire system on to a single chip, but theK >complexity of the architecture will make it difficult to cram enough logic J >into the chip and to get the power needed into the chip and the heat out.   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 09:53:02 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)n1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?,3 Message-ID: <U81NEHVnflMD@eisner.encompasserve.org>m  p In article <rl0Z6.588$m6.649474@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes: > A > "David Mathog" <mathog@seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu> wrote in messageM( > news:9h0iaa$7ov@gap.cco.caltech.edu...  F >> Exactly!  What better way to carve out market share than to cause aJ >> potential competitor to suddenly go into stasis.  The Alpha wouldn't beJ >> dead, exactly, but just in that zombie state usually associated with CAG >> software products, in which there is high cost and zero development.- >>K >> That's why I find it so hard to believe that the FTC would ever sign offe > on
 >> this deal.  > L > I can't comment on these rumours, but the rationale is pretty good. And ifK > the rumours are true, the FTC issue probably has been dealt with already.w  A Those from outside the US should bear in mind that there is a neweD administration in Washington since DEC sold the Hudson FAB to Intel.8 I don't know the details of the FTC appointment process.   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 09:50:39 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)s1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?s3 Message-ID: <3pbzgzeYHWeU@eisner.encompasserve.org>d  p In article <dj0Z6.587$m6.648569@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes: > . > <LBohan@dbc.spam_less..com> wrote in message4 > news:k3g7jtchp3tcg42t6hmb7oakbee8n75a93@4ax.com... >  >>9 >> if the buyer is Intel, what would be their motivation?  >> why 2 64 bit architectures ?  > L > Well gee, if I was Intel and I was gonna buy Alpha (they had the chance toJ > do so in 1990), I'd use some of the wizardry in Alpha to enhance the IPFL > family. I would not maintain two 64-bit architectures. Taking one more offM > the playing field is a good thing for Intel, assuming the rumours are true.   E I though the previous settlement granted Intel the right to use Alphan9 technology in their own chips via patent cross-licensing.u   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:02:49 -0400 % From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>s1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? / Message-ID: <tj9temh10dac72@news.supernews.com>   F "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message- news:IA4MAQNGofF8@eisner.encompasserve.org...nL > In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106222348250.27043-100000@world.std.com>, Terry) C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:  >nL > > It matters not to me what engine is under the hood of my VMSmobile. WhatJ > > *does* matter is the affordability of the solution. And if one were toK > > speculate about VMS on IPF chips, one might conclude that said hardwareA> > > would dramatically reduce the entry cost to VMS computing. >1G > The quality of my VMS machines depends very little on the cost of the H > chips.  It depends enormously on the cost (quality) of the surroundingD > hardware, which is _standardized_ and officially tested by the VMS > development group. >1F > If VMS ran on something as popular as x86, it would waste great gobsC > of VMS development group effort chasing after problems in variousV > hardware implementations.<  J If VMS ran on something as popular as x86, it would be supported on only aL very small subset of available hardware.  Probably all with a Compaq logo onI it.  Of course, hobbyists might be able to get it running on a much widerr array of equipment.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:11:31 +0100 % From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>T1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? * Message-ID: <3B34F7F3.5AD78647@virgin.net>  L > Again, EV7 is on track, Marvel systems are on track, and Tru64 and OpenVMS/ > customers have nothing to be concerned about.i >3  H Which gives Compaq breathing space to port VMS to IA64 I guess. I'm also. guessing that decision has already been taken,   > My opinion only.  	 and mine.3     --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:28:48 -0400p- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>91 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? , Message-ID: <3B34FBFA.717DFCC8@videotron.ca>   John Vottero wrote:<L > If VMS ran on something as popular as x86, it would be supported on only a* > very small subset of available hardware.  ) Forget the x86. Think IA64. 8086 is dead.r  J What Apple went though for its 68k to PowerPc, and what we went though forJ Vax-Alpha, all of the wintel folks will now have to go through for 8086 toM IA64. Companies are going to be very busy porting their software from 8086 to7L IA64. If you ask the few remaining ISvs that still make VMS software to alsoK port their VMS to IA64, they may say "sorry, no budgets for that, we're too-( busy porting our NT and Linux software".  N Consider that there is also a sizeable chunk of VAX still running. So you'd be0 asking ISVs to support both VAX, Alpha and IA64.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:37:12 +0100o% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>s1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?t* Message-ID: <3B351A17.8335FABD@virgin.net>   JF Mezei wrote:e  P > Consider that there is also a sizeable chunk of VAX still running. So you'd be2 > asking ISVs to support both VAX, Alpha and IA64.  O This transition could be eased if IA64 based VMS servers could run 100% or nearnQ enough of Alpha binaries at a reasonable speed. Preferably without first manuallyML VESTing. CompaqMigrate anyone? I wonder how feasable it would be to build anP IA64/Alpha hybrid and let VMS schedule code across appropriate processors. MightQ even be possible to do this with an Alpha processors add-in card which could slot  into a standard IA64 server.  P I also wonder how hard it would be to add Alpha emulation to IA64 given that youQ now have the Alpha design team working for you and that the chip already emulatesa6 other architectures. I didn't say it had to be fast...  = I'm trying to read the best into these rumours at the moment.  --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 15:47:56 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)e1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?i, Message-ID: <EuvmoA2FrMGH@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>  + In article <3B351A17.8335FABD@virgin.net>, c*    Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes: > Q > This transition could be eased if IA64 based VMS servers could run 100% or nearuS > enough of Alpha binaries at a reasonable speed. Preferably without first manuallyeN > VESTing. CompaqMigrate anyone? I wonder how feasable it would be to build anR > IA64/Alpha hybrid and let VMS schedule code across appropriate processors. MightS > even be possible to do this with an Alpha processors add-in card which could slot- > into a standard IA64 server. > K      It seems to me that in all these discussions so far noboby's asked thea really important question:  Q     "Will Alphaservers sold after Monday have an 'Intel Inside' sticker on them"?   V      (that alone might be the most successful marketing move ever done for the Alpha).     :-)m   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:41:12 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>c1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? , Message-ID: <3B352905.AA54AEA1@videotron.ca>   Malcolm Dunnett wrote:S >     "Will Alphaservers sold after Monday have an 'Intel Inside' sticker on them"?a  ! Does Oracle actively market RDB ?   D It is a given that if Intel gets Alpha, Intel will make some sort ofL commitment to a 5 year roadmap of Alpha, during which time all the engineers5 and technologies of Alpha will be transfered to IA64.?  H It isn't so much the IA64 part that bothers me, but rather the fact thatM Compaq would be giving up on that part of the business, never having tried towN make it go. If Compaq happily gives up Alpha and donates it to Intel, there isM nothing preventing it from doing the same to VMS , continuing to donate parts" to Microsoft and True64.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:23:16 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>i1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?s( Message-ID: <9h3f7v$263$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messagec6 news:lvHY6.7690$P46.5225173@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...   ...e  B > I am not in a position to comment on the rumour to which you are
 referring.J > What I can say is that EV7 is on track, Marvel systems are on track, andA > Tru64 and OpenVMS customers have nothing to be concerned about.l  K Aside from noting that at least *some* VMS customers may well have cause tooL be concerned about the possibility that VMS will be ported to IA64 (from oneF of your other posts) - and the resulting drain on talent that at leastA *might* otherwise have been devoted to continued VMS enhancement,R> conspicuous by its absence in the above is any mention of EV8.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:15:46 -0400e2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?CL Message-ID: <rdeininger-2306012215460001@user-2ive69s.dialup.mindspring.com>  D In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIOECFCNAA.tom@kednos.com>, Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> wrote:n  K > Compaq certainly didn't buy Digital because of Alpha.  It was the servicee > organization thatoH > they wanted.  I suspect that the cost to keep pace with Intel is high. > Never understood2 > why Digital didn't pursue the mips architecture.  I DEC used MIPS in some systems, and apparently found it lacking.  Alpha is H clearly light-years ahead of MIPS.  It's hard to say where MIPS would beF today if active development had continued.  But Alpha is nothing to be ashamed of.c  @ Alpha _marketing_ has been dismal, but that's a different topic.   --   Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:22:25 -0700e! From: Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com>t1 Subject: RE: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?39 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIIEDCCNAA.tom@kednos.com>n  A I disagree.  Alpha did not advance the state of the art as far as A computer architecture is concerned.  Mips actually had a strongerc instruction set,@ and remember throughput is porportional to the product of freq * instr_set_strengthL A barrel shifter for dealing with unaligned access would have been nice (ala
 Power pc0)J It took 5 years to add sign extended byte moves, when any idiot knows theyH should have been there from the get-go, and why did they do it?  Because legacy code ran so poorly, i.e.mK Oracle.  VAX was a much cleaner architecture than Intel, which was obsoletelJ 10 years before it was built.  If that crap can run at 1.7GHz think what aF VAX would do at that speed.  That is where Digital should have put itsK development dollars, not Alpha.  But that is history, where does Compaq puto- its development dollars now, is the question?C  L As I have said before Alpha is not VMS.  VMS can be ported to anything.  VMSE has bottom line value to Compaq (for the moment), Alpha is probably asG liability.  So does VMS get ported, or does the cow get milked till its  dead?s  L You don't market Alpha, you market VMS.  As other have said, they don't care6 what's under the hood it just has to drive like a VMS.   > -----Original Message-----; > From: Robert Deininger [mailto:rdeininger@mindspring.com] ' > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 7:16 PME > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com'3 > Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?o >g > F > In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIOECFCNAA.tom@kednos.com>, Tom Linden > <tom@kednos.com> wrote:e > A > > Compaq certainly didn't buy Digital because of Alpha.  It wasw
