1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 27 Jun 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 353       Contents: Alpha -> Itanium Re: Alpha -> Itanium Re: Alpha -> Itanium; Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their I Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their incompetence) I Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their incompetence) P Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their incompetence) incomp Re: BACKUP listing []  Re: Changing platforms.  Re: Changing platforms.  Re: Changing platforms.  Re: Changing platforms.  Re: Compaq kills Alpha Re: Compaq kills Alpha Re: Compaq kills Alpha$ Re: Compaq proves their incompetenceI Re: Compaq Transfers Alpha to Intel after EV7 (was: Alpha design team...) ( Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale? Re: FreeVMS  Re: FreeVMS  Re: FreeVMS  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: FUD  Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium   Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.  Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.  Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.  Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.  Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.  Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.  Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium. Re: Future support of VAX-VMS  Re: Hobbyist OpenVMS on IA64 Re: Hobbyist OpenVMS on IA64 Re: IA64 Rocks My World  Re: IA64 Rocks My World  Re: IA64 Rocks My World 9 If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices? = Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices? = Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices? = Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices? = Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices?  Re: looking for old DEC gear Re: Prediction Re: Prediction6 Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon6 RE: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon6 RE: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon6 Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon6 Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon6 Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon6 Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon Re: Question to Charlie Matco. Re: Question to Charlie Matco. RE: Question to Charlie Matco. Re: Question to Charlie Matco. Re: Question to Charlie Matco. Re: Question to Charlie Matco. Re: Question to Charlie Matco. Re: RA81 (was you know what)	 Rdb troll 
 RE: Rdb troll 
 RE: Rdb troll  Re: Req VMS Tutorial( Re: Software to create PDF files on OVMS Re: TCL in OpenVMS1 Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated 1 Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated 1 Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated 1 RE: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated 1 Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated 1 Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated 1 Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated  Re: VMS on UltraSparc? Re: Wailing and moaning....  Re: Wailing and moaning....  Re: Wailing and moaning....  Re: Wailing and moaning....  Re: Wailing and moaning....  Re: Wailing and moaning....  Re: Wailing and moaning....  Re: Wailing and moaning.... # Re: What about performance issues?? 
 Why not port?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:27:53 -0700 , From: Chuck Taylor <Chuck.Taylor@Vishay.com> Subject: Alpha -> Itanium 7 Message-ID: <005701c0fe97$9f884a80$b7081eac@vishay.com>   , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  + ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C0FE5C.F31415C0  Content-Type: text/plain;  	charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   I Does anyone have any insigt as to what this "transfer of technology" to = C Intel actually means?  Will a follow on microprocessor from Intel = G actually be an Alpha in Intel clothing? or will there be some sort of = 8 merging of technologies or will there be something else?  E As I understand the way things are right now: the Alpha has some 15 = J years or so of actually being used and proven in the marketplace and the =H Itanium is just beginning to ship in very small numbers (I am not sure =I that it has actually shipped - Does anyone out there know of anyone who = H has one?).  It seems to me - granted it may be a simplistic approach - =H but the people at Intel could do a lot for their tarnished reputations =J by just repackaging and/or relabeling the existing Alpha as their 64-bit =H solution.  Could anyone comment on the differences between the current =J Itanium and the current Alpha (instruction set differences, performance, =J architecutral differences, whatever, but please try to keep it technical =J and to the point - there are too many religious based arguements already =I - I want some facts - data that I can use to make a reasonable decision =  about what it happening.  J This looks to me that Compaq is getting a lot closer to what they wanted =I from DEC in the first place - the services organizations.  Now all they = J need to do is get someone to buy the operating systems and the remainind =A software groups and they will get to what they originally wanted.   J It could be a good thing and it could be a bad thing.  I just don't have =J enough technical data to know what the announcement actually means yet.  =H They were probably vague on purpose but it would still be nice to know = what is intended.   * 17 years of VMS (started with version 3.4)   Chuck Taylor2 Senior Infrastructure Developer Vishay - Siliconix chuck.taylor@vishay.com=20  + ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C0FE5C.F31415C0  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>7 <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =  charset=3Diso-8859-1">9 <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>  <STYLE></STYLE>  </HEAD>  <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>I <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Does anyone have any insigt as to what =  this=20 J "transfer of technology" to Intel actually means?&nbsp; Will a follow on =  F microprocessor from Intel actually be an Alpha in Intel clothing? or =
 will there=20 E be some sort of merging of technologies or will there be something=20  else?</FONT></DIV>4 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>E <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As I understand the way things are =  right now: the=20 I Alpha has some 15 years or so of actually being used and proven in the=20 E marketplace and the Itanium is just beginning to ship in very