 > the servicet > > organization thatcJ > > they wanted.  I suspect that the cost to keep pace with Intel is high. > > Never understood4 > > why Digital didn't pursue the mips architecture. > K > DEC used MIPS in some systems, and apparently found it lacking.  Alpha isyJ > clearly light-years ahead of MIPS.  It's hard to say where MIPS would beH > today if active development had continued.  But Alpha is nothing to be
 > ashamed of.  >hB > Alpha _marketing_ has been dismal, but that's a different topic. >M > -- > Robert Deininger > rdeininger@mindspring.como >.   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 20:15:50 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) 1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? , Message-ID: <6H979we+b+k+@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>  - In article <3B352905.AA54AEA1@videotron.ca>, y2    JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes:   > Malcolm Dunnett wrote:T >>     "Will Alphaservers sold after Monday have an 'Intel Inside' sticker on them"? > # > Does Oracle actively market RDB ?e >   P    The posting wasn't actually meant to be taken seriously, but if you insist - J it wouldn't be Intel adding the stickers, it would be Compaq. Will they beK able to claim Alphasevers have Intel ( which the clueless read as "Industryo4 Standard" ) chips in them if this sale goes through?  F > It is a given that if Intel gets Alpha, Intel will make some sort ofN > commitment to a 5 year roadmap of Alpha, during which time all the engineers7 > and technologies of Alpha will be transfered to IA64.n > K     During which time Compaq will probably have yet another change of heartiL and conclude that they don't want to port VMS to IA64 but would rather focusL on "Industry Standard" ( in this case a code word for Microsoft ) solutions.  M     Am I the only one who finds disturbing parallels between Compaqs decisionAI to focus on "vertical markets, software and services" ( and not processormI development ) and what Digital was saying in the mid 80s ( about the time  they killed Prism? ).M   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:40:46 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>f1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?r, Message-ID: <3B35612D.21751AF0@videotron.ca>   Tom Linden wrote:oM > Oracle.  VAX was a much cleaner architecture than Intel, which was obsoletemL > 10 years before it was built.  If that crap can run at 1.7GHz think what a > VAX would do at that speed.   J I agree in hindsight. But at the time, RISC processors were getting betterK performance than VAX and Digital was unwilling to lower the price of VAX topK match the price/performance of the new Risc processors. Their answer was to 3 temporarily adopt MIPS for Unix, and develop Alpha.e  L Yes, in hindsight, seing that Intel was able to take the lousy 8086 and makeK it outperform the fancy new Alpha, I guess Digital could have done the sameA@ with VAX. But at the time, did engineers think it was possible ?  M Don't forget that one reason that the 8086 was able to beat Alpha was becausetK Intel inspored itself from Alpha. Without Alpha, would the 8086 have gotteni such performance ?  N > As I have said before Alpha is not VMS.  VMS can be ported to anything.  VMSG > has bottom line value to Compaq (for the moment), Alpha is probably a)I > liability.  So does VMS get ported, or does the cow get milked till itsu > dead?h  J Alpha and VMS are both going to remain liabilities until they are marketedM properly. Face it: if the PowerPC can survive against Intel, so should Alpha.bN And Sun as its Sparc archituecture pitted againsty Intel's too and it seesm to be doing well.    I Alpha and VMS are liabilities because Compaq doesn't want them to succeedtN against the Wintel camp.  But they woudl be great assets if Compaq allowed the two to flourish.  N I don't think it would have been that diofficult for Compaq to turn Alpha intoL a popular platform. Compaq had the clout to push Alpha sercvers , epsecially" at the time NT still ran on Alpha.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:44:46 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?r6 Message-ID: <1010623234059.38769A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  & On 23 Jun 2001, Larry Kilgallen wrote:  r > In article <dj0Z6.587$m6.648569@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>, "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> writes: > > 0 > > <LBohan@dbc.spam_less..com> wrote in message6 > > news:k3g7jtchp3tcg42t6hmb7oakbee8n75a93@4ax.com... > >  > >>; > >> if the buyer is Intel, what would be their motivation?.! > >> why 2 64 bit architectures ?" > > N > > Well gee, if I was Intel and I was gonna buy Alpha (they had the chance toL > > do so in 1990), I'd use some of the wizardry in Alpha to enhance the IPFN > > family. I would not maintain two 64-bit architectures. Taking one more offO > > the playing field is a good thing for Intel, assuming the rumours are true.u > G > I though the previous settlement granted Intel the right to use Alphaw; > technology in their own chips via patent cross-licensing.   6 I came across this while searching for something else:  3 http://www8.zdnet.com/eweek/news/1027/31ealpha.htmln  = Makes your stomach hurt to see the same old negativity.  Thenu I looked closely at the date!r  = Clearly the media was clueless at the time, and I don't think ( clue prices have dropped with the NASDQ.   -- t John Santosh Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:53:36 -0400-- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?a, Message-ID: <3B35642D.2AE90F34@videotron.ca>   Malcolm Dunnett wrote:O >     Am I the only one who finds disturbing parallels between Compaqs decisionoK > to focus on "vertical markets, software and services" ( and not processor K > development ) and what Digital was saying in the mid 80s ( about the time7 > they killed Prism? ).   H Terry Shannon says that we shouldn't be worrying. However, I do not haveH confidence in VMS being handled properly by Compaq because so far CompaqI hasn't yet proven to me that I can blindly trust Compaq to take the righta decisions for VMS.  K And that lack of confidence in Compaq's handling of VMS will make a certainnM percentage of VMS folks really worry about Compaq's true intentions should it H drop Alpha at the same time as announcing a port of VMS to Intel's chip.  M Consider that more and more of the applications that used to be the domain of-L VMS are/have been ported to Unix and NT.  Consider that the gap betyween VMSH and NT is narrowing. Consider that Healthcare seems to be one of the fewG remaining niches to VMS, but during the last financials, Compaq proudlynM announced it had sold a whole bunch of million's worth of wintel boxes to therG healthcare industry.  Consider that health care was one vertical market0 identified in that memo.  M Do you trust Compaq to pitch a VMS solution to a customer when an NT solutionn exists ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:03:59 -0400o  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?o6 Message-ID: <1010623234633.38769B-100000@Ives.egh.com>  $ On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, JF Mezei wrote:   > John Vottero wrote:aN > > If VMS ran on something as popular as x86, it would be supported on only a, > > very small subset of available hardware. > + > Forget the x86. Think IA64. 8086 is dead.s > L > What Apple went though for its 68k to PowerPc, and what we went though forL > Vax-Alpha, all of the wintel folks will now have to go through for 8086 toO > IA64. Companies are going to be very busy porting their software from 8086 tosN > IA64. If you ask the few remaining ISvs that still make VMS software to alsoM > port their VMS to IA64, they may say "sorry, no budgets for that, we're too * > busy porting our NT and Linux software". > P > Consider that there is also a sizeable chunk of VAX still running. So you'd be2 > asking ISVs to support both VAX, Alpha and IA64.  H Assuming this rumor is true (never assume anything), supporting both VAXI and Alpha for me has been a non-issue.  Tons of VAX/DEC BASIC code, quite,H a bit of MACRO-32, some C, and thousands of DCL command files.  Once theG teething problems of DEC BASIC were solved, and we bashed all our MACRO J into the Alpha Macro-32 style, supporting both platforms has been trivial.H The last time someone counted, I believe it was closing in on 10,000,000 lines of code.  E Lack of Java support on VAX might be an issue in the near future, butc not so far.'  C We are trying to gently nudge our VAX customers towards Alphas, butnE this is mostly to get them better performance.  In addition to better8E CPU performance and I/O bandwidth, HSZ80's+10KRPM UltraSCSI disks arer< much faster than HSC95's+SDI disks or HSJ50's+ 5400RPM SCSI.  D I do almost all my development on an Alpha (because a AS1200 is MUCHF faster than a VAX 4200), and usually I only compile and test the finalE versions of any change on both systems as a sanity check, but I can't < remember the last time something only worked on one of them.  C If VMS is ported to IA64, I would expect Compaq to do as good a jobnG of ensuring compatibility as DEC did with the Alpha port.  If they do,  4 then no problem.  If they don't then they are toast.  : Will we be able to get cheap IA64's under the CSA program?   -- d John Santos- Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:01:52 -0700a! From: Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com>e1 Subject: RE: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?i9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJICEDECNAA.tom@kednos.com>o   > -----Original Message-----6 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca]' > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 8:41 PMs > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 3 > Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?e >  >f > Tom Linden wrote:mB > > Oracle.  VAX was a much cleaner architecture than Intel, which > was obsoleteA > > 10 years before it was built.  If that crap can run at 1.7GHzp > think what a > > VAX would do at that speed.h > L > I agree in hindsight. But at the time, RISC processors were getting betterC > performance than VAX and Digital was unwilling to lower the pricei > of VAX to ? > match the price/performance of the new Risc processors. Theira > answer was to 5 > temporarily adopt MIPS for Unix, and develop Alpha.   J Yes, I know the history as well, but IIRC, the Alpha project came somewhat# after Digital's investment in Mips.  >a@ > Yes, in hindsight, seing that Intel was able to take the lousy > 8086 and make ? > it outperform the fancy new Alpha, I guess Digital could haveE > done the same5B > with VAX. But at the time, did engineers think it was possible ? >rC > Don't forget that one reason that the 8086 was able to beat Alphad
 > was becauseVA > Intel inspored itself from Alpha. Without Alpha, would the 8086 
 > have gottend > such performance ?  ) Yes, and alpha had nothing to do with it.n >IA > > As I have said before Alpha is not VMS.  VMS can be ported ton > anything.  VMSI > > has bottom line value to Compaq (for the moment), Alpha is probably aiK > > liability.  So does VMS get ported, or does the cow get milked till itss	 > > dead?  >   C You miss my point entirely.  Forget Alpha, it is only a vehicle fora
 deliveringI VMS.   VMS by itself accounts for considerable contribution to the bottom  line, D Alpha is a drain, don't lump them together from a P&L point of view.  L > Alpha and VMS are both going to remain liabilities until they are marketedA > properly. Face it: if the PowerPC can survive against Intel, soe > should Alpha.o@ > And Sun as its Sparc archituecture pitted againsty Intel's too > and it seesm to4 > be doing well. >  >cK > Alpha and VMS are liabilities because Compaq doesn't want them to succeed = > against the Wintel camp.  But they woudl be great assets if  > Compaq allowed the > two to flourish. >n@ > I don't think it would have been that diofficult for Compaq to > turn Alpha intoeC > a popular platform. Compaq had the clout to push Alpha sercvers ,A > epsecially$ > at the time NT still ran on Alpha. >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:47:26 -0400i- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>m1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? , Message-ID: <3B3570C7.8E345A20@videotron.ca>   I was thinking.i  C What would make me feel comfortable about Compaq's rumoured moves ?-  M If Compaq were to announce that it would stop since single platform focus and@M become a IT solutions company with multiple OS solutions on the same footing,9M including VMS, Tru64, Linux, NT and even MVS and Solaris and make that a veryoG public statement, I might feel more confident that something has really / changed at Compaq and that the move is genuine.e  I However, because this is unlikely to happen,  Compaq's extreme loyalty tokN Microsoft is making it very difficult for me to beleive that its ultimate goalG is other than to bring all the customers to MS based operating systems.o  L I feel that IBM is more objective about supporting varios OS (including VMS)K that Compaq. For Compaq to gain crediblity in the services/support, it will E truly have to shed its Microsoft-loyalty image and start to prove itsVE objectivity to the world by starting to sell its own non-MS products.n   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 06:09:11 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)R/ Subject: Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformationi3 Message-ID: <$Tt8nv9af0dE@eisner.encompasserve.org>5  t In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106230008510.27043-100000@world.std.com>, Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:  I > My pal Charlie Matco informs me that VMS users will be happy campers inaC > the days, weeks, and decades to come. There are plenty of rumourscL > circulating about the fate of Alpha. These I am unable to confirm or deny,H > But I remain confident that the VMS story is looking pretty good these > days.   D I am a pretty happy camper right now, but if you meant "more happy",A it is not clear there is any one change that could make all of us C "more happy".  Personally, I don't have much problem convincing ther  boss to use VMS, for example :-)  N ==============================================================================N Great Inventors of our time: Al Gore -> Internet; Sun Microsystems -> ClustersN ==============================================================================   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:21:57 -0400p- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>a/ Subject: Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformationu, Message-ID: <3B34FA5F.FBF356EF@videotron.ca>  . Cat is out of the bag. The 180 day memo is at:  ' http://www.theinquirer.net/23060107.htmt  N Note: on my browser, the text did not appear, I had to look at the html source and format it to be readable.b  N Some things to remember here: Compaq is about to embark on multiple platforms,N something which it never had to do. It will now have to build and support bothH 8086 and IA64 in its mainstream products. (remember that Alpha stuff wasK always relegated to its small independant corner and Compaq made sure ALphaaA didn't disturb any of Compaq's real products). So the stuff aboutnL standardizing on production techniques, reducing part numbers etc etc may be+ targetted more at the 8086-IA64 platforms. h    I Furthermore, VMS gets only a token mention in the text (we'll continue totI support our VMS customers" type of message). VMS doesn't even get its own I paragraph. After the "we'll continue to support VMS" the text switches to  Compaq's Linux strategy.  K Since Capellas goes through great lengths to mention how True64 is growing,aS rumours that Compaq would abandon Tru64 in favour of Linux are probably exagerated.l  L The big announcement in that memo is the fact that Compaq wants to transformK itself into a services and solutions company. It wanst its services to grow I 40% per year from its current 1/5 of Compaq to the target of one third ofdM Compaq. They will be spending $500 million to acquire companies to grow theira  services and solutions business.  H The other important chaneg I read is that Compaq will start to deal withN customers and sell to them more then just the hardware. This means that CompaqI wants to do as Digital used to do before Palmer cut the sales force: selllI direct to enterprise customers and sell much mroe than just the hardware.hI Whether this means that Compaq will start buying software (eg: IBM buying. Lotus) is another question.   J Remember that in its heydays, Digital had a pretty impressive portfolio ofK software products you could buy from Digital and get support from Digital. -     As far as Alpha is concerned:e  I There is no direct mention in the memo. Perhaps Charlie Matco knows more.tN However, consider the costs to migrate VMS and tru64 to IA64. Compaq just paidL a lot of money to modify Alpha to support NSK. How much would Compaq have toN pay to get the IA64 modified to support VMS and NSK, or how much would VMS and? NSK engineers have to spend to change their OS to run on IA64 ?k  G Compare that to the costs of productising NT on Alpha (remember that NTgL already runs on Alpha, it is just not productised). Consider that today, youL need far less software on NT-Alpha to make it attractive: SQL server and IIS8 web server. And get Office to run on Alpha for desktops.  L If Compaq asks the few remaining VMS ISVs to start to support VMS, Alpha andM IA64, that may be just too much to ask. Remember that during the VAX to Alphar@ transition a whole bunch of products didn't make the transition.  J Now, if Compaq were ready to make a BIG push for VMS to open it to any/allJ markets, then perhaps the move to more commodity hardware would make senseN since you'd gain more customers than you'd lose. But in its current state, andN with Compaq clearly not interested in growing VMS more than it has to, I doubt- that migrating to IA64 would be a good thing.s  L Compaq has just succeeded is gaining enough confidence from VMS customers toJ start spending on VMS a bit. If Compaq now turns around and ditches Alpha,' that confidence will go away VERY FAST.-  K As I understand it, Alpha is currently structured such that Compaq only haseN the engineering of the chip left, and its manufacture is done by outside firms. 9Samsung, IBM and does Intel still make them?)  N I could see a drive to format the Alpha chip to fit into motherboards that areH also used for IA64. That would allow Compaq to share motherboard designsI between IA64 and Alpha servers and use much the same hardware for the twotN platforms. But to do that, you do not need to sell Alpha to Intel. As a matter' of fact, you do not need to sell Alpha.   J I would hope that if Compaq is to sell Alpha, it will sell it to an outfitL that wants to make Alpha grow, not sell it to the Borg whose sole purpose is/ to assimilate the engineers and the technology.u   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:28:10 +0100h% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>e/ Subject: Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformationo* Message-ID: <3B3517F9.5A15586A@virgin.net>   JF Mezei wrote:   0 > Cat is out of the bag. The 180 day memo is at: > ) > http://www.theinquirer.net/23060107.htmr >mK > Furthermore, VMS gets only a token mention in the text (we'll continue totK > support our VMS customers" type of message). VMS doesn't even get its ownaK > paragraph. After the "we'll continue to support VMS" the text switches to  > Compaq's Linux strategy. > M > Since Capellas goes through great lengths to mention how True64 is growing,:U > rumours that Compaq would abandon Tru64 in favour of Linux are probably exagerated.i >c  T Actually if you read the memo carefully there is actually a commitment to expand theR VMS market. There is no such commitment for Tru64. Capellas praises Tru64 existingV leading clustering strengths but only promises to grow Compaq's Unix market. Tru64 andU Compaq Unix market are not synonymous. Taken with the parallel announcement from MikeoK Winkler that Tru64 clustering code is to be added into Linux and full Tru64rI compatibility to be added as well I don't see a long term future for T64.:   > L > I would hope that if Compaq is to sell Alpha, it will sell it to an outfitN > that wants to make Alpha grow, not sell it to the Borg whose sole purpose is1 > to assimilate the engineers and the technology.j  U Although nobody has yet stated it explictly all the signs seem to say that Alpha will>W be sold to Intel and then killed off slowly. New Alphaservers based on EV7 will come to2S market over the next couple of years and during this window Compaq will port VMS to S IA64. Perhaps some features of the Alpha architecture will be transferred to futureI IA64 chips to ease this.  W If Compaq get it right this could well be an excellent opportunity for VMS. If they gete; it wrong it is just another nail in their corporate coffin.r  U Imagine an IA64 VMS which could run VMS Alpha binaries (updated VEST/TIE), IA64 LinuxnV and Tru64 binaries (expanded DII COE work) and perhaps some other flavours of Unix andT can run on low cost home systems. Note it need not be formally supported on low costG home IA64 systems but nothing should be done to stop it trying to boot./  ? Will the above happen? Guess we will just have to wait and see.e   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:49:51 -0400s' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>i/ Subject: Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformationn( Message-ID: <9h368d$prf$1@pyrite.mv.net>  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3B34FA5F.FBF356EF@videotron.ca...0 > Cat is out of the bag. The 180 day memo is at: >m) > http://www.theinquirer.net/23060107.htm-   To me, a pivotal paragraph was:>  H "I see this as a great opportunity for Compaq -- if we step up to it. WeK know how to deliver the industry standard building blocks. We also have thenF ability to create substantial customer value above the building blocksG through innovation, services, partnerships, mission critical skills and B expertise in some key horizontal and industry-specific solutions."  , When combined with the preceding statements:  F "the current downturn ... has accelerated the use of industry standardK building blocks to develop low-cost IT solutions. Commoditization has moved H well beyond personal computers to the lower tiers of the infrastructure,' including servers and low-end storage."n   and the later:  E "We need to simplify for the customer. By that I mean simplify the IToD architecture to make it easier for customers to deploy. Simplify ourL products and services -- including fewer SKUs, fewer part numbers and easierK access to service and support. Simplify our customer value proposition. AndfJ simplify the buying experience -- however customers choose to buy from us.  K We need to drive greater simplification in our organization. The simpler werH are -- and the better aligned we are upstream and downstream -- the moreJ effective we'll be in our execution. A simpler organization will also makeK it easier for us to do everything once, and only once. Today, we tend to do C many things several times -- resulting in increased cost and slower.
 execution.  I We also need to simplify our messages and communications. We've made some98 good progress on this score, but we can do even better."   and even later:e  L "With our strong positions in access, industry standard servers and storage,L we have the building blocks, but we need to take immediate action to improve our competitive position."  L the belief that 'industry-standard' solutions - and *only* industry-standardG solutions (see the "once, and only once" reference above) - is the real8F future seems unequivocably clear, though selling the existing high-endK systems will obviously continue as long as there are a reasonable number ofM buyers out there.   L Consider the emphasis on acquiring enterprise services companies rather thanJ attempting to capitalize on the organizations acquired from DEC and TandemJ as another indication that those existing organizations aren't relevant to the vision of the future.  And:s  J "We are also consolidating our strategy and technology organizations. ThisL will insure that technology development and corporate strategic planning are more tightly aligned."  K may be subject to interpretation but does not inspire confidence in renewedoE high-end intiatives (or even continuation at their current level:  ifoD Terry's right, there's a good chance that virtually *all* future VMSB expenditures will be devoted to migrating it to IA64, which may beL convenient for Compaq if they sell off Alpha but won't do a damn bit of goodB for VMS customers if the system is otherwise in maintenance mode).  K Capellas seems to have a major problem with 'the vision thing'.  Why CompaqPH should be given a ghost of a chance when matched up against the likes of. IBM, SUN, and Dell is beyond my comprehension.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:02:54 -0600t- From: "Dan Notov" <dannoHATES_SPAM@large.com> / Subject: Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformationh/ Message-ID: <tja7usia0ak99c@corp.supernews.com>r  2 "Alan Greig" <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message$ news:3B3517F9.5A15586A@virgin.net... >t >m > JF Mezei wrote:  >n2 > > Cat is out of the bag. The 180 day memo is at: > >t+ > > http://www.theinquirer.net/23060107.htmo > >hJ > > Furthermore, VMS gets only a token mention in the text (we'll continue toI > > support our VMS customers" type of message). VMS doesn't even get its  own-J > > paragraph. After the "we'll continue to support VMS" the text switches to > > Compaq's Linux strategy. > >RF > > Since Capellas goes through great lengths to mention how True64 is growing,K > > rumours that Compaq would abandon Tru64 in favour of Linux are probablyj exagerated.t > >o >nK > Actually if you read the memo carefully there is actually a commitment to 
 expand theK > VMS market. There is no such commitment for Tru64. Capellas praises Tru64r existingF > leading clustering strengths but only promises to grow Compaq's Unix market. Tru64 andw@ > Compaq Unix market are not synonymous. Taken with the parallel announcement from MikeG > Winkler that Tru64 clustering code is to be added into Linux and fullt Tru64tK > compatibility to be added as well I don't see a long term future for T64.fC Tru64 clustering code is not what is being ported to Linux. the SSIhK clustering capabilities being added to Linux are the value-adds from Compaq  cluster code for the SCO bits.  ? Tru64 cluster bits will be appearing in Oracle 9i RAC, however.e   [rest snipped]   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:11:55 +02006) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>l/ Subject: Re: Compaq: 180 Days of Transformation5, Message-ID: <3B35223B.322270D9@infopuls.com>   JF Mezei wrote:e > 0 > Cat is out of the bag. The 180 day memo is at: > ) > http://www.theinquirer.net/23060107.htm  > P > Note: on my browser, the text did not appear, I had to look at the html source > and format it to be readable.n > P > Some things to remember here: Compaq is about to embark on multiple platforms,P > something which it never had to do. It will now have to build and support bothJ > 8086 and IA64 in its mainstream products. (remember that Alpha stuff wasM > always relegated to its small independant corner and Compaq made sure ALphalC > didn't disturb any of Compaq's real products). So the stuff aboutuN > standardizing on production techniques, reducing part numbers etc etc may be, > targetted more at the 8086-IA64 platforms.  ) Only temporarily, IA64 will remain alone.l  K > Furthermore, VMS gets only a token mention in the text (we'll continue tovK > support our VMS customers" type of message). VMS doesn't even get its owneK > paragraph. After the "we'll continue to support VMS" the text switches to  > Compaq's Linux strategy.  ? Mentioning VMS in that way is probably as bad as dumping Alpha.l= This is the time to open source VMS. And it's time to develope@ Beta the Alpha successor which is fully compatible. Nobody needs4 IA64 with its wrongly designed EPIC instruction set.  M > Since Capellas goes through great lengths to mention how True64 is growing,tU > rumours that Compaq would abandon Tru64 in favour of Linux are probably exagerated.u > N > The big announcement in that memo is the fact that Compaq wants to transformM > itself into a services and solutions company. It wants its services to grownK > 40% per year from its current 1/5 of Compaq to the target of one third ofsO > Compaq. They will be spending $500 million to acquire companies to grow theirp" > services and solutions business.  @ This plan is doomed to failure because Compaq have no clue about> enterprise business. The only thing they perfectly know is how3 to screw up business relationships by telling lies.d  J > The other important change I read is that Compaq will start to deal withP > customers and sell to them more then just the hardware. This means that Compaq  > Exactly, this was Digital strength: they had a large number of@ vertical market specialists, i.e. for several key business areas8 they had the people who understood the business well. To@ re-create that kind of organisation needs not only several years8 but also a lot of money. This plan is doomed to failure.  K > wants to do as Digital used to do before Palmer cut the sales force: selltK > direct to enterprise customers and sell much mroe than just the hardware.-K > Whether this means that Compaq will start buying software (eg: IBM buyingd > Lotus) is another question.n  @ Capellas stated that SW will be a key factor and as I understood; his text he meant that Compaq will develop SW as a solutionI> building block like the HW. Keeping their OSs makes sense with< that approach. The emphasis on simplification rings an alarm@ bell in my head: this is an example of the typical USamerican as> expected from European prejudice. It's sad that Capellas comes@ very close to that picture of a simplifying and happy trying the impossible USamerican.  = If we recall what he said in the interview with "Der Spiegel" < it's really strange: suddenly the work isn't that easy and I: doubt that the detraction by background music all day will' continue during this re-building phase.I  . If I had Compaq shares I would sell them ASAP.   L > Remember that in its heydays, Digital had a pretty impressive portfolio ofL > software products you could buy from Digital and get support from Digital. >  > As far as Alpha is concerned:= > K > There is no direct mention in the memo. Perhaps Charlie Matco knows more.-P > However, consider the costs to migrate VMS and tru64 to IA64. Compaq just paidN > a lot of money to modify Alpha to support NSK. How much would Compaq have toP > pay to get the IA64 modified to support VMS and NSK, or how much would VMS andA > NSK engineers have to spend to change their OS to run on IA64 ?n  9 If Intel were a decent business partner instead of a gamem> controller producer we could conclude that the necessary parts< from the Alpha will be integrated in the after McKinley area? (2004 and beyond) as it is stated in the separate Alpha articleu? which is referenced in the first lines (unfortunately no link).h >AI > Compare that to the costs of productising NT on Alpha (remember that NT N > already runs on Alpha, it is just not productised). Consider that today, youN > need far less software on NT-Alpha to make it attractive: SQL server and IIS: > web server. And get Office to run on Alpha for desktops. > N > If Compaq asks the few remaining VMS ISVs to start to support VMS, Alpha andO > IA64, that may be just too much to ask. Remember that during the VAX to AlphaeB > transition a whole bunch of products didn't make the transition.  = VMS will be abandoned by Compaq ASAP. I really doubt that VMSi? will be ported to IA64 until 2004. The people seem to have been68 right who stated that the DII COE committments are worth nothing.  L > Now, if Compaq were ready to make a BIG push for VMS to open it to any/allL > markets, then perhaps the move to more commodity hardware would make senseP > since you'd gain more customers than you'd lose. But in its current state, andP > with Compaq clearly not interested in growing VMS more than it has to, I doubt/ > that migrating to IA64 would be a good thing.  > N > Compaq has just succeeded is gaining enough confidence from VMS customers toL > start spending on VMS a bit. If Compaq now turns around and ditches Alpha,) > that confidence will go away VERY FAST.i > M > As I understand it, Alpha is currently structured such that Compaq only hasoP > the engineering of the chip left, and its manufacture is done by outside firms/ > Samsung, IBM and does Intel still make them?)y > P > I could see a drive to format the Alpha chip to fit into motherboards that areJ > also used for IA64. That would allow Compaq to share motherboard designsK > between IA64 and Alpha servers and use much the same hardware for the two P > platforms. But to do that, you do not need to sell Alpha to Intel. As a matter) > of fact, you do not need to sell Alpha.q > L > I would hope that if Compaq is to sell Alpha, it will sell it to an outfitN > that wants to make Alpha grow, not sell it to the Borg whose sole purpose is1 > to assimilate the engineers and the technology.r  > According to the Register the deal is complete: Intel gets the> Alpha technique, development team and the compiler developers.< There will nothing left at Compaq to have any influence. The? situation will be exactly the same as with current Intel HW: nor> differentiating factor. As the good people at Compaq will then= be gone there is nobody to compete with other companies whichl' are sucessful in the enterprise market.s   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:35:52 +0400h4 From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" <Laishev@SMTP.DeltaTel.RU>) Subject: Re: Databases available for VMS?a0 Message-ID: <3B2A6398.295A2E81@SMTP.DeltaTel.RU>  F Recently I installed a latest RDB under OVMS 7.2-1/Alpha w/o problem.    John Parker wrote: > @ > We are currently using the old DEC RDB and DBMS software on an@ > Alphaserver 4100 running OpenVMS version 7.1-1H2.  While I wasC > able to get DEC DBMS and RDB installed on this particular versionn@ > of VMS, I have been unable to successfully install them on 7.1H > or 7.2-1.  These attempts to install get the "system version mismatch"B > and "must relink" error messages.  (By the way, does anyone knowH > how I can get past this?  I am under the assumption that once softwareI > is installed on 7.x, the software should still work with any subsequentoH > upgrades to a higher 7.x version, with some exceptions for other third > party software packages.)d > E > I know that these two software packages are no longer supported and D > that we should find other alternatives.  The problem is that theseG > two packages are not utilized very extensively.  The computer science E > department uses them for maybe two classes, tops, a semester (maybe I > a total of 20-25 students).  This makes it a little hard to justify anyuO > expenditures that may come with, say, purchasing RDB and DBMS through Oracle.m > G > Are there any alternative database software packages that may be moremF > affordable than Oracle?  We have not yet priced the software throughF > Oracle but expect that it will not be priced in our range for such aF > small group of users.  We are a state-run educational institution so > money is a factor. > 9 > I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions.V >  > Thank you, >  > John > Systems Programmer$ > Stephen F. Austin State University > Nacogdoches, Texas   -- L Cheers, Ruslan. ? +----------------pure personal opinion------------------------+69     RADIUS Server for OpenVMS project - www.radiusvms.comn6       vms-isps@dls.net - Forum for ISP running OpenVMS)                 Mobile: +7 (901) 971-3222a   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Jun 2001 23:22:02 GMT' From: prosullivan@aol.com (PROSULLIVAN) # Subject: Re: DSN/AES shutting down?s: Message-ID: <20010623192202.19493.00000958@ng-fy1.aol.com>   hmm.O try wis then try its. more stuff in its. Have CPQ transferred all the its stuffi to aes?t nope.c   ------------------------------    Date: 22 Jun 2001 16:05:03 -05007 From: hamilton@encompasserve.org (Bradford J. Hamilton)TB Subject: Re: DSN/AES shutting down? - Use Mozilla browser instead?3 Message-ID: <jLc9ONZL95hy@eisner.encompasserve.org>,   Hi Paul,  A Please check the recent posts in this NG regarding Mozilla 0.9.1.   M The "verdict" is still out, but it looks to be more useful tha NS3.03 is/was.m   --Brad  O >In article <VA.000003de.0299e51b@sture.ch>, Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> writes:  <snip>J > One bright note though - I don't need a username/password to get at the I > database. That solves a long running problem for me as I had no direct rG > access to AES-ITS dating back to security concerns of having a modem eK > into our systems. It also infers that folks not on support contracts can  4 > access and Hobbyists can now search this database. > G > I haven't tried it from a VMS system (I'm down to one monitor at the TH > moment as believe it or not, one of them emitted a load bang and died @ > when viewing an MS word document!). Has anyone else tried from > Netscape/Mozilla under VMS?s > ___d > Paul Sture
 > Switzerlandm >    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:53:24 -0400e- From: Michael Austin <miaustin@bellsouth.net>  Subject: Re: FORTRAN question-- Message-ID: <3B350FD3.8FA69C07@bellsouth.net>9  G If I use /OLD_F77 I do not get this error and I would like to bring the1 syntax up to date if possible.  !             DO 115,J=NP0+1,NPARTS  ...............^A %F90-E-ERROR, A branch to a do-term-shared-stmt has occurred fromvI outside the range of the corresponding inner-shared-do-construct.   [115]p at line number 102 in file   here is the code section:p             K=PART(14)           I=PART(15)&           IF(K.GT.18.AND.K.LT.22) THEN             IDT0=RECORD(NP0)             IREC=0!             DO 115,J=NP0+1,NPARTSb#             IF(RECORD(J).LT.0) THENv               IREC=IREC+1c"               REC(IREC)=-RECORD(J)             ELSE               GOTO 120             END IF 115         CONTINUE  I Is this funtionaly  equivalent  ie. removeal of 115 label and addition oft	 "END DO"?d1 =================================================n          DO J=NP0+1,NPARTS!           IF(RECORD(J).LT.0) THENt           IREC=IREC+1l           REC(IREC)=-RECORD(J)           ELSE           GOTO 120           END IF           END DO 115         CONTINUE   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:45:22 -0400o2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger) Subject: Re: FORTRAN questiondL Message-ID: <rdeininger-2306012145230001@user-2ive69s.dialup.mindspring.com>  < In article <3B350FD3.8FA69C07@bellsouth.net>, Michael Austin <miaustin@bellsouth.net> wrote:-  I > If I use /OLD_F77 I do not get this error and I would like to bring thef  > syntax up to date if possible. > # >             DO 115,J=NP0+1,NPARTS  > ...............^C > %F90-E-ERROR, A branch to a do-term-shared-stmt has occurred fromrK > outside the range of the corresponding inner-shared-do-construct.   [115]y > at line number 102 in file >  > here is the code section:l >  >           K=PART(14) >           I=PART(15)( >           IF(K.GT.18.AND.K.LT.22) THEN >             IDT0=RECORD(NP0) >             IREC=0# >             DO 115,J=NP0+1,NPARTS % >             IF(RECORD(J).LT.0) THENs >               IREC=IREC+1a$ >               REC(IREC)=-RECORD(J) >             ELSE >               GOTO 120 >             END IF > 115         CONTINUE > K > Is this funtionaly  equivalent  ie. removeal of 115 label and addition ofd > "END DO"?s3 > =================================================e >          DO J=NP0+1,NPARTS# >           IF(RECORD(J).LT.0) THENn >           IREC=IREC+1o  >           REC(IREC)=-RECORD(J) >           ELSE >           GOTO 120 >           END IF >           END DO > 115         CONTINUE    H I don't think you have shown us enough code to spot the error.  It seemsF to be complaining about branching INTO a control structure, presumably* label 115.  Is there a GOTO 115 somewhere?  F Compile with F77, get a listing with a cross-reference, and see what'sJ happening with that label.  Or just look by eye, though the compiler knows best in cases like this.  J I also think that you should not try to compile this program with F90.  ItE appears to have quite a few features the new compiler does not like. eI Since you don't seem to be a Fortran specialist, you are likely to change E the meaning of the program unless you spend a lot of time reading the  Fortran 77 Reference docs.  E Use the F77 compiler, which comes with the F90 compiler.  If for someuJ reason it didn't get installed, install it.  It isn't going to go away, so< there is probably no good reason to translate the program.    H I _think_ that all _standard_ Fortran 77 can be compiled without changesG by a F90 compiler.  But DEC Fortran 77 goes beyond the standard in many-F ways.  Some of those ways are not compatible with F90.  But DEC/CompaqD have given you a way to keep the old program.  Use the F77 compiler.  D I believe Fortran 95 is NOT upward compatible with Fortran 77.  SomeH features were officially removed.  I expect most (all?) compiler vendorsH will provide a back-compatiblity mode, or continue to maintain the older	 compiler.    --   Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.com.   ------------------------------   Date: 24 Jun 2001 05:14:52 GMT) From: leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie) & Subject: H-P EOLs PA-RISC Architecture' Message-ID: <9h3t0c$pl8$1@joe.rice.edu>r! Keywords: hewlett,packard,pa-risc"   From:   C    http://www.crn.com/Components/Search/Article.asp?ArticleID=27517e(    HP Plans Exit From PA-RISC Technology  G   "After 20 years, Hewlett-Packard has finalized its exit strategy fromLG    the microprocessor business and hopes to train its channel to becomem*    experts on Intel's 64-bit architecture.  E    After about three more refreshes, HP plans to pull the plug on itslG    PA-RISC line and then walk away,with no regrets, says Duane Zitzner,m1    president of the vendor's computing business."o  4 --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 14:19:24 -0700 5 From: "cstranslations" <cstranslations@email.msn.com>b" Subject: Re: Marketing Rantings #3) Message-ID: <ewVyOoC$AHA.291@cpmsnbbsa07>   ? "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in messaget3 news:S_VY6.561$m6.494677@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...a > ; Now, if VMS was to be ported to another 64-bit architectureaK > (preferably one that will enjoy tremendous market penetration), the rules- ofJ > the game might change. More places for VMS to run (imagine VMS on a DellF > Itanium server, hehehe), and less ISV concern about Alpha longevity. >-I > Folks in this forum have long asked for an architectural port of VMS (IoJ > suggested same to Jesse Lipcon back in '94, alas DEC listened to GartnerJ > Group (Probability Factor that Analyst was wearing Armani Suit: 0.9) andI > bought into their specious Affinity Scheme. But what goes around, comesmE > around. And as for an architectural port, like the saying goes, "ben carefult, > what you wish for, you just might get it."    L You've been dropping "hints" here, there, and everywhere (in comp.os.vms)...  4 So Terry, what is it that you've been trying to say?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:46:17 -0400d% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>z! Subject: Re: OpenVMS Applicationsi/ Message-ID: <tj9sflr1ckdfba@news.supernews.com>a  L Try http://www.compaq.com/csa/directory It can find 1241 OpenVMS AlphaServer
 applications.g  8 "Richard D. Piccard" <piccard@ohio.edu> wrote in message" news:3B339208.21CCD40E@ohio.edu... >a > Sue, >eB >         The newsgroups are a rather transitory location for this information.J > Please try to persuade Warren Sander (???) to put this information up on therB > VMS Web site, or Hoff to include it in a new section of the FAQ. >A% >                                 RDPa >c >s > Sue Skonetski wrote: >e > > Dear Newsgroup,w > >tJ > > Here is a list of some of our partners I will add more as I find them. > >e > > Suem >i > [snip] >  > --D > ==================================================================D > Dick Piccard                           Academic Technology ManagerD > piccard@ohio.edu                                 Computer ServicesD > http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/                Ohio University >  >r   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Jun 2001 14:05:42 CDT= From: wayne@tachysoft.xxx.320117.killspam.015d (Wayne Sewell)  Subject: Re: Postingss. Message-ID: <S6gfAV8YDV6n@tachxxsoftxxconsult>  p In article <3B341F10.3E7B3652@childrenshc.org.nospam>, "Lyle W. West" <lyle.west@childrenshc.org.nospam> writes:G > While I find your postings generally informative, freqently I tend tosJ > ignore them because of the line length. I request for the benefit of the5 > group you find a way of limiting the line length totF > 70-80 chars. This is not intended to be offensive, only informative. > --  J Who was this comment directed to?  Did you accidentally post a new messageM instead of a followup to an existing message?  Or did you intend to send maillI instead of posting?  In any case, we have no idea who you are complaining % about, and neither does the offender.e     --  O =============================================================================== M Wayne Sewell, Tachyon Software Consulting  (281)812-0738  wayne@tachysoft.xxx:: http://www.tachysoft.xxx/www/tachyon.html and wayne.html  K change .xxx to .com in addresses above, assuming you are not a spambot  :-)CO ===============================================================================SK Hotel guy (after bed demolition):  That bed goes back to Henry the eighth!!aO    Curly: That's nothin'!  We had a bed go back to Sears and Roebuck the fifth!o   ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 06:11:49 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)UQ Subject: Re: Power Supplies: VAXstation 4000/60 and (yes AND) DEC 3000/(300 IRRC)r3 Message-ID: <Xt72KYy2qeAU@eisner.encompasserve.org>I  a In article <3B3424DB.8C89E843@wasd.vsm.com.au>, Mark Daniel <mark.daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> writes:II > Answered much of this myself (always the "premature-poster" problem, ori1 > "wallowing around by myself for ever" problem).i > J > In the warm light of day I could see printed 'in large friendly letters'I > beneath the VAXstation P/S PCB fuse holder, "6A".  So I went down to myiJ > local electronics reseller and bought several.  Replacing the spent fuseC > the VAXstation now works again.  :^)  Fuse age, or something morey > sinister I wonder. > J > Update on the DEC 3000/300 P/S.  Again, a daylight inspection of the P/SI > PCB reveals a small, suspicious smudge beneath a capacitor.  Looks likeo# > the end of the road for that one.  > I > Unusual that both systems should spit at the same time (I almost became  > a conspiracy theorist).n  > Do they have anything in common besides the operating system ?/ For instance, are they on the same power grid ?t   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 07:07:18 +0930n/ From: Mark Daniel <mark.daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> Q Subject: Re: Power Supplies: VAXstation 4000/60 and (yes AND) DEC 3000/(300 IRRC) / Message-ID: <3B350C0E.AB43314C@wasd.vsm.com.au>d  	 Hi Larry,t  H the only thing thing that seems common to me is being down for two weeksE after being pretty-much continuously for a couple of years.  DomesticwH supply, same household circuit breaker, same surge protector, same powerF board, 3000 sitting on top of the VAXstation in a nice little stack ofH old, beige, 2nd(,3rd..)-hand |Digital| equipment, alongside my PeeCees. 2 Makes me feel warm inside just looking at them :^)  E I knew the supplier was refurbishing street transformers in our localhD area so shut 'em down and disconnected the power board from the wallC socket (along with all the other non-essential household electrical $ equipment) while we were to be away.  E Came back, plugged all the stuff back in (reset clocks, timers, etc., D etc. :^) powered up the primary PC (my "X terminal"), then the 3000,A walked away, came back, there was an audible 'crack' - no power. mH Checked the surge protector and pop-out breakers in the boards - OK.  ItH had taken out that particular power-run's household distribution circuitH breaker.  The VAXstation had been plugged-in at the time but not powered up.g  H Just one of those coincidences that sometimes make us understand why theF ancients felt the urge to propitiate the malign forces that controlled their lives ;^)n   Cheers.e   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > c > In article <3B3424DB.8C89E843@wasd.vsm.com.au>, Mark Daniel <mark.daniel@wasd.vsm.com.au> writes:dK > > Answered much of this myself (always the "premature-poster" problem, ord3 > > "wallowing around by myself for ever" problem).c > > L > > In the warm light of day I could see printed 'in large friendly letters'K > > beneath the VAXstation P/S PCB fuse holder, "6A".  So I went down to my L > > local electronics reseller and bought several.  Replacing the spent fuseE > > the VAXstation now works again.  :^)  Fuse age, or something moreu > > sinister I wonder. > > L > > Update on the DEC 3000/300 P/S.  Again, a daylight inspection of the P/SK > > PCB reveals a small, suspicious smudge beneath a capacitor.  Looks likep% > > the end of the road for that one.  > >vK > > Unusual that both systems should spit at the same time (I almost becamel > > a conspiracy theorist).t > @ > Do they have anything in common besides the operating system ?1 > For instance, are they on the same power grid ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:27:19 -07001! From: Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com>R Subject: setting up DECNET+T9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIGECOCNAA.tom@kednos.com>   I In running NET$CONFIGURE I must have screwed something up.  when I try tot
 run it nowJ (in an attempt to fix things) I get WAITFORLOCK, config database is in use by another process.R  I How do I unlock it? NET$CONFIGURE-LOCK.DAT  how do I find out the process2 that has locked it?e   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:39:21 -0700 ! From: Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com>s' Subject: RE: setting up DECNET+  Ignorem9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAECPCNAA.tom@kednos.com>s  > My stupid fault, had a window hidden behinf the others, sorry.   > -----Original Message-----* > From: Tom Linden [mailto:tom@KEDNOS.COM]' > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 4:27 PMr > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comr > Subject: setting up DECNET+i >s > K > In running NET$CONFIGURE I must have screwed something up.  when I try toh > run it nowL > (in an attempt to fix things) I get WAITFORLOCK, config database is in use > by another process.h >tK > How do I unlock it? NET$CONFIGURE-LOCK.DAT  how do I find out the process  > that has locked it?m >r >y   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:19:26 +0400i4 From: "Ruslan R. Laishev" <Laishev@SMTP.DeltaTel.RU>, Subject: Re: Setting up Mail, WEB page, etc.0 Message-ID: <3B2B249E.A40E445A@SMTP.DeltaTel.RU>   Hi ! 	take a look to: 	http://www.madgoat.com  	http://WWW.VSM.COM.AU/WASD/     Tom Linden wrote:  > I > Installed  a T1 yesterday and as a result will need to do POP mail, Webo	 > server.  > J > My options are Tru64 5.0 or VMS 7.3 and I need to interface W2k which is	 > running N > wireless 802.11b lan (because it is cheap and available as PCI cards).  WhatA > do I need to do this under VMS? licensed layered products, etc?r   --   Cheers, Ruslan.s? +----------------pure personal opinion------------------------+n9     RADIUS Server for OpenVMS project - www.radiusvms.comr6       vms-isps@dls.net - Forum for ISP running OpenVMS)                 Mobile: +7 (901) 971-3222    ------------------------------    Date: 22 Jun 2001 22:54:46 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)o" Subject: Re: Submitting Batch Jobs3 Message-ID: <TwdUasZ851D3@eisner.encompasserve.org>9  n In article <ZlTY6.98971$L4.11615899@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>, "Bob Campbell" <robertwcampbell@home.com> writes:J > I looking for the DCL code that would pick up the current version of theH > command file if the command file had already been submitted to batch &
 > pending. > J > I can't remember if it use the lexical f$environment or another lexical. > . > Has anyone used this and for the syntax was? >    $ create t.com  $ a = f$environment("procedure") $ show symbol a  $ @t3   A = "EISNER$DRA3:[DECUSERVE_USER.YOUNG_R]T.COM;1"    				Rob    ------------------------------    Date: 22 Jun 2001 19:45:05 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)d1 Subject: Re: The end of Computer Associates ?????a3 Message-ID: <bunC0oYZ51FG@eisner.encompasserve.org>h  ] In article <3B33D43F.6F86C234@bellsouth.net>, Michael Austin <miaustin@bellsouth.net> writes:o > ( > "Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" wrote: > { >> In article <OFF90740C9.D1703937-ON03256A73.004295D9@ep-bc.petrobras.com.br>, fabio_compaq@ep-bc.petrobras.com.br writes:n >> >	 >> >Clickt >> >? >> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6347455.html?tag=cd_mha >> > >> > >> >Regardsa >> > >> >FC >> > >>$ >> Page you are viewing has expired. >> >  > worked for me...  ) Failed for me earlier.  Fails for me now.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:24:14 -0400e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>:1 Subject: Re: The end of Computer Associates ?????b, Message-ID: <3B34FAE8.BF819C2F@videotron.ca>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:+ > Failed for me earlier.  Fails for me now.i    L CNN Moneyline had an interview with the guy trying to overthrow the CA boardN of directors. He seems very convinced that it needs to be done, indicated thatL surveys to CA customers show that CA is their most hated supplier, that CA's7 performance is much worse than competitors etc etc etc.   N He has already published the names of the folks he wants to put on CA's board.  9 The guy (Whiley (sp?)) has a 55 million investment in CA.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:31:57 -0400E- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>   Subject: VMS on IA64 (technical), Message-ID: <3B34FCB7.B1BB3667@videotron.ca>  N When VMS was ported to Alpha, they had to design the Alpha chip to support VMSA (both for booting, as well as special instructions and PAL code).   I When Compaq decided to move NSK to Alpha, they had to change the Alpha toR, include that lock step stuff to support NSK.  M Does anyone know for sure whether IA64 could support both VMS and NSK "out of-N the box" or would Compaq have to pay Intel megabucks to change IA64 to includeM the features needed to support VMS and NSK ? (obviously, they would use Alpha- as currency for payment).9  N If VMS and NSK are to be ported on IA64 "as is", how much in terms of software? engineering and reliability compromises might have to be made ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:34:30 +0200f) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>1$ Subject: Re: VMS on IA64 (technical), Message-ID: <3B352786.7512843C@infopuls.com>   JF Mezei wrote:u > P > When VMS was ported to Alpha, they had to design the Alpha chip to support VMSC > (both for booting, as well as special instructions and PAL code).= > K > When Compaq decided to move NSK to Alpha, they had to change the Alpha to . > include that lock step stuff to support NSK. > O > Does anyone know for sure whether IA64 could support both VMS and NSK "out of P > the box" or would Compaq have to pay Intel megabucks to change IA64 to includeO > the features needed to support VMS and NSK ? (obviously, they would use Alphai > as currency for payment).  > P > If VMS and NSK are to be ported on IA64 "as is", how much in terms of softwareA > engineering and reliability compromises might have to be made ?R  ? The port is meant to take place for the second next generation,C> after McKinley. Of course it has to be planed now but there is= time to integrate the best pieces and the necessary ones from'= Alpha into IA64. From what I read recently the EPIC design ise= the wrong way to go. The idea of the next Alpha generation to ; cooperate with the SW by allowing to specifiy the thread top= which the a certain instruction flow belongs offers much moret) room for improvement on multitasking OSs.k  = Basically to migrate from one excellent 64Bit architecture to 8 another is pretty stupid. OTOH VMS is 64 Bit clean which? probably makes the migration a lot easier than the VAX to Alphai
 migration.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:07:28 -0500o* From: "T. S. Murphy" <murphyts@swbell.net>$ Subject: Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)0 Message-ID: <m3bZ6.190$E97.124152@nnrp2.sbc.net>  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3B34FCB7.B1BB3667@videotron.ca...L > When VMS was ported to Alpha, they had to design the Alpha chip to support VMS.C > (both for booting, as well as special instructions and PAL code).t  K Any of the PALcode stuff could be done in software. Heck, Compaq could justnI write an Alpha emulator under IA-64 and make VMS work that way. (It works F for Transmeta...) That would certainly be a heck of a lot cheaper thanL porting VMS, and since VMS is one of the least performance sensitive markets> (what percentage still runs VAX?) there wouldn't be a problem.  K > When Compaq decided to move NSK to Alpha, they had to change the Alpha top. > include that lock step stuff to support NSK.  I Lock step is a hardware (platform) problem, not a software problem. It isGJ only a software problem inasmuch as NSK runs on lock step hardware. VMS isL known to run on computers with commodity PC parts (such as the Multia, amongH others), so I would not expect there to be any issues transitioning to a3 different (probably, more commodity-like) platform.h  L > Does anyone know for sure whether IA64 could support both VMS and NSK "out ofH > the box" or would Compaq have to pay Intel megabucks to change IA64 to includesI > the features needed to support VMS and NSK ? (obviously, they would use  Alphao > as currency for payment).-  L Since VMS could be made to work native on IA-32 with absolutely no problems,J then IA-64 can support it also since IA-64 is a superset of IA-32. WhetherK or not VMS could run under IA-64 in 64 bit mode is another issue. But don't1( underestimate the power of software. :-)  G > If VMS and NSK are to be ported on IA64 "as is", how much in terms of- softwareA > engineering and reliability compromises might have to be made ?n  K There is nothing in any architecture which specifies its reliability, aside L from things like having ECC cache (which every processor has), and even thatD borders on microarchitecture. This is really more of a manufacturingH problem, which Intel knows a thing or two about (by building 100 millionJ parts of a product with very low DPM's). I find no reason to believe thereI are any differences in reliability between Alpha and IA-64 (or even Xeon)o processors.    ------------------------------    Date: 23 Jun 2001 21:46:33 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) $ Subject: Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)3 Message-ID: <CD0ICa3GiwTD@eisner.encompasserve.org>u  X In article <3B352786.7512843C@infopuls.com>, Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> writes:  ? > Basically to migrate from one excellent 64Bit architecture to,: > another is pretty stupid. OTOH VMS is 64 Bit clean whichA > probably makes the migration a lot easier than the VAX to Alpha- > migration.  C VMS is not at all 64-bit clean.  It merely allows applications thatzD use 64-bit addressing.  Stacks must be in 32-bit space - portions ofC the operating system and applications depend on that.  Code must benD in 32-bit space to get support from the linker and other features of the operating system.n  B VMS code running on Alpha depends heavily on the longword-oriented; instructions.  I do not know if these are present on IA-64.n   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:00:26 -0400a2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)$ Subject: Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2306012200270001@user-2ive69s.dialup.mindspring.com>  5 In article <3B34FCB7.B1BB3667@videotron.ca>, JF Mezeiu% <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:e  P > When VMS was ported to Alpha, they had to design the Alpha chip to support VMSC > (both for booting, as well as special instructions and PAL code).   I I don't think it the Alpha design features were _necessary_ for VMS.  But ? they made porting VMS much, much easier than it would have been F otherwise.  In particular, VMS PALcode is much more complex that Tru64E PALcode, and supports many VAX-like features.  One example: the queue.I instructions.  The innards of VMS use the queue instructions all over thehI place, and count on the interlocking for syncronization.  By putting them"I in PALcode, tons of VMS code didn't have to be changed.  Another, similaruF example is the user-supervisor-executive-kernel modes in PALcode.  The( unix PALcode doesn't have these 4 modes.  G I don't know how much extra hardware is needed to implement PALcode.  I H suspect not all that much.  If some future Intel processor is to supportI VMS and other OSs, I think something like PALcode will need to be added. a* Otherwise the software porting is to hard.  K > When Compaq decided to move NSK to Alpha, they had to change the Alpha tov. > include that lock step stuff to support NSK. > O > Does anyone know for sure whether IA64 could support both VMS and NSK "out of=P > the box" or would Compaq have to pay Intel megabucks to change IA64 to includeO > the features needed to support VMS and NSK ? (obviously, they would use Alphan > as currency for payment).  > P > If VMS and NSK are to be ported on IA64 "as is", how much in terms of softwareA > engineering and reliability compromises might have to be made ?t  I I'm sure the VMS folks could make a perfectly solid version of VMS run ontH current Intel CPUs.  But certain parts would be harder than they were on alpha with hardware support.   -- 3 Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.comn   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:13:11 -0400t2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)$ Subject: Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2306012213110001@user-2ive69s.dialup.mindspring.com>  ? In article <m3bZ6.190$E97.124152@nnrp2.sbc.net>, "T. S. Murphy"( <murphyts@swbell.net> wrote:  M > Any of the PALcode stuff could be done in software. Heck, Compaq could justrK > write an Alpha emulator under IA-64 and make VMS work that way. (It works H > for Transmeta...) That would certainly be a heck of a lot cheaper thanN > porting VMS, and since VMS is one of the least performance sensitive markets@ > (what percentage still runs VAX?) there wouldn't be a problem.  G I disagree.  Many VMS applications ARE performance-critical.  And VAXeso+ don't run a very big percentage these days.u  C Though I might agree if you said VMS performance concerns are oftenhF system-wide, not simple CPU power.  Emulators generally give lousy CPUE performance, but you might arrange to keep most of the underlying I/OnJ performance.  Except the traditional Intel-based system doesn't handle I/O! terribly well in the first place.-  -I > > If VMS and NSK are to be ported on IA64 "as is", how much in terms ofa
 > softwareC > > engineering and reliability compromises might have to be made ?A > M > There is nothing in any architecture which specifies its reliability, asiderN > from things like having ECC cache (which every processor has), and even thatF > borders on microarchitecture. This is really more of a manufacturingJ > problem, which Intel knows a thing or two about (by building 100 millionL > parts of a product with very low DPM's). I find no reason to believe thereK > are any differences in reliability between Alpha and IA-64 (or even Xeon)f
 > processors.   I I think JF was talking about _software_ reliability.  Alpha + VMS PALcodefH contain some features that make VMS much easier to write.  Specifically,J the VMS code base from VAX was easier to port because of these features inH alpha. Many software wheels did NOT have to be re-invented, implemented,G and debugged.  The result was VMS on alpha sooner and better than would  otherwise have been the case.h  G Actually, the hardware support is nearly all in PAL, not the underlyingeI alpha.  Look at the Alpha Architecture Reference Manual.  Compare the PAL C routines for VMS to the ones for Unix.  The differences were mostlyc0 motivated by the need to make the VMS port easy.  D Another thing PALcode provides is a flexible development and testingJ platform.  PALcode is easy to change during development, and at least someB Alpha systems have used special PALcode for manufacturing testing.  F If Intel does buy Alpha, something like PALcode will find its way into8 future CPU designs if the folks at Intel have any sense.   -- w Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.comr   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:05:07 -0400c* From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <stan@stanq.com>$ Subject: Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)- Message-ID: <3B3520A3.5539.2CBFC7F@localhost>d  I > I disagree.  Many VMS applications ARE performance-critical.  And VAXese- > don't run a very big percentage these days.a  C Heck, there's still about 450,000 VAXen out there.  I have lots of IF clients with them -- you can get a lot of work done, cheap, on a 4000-E 60 compared with an entry-level Alpha (especially since Compaq seems h; to think entry-level Alphas are servers, not workstations).o  $ > Emulators generally give lousy CPUG > performance, but you might arrange to keep most of the underlying I/OsL > performance.  Except the traditional Intel-based system doesn't handle I/O# > terribly well in the first place.w  F Well, Charon-VAX on a 733 Pentium III gives comparable performance to < that 4000-60.  Add a second processor and it really screams.  ? By the way, Alpha emulators do exist for Intel platforms.  But nC there's not a lot of incentive to do that, since you can still get .' Alphas.  That's not the case for VAXen.m       --Stan  
 ----------G Stanley F. Quayle, P.E.   N8SQ   +1 614-868-1363   Fax: +1 614 868-1671c1 8572 North Spring Ct. NW, Pickerington, OH  43147 = Preferred address:  stan@stanq.com       http://www.stanq.com-   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:46:17 -0400m2 From: rdeininger@mindspring.com (Robert Deininger)$ Subject: Re: VMS on IA64 (technical)L Message-ID: <rdeininger-2406010146170001@user-2iveatv.dialup.mindspring.com>  A In article <3B3520A3.5539.2CBFC7F@localhost>, "Stanley F. Quayle"D <stan@stanq.com> wrote:y  K > > I disagree.  Many VMS applications ARE performance-critical.  And VAXesE/ > > don't run a very big percentage these days.  > E > Heck, there's still about 450,000 VAXen out there.  I have lots of tH > clients with them -- you can get a lot of work done, cheap, on a 4000-G > 60 compared with an entry-level Alpha (especially since Compaq seems  = > to think entry-level Alphas are servers, not workstations).-  E Sure there are still VAXes in service.  But they do an ever-shrinkinga fraction of the VMS workload.t  & > > Emulators generally give lousy CPUI > > performance, but you might arrange to keep most of the underlying I/OkN > > performance.  Except the traditional Intel-based system doesn't handle I/O% > > terribly well in the first place.t > H > Well, Charon-VAX on a 733 Pentium III gives comparable performance to > > that 4000-60.  Add a second processor and it really screams.  I Well I would hope that the decade or so of development has made the IntelP$ design compete well with an old VAX.  A > By the way, Alpha emulators do exist for Intel platforms.  But nE > there's not a lot of incentive to do that, since you can still get  ) > Alphas.  That's not the case for VAXen.a  A Not just availability, but speed.  It's ok to emulate an old slow G processor on a new fast one.  But emulating a new, fast alpha on a new,- slower intel would be yucky.   -- 0 Robert Deininger rdeininger@mindspring.como   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:24:06 +0200m) From: "Jakob Erber" <erber@tiscalinet.ch>4  Subject: Your opinion (UNIX,VMS)+ Message-ID: <3b34fac8$1_1@news.datacomm.ch>i   Hi,   G don't be afraid, this is not another "what is better discussion", but I 4 would be interested what you think about this point:  G Most big companies especially in the finance area, but also all kind offK other businesses still run there core business on big Host (IBM, UNISYS...)aL systems and do not indent to change this. If in rare cases they do, then VMSJ comes into consideration as replacement, not UNIX. Is it really correct toL compare UNIX and VMS like competitors? In many cases they certainly compete,L but I would say: VMS on Alpha is the only true alternative of Mini (Middle?)H Computers to Mainframes, concerning availablility. UNIX has its place in other areas.E I know a bit, what I'm talking about, because my company successfullyuL replaced a big UNISYS Mainframe of an important bank by a large VMS Cluster.   What do you think?   Jakob6   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:18:30 -0400r- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>.$ Subject: Re: Your opinion (UNIX,VMS), Message-ID: <3B3515A9.BBC4D695@videotron.ca>   Jakob Erber wrote:I > Most big companies especially in the finance area, but also all kind of M > other businesses still run there core business on big Host (IBM, UNISYS...) N > systems and do not indent to change this. If in rare cases they do, then VMS5 > comes into consideration as replacement, not UNIX. D  G Sorry. But the big banks are all tying UNIX based applications to theirmG mainframes. For instance, they don't run the telephone-banking on theirhJ mainframes, they runb it on some Unix box that sends transactiosn to theirK mainframes. And their web servers run on Sun solaris, agains with connector J software to send transactions to the mainframes. And there is plenty of NT- servers as well in banks doing lots of stuff.i  K If you are fortunate enough to work for a bank that embraced VMS, then goods+ for you. You should consider youself lucky.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:29:18 +0200m) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> $ Subject: Re: Your opinion (UNIX,VMS), Message-ID: <3B35264E.5D62E6C8@infopuls.com>   Jakob Erber wrote: >  > Hi,h > I > don't be afraid, this is not another "what is better discussion", but Ia6 > would be interested what you think about this point: > I > Most big companies especially in the finance area, but also all kind ofuM > other businesses still run there core business on big Host (IBM, UNISYS...) N > systems and do not indent to change this. If in rare cases they do, then VMSL > comes into consideration as replacement, not UNIX. Is it really correct toN > compare UNIX and VMS like competitors? In many cases they certainly compete,N > but I would say: VMS on Alpha is the only true alternative of Mini (Middle?)J > Computers to Mainframes, concerning availablility. UNIX has its place in > other areas.G > I know a bit, what I'm talking about, because my company successfullycN > replaced a big UNISYS Mainframe of an important bank by a large VMS Cluster. >  > What do you think? >  > Jakobr   Good news, thanks!  ; For replacing mainframes and minis I fully agree that therea> aren't many alternatives and from the perspective of power and* stability VMS comes in at the first place.  @ But there are other areas where UNIX and VMS compete whereas the; VMS position is weakened by the fact that there are not allb necessary apps available. = VMS can be used as web hosting platform like UNIX. This is anI$ area where it can compete with UNIX.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:38:52 -0400o( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>$ Subject: Re: Your opinion (UNIX,VMS)+ Message-ID: <3B35369C.3ADD379E@bigfoot.com>l  A One of the reasons a company would do a switch from UNISYS to VMS C (today) would be that there is an application that only runs on VMShH  which is better suited to running their business than any they can findH elsewhere, OR that the IT manager/CIO/CFO is comfortable with VMS havingF used it elsewhere.  To make a decision based on pure hardware/softwareG platform, to Alpha/VMS, otherwise would be a somewhat insane decison by C any savvy businessperson given the fact that future support of bothpF hardware and software is at best, dubious.  What some of my colleaguesF fail to realize here is that although we all share an extreme fondnessE for VMS, from a business standpoint, it does not make especially goodl> sense.  Computers are used by businesses to get work done moreH efficiently than by doing it by hand.  A computer system shares the sameB rank as a copier in that it is a TOOL.  If you were going to buy aE copier, would you go with a current one, or one that the manufacturernH has all but stated is at end of life?  There are many mid-range computerF systems based on UNIX which are quite stable and highly available fromA vendors such as IBM and HP, who offer such products as HA (highlytH available) clusters for AIX, and MC Service Guard for HP UX (among otherH tools), in a price range very competitive with Alpha/VMS clustering.  ItF is not our lack of faith or enthiusiasm as Sys Admins. which cause VMS= to wither, it is the lack of marketing and support by certainiH individuals in the very company who invented it , that is to blame.  DECA had some of the best hardware and software engineers in the worldtH working for it, and quite possibly the world's worst sales and marketingE people in history.  If DEC gets (posthumously) into the Guiness Worlda* Records book, it will sadly be for how theF ignorant-of-the-product-line-and-technology marketing and sales people sank a company in record time.   HM     Jakob Erber wrote: >  > Hi,e > I > don't be afraid, this is not another "what is better discussion", but Io6 > would be interested what you think about this point: > I > Most big companies especially in the finance area, but also all kind ofmM > other businesses still run there core business on big Host (IBM, UNISYS...)NN > systems and do not indent to change this. If in rare cases they do, then VMSL > comes into consideration as replacement, not UNIX. Is it really correct toN > compare UNIX and VMS like competitors? In many cases they certainly compete,N > but I would say: VMS on Alpha is the only true alternative of Mini (Middle?)J > Computers to Mainframes, concerning availablility. UNIX has its place in > other areas.G > I know a bit, what I'm talking about, because my company successfullyaN > replaced a big UNISYS Mainframe of an important bank by a large VMS Cluster. >  > What do you think? >  > Jakobn   ------------------------------   Date: 23 Jun 2001 23:45:32 GMT' From: prosullivan@aol.com (PROSULLIVAN)aC Subject: RE: [Q] Is there a non-CA replacement for Console Manager?u: Message-ID: <20010623194532.11143.00000660@ng-bj1.aol.com>  M That is true.It was pulled about six weeks ago. Apparently problem with fiberpK controllers. I have heard that 5.4a should be out 'soon'. It's currently in O test. Anyway, I am sure that CA are coming out with a 7.3 Unicenter Performancey, Agent any year now. Now that's really free..   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.347 ************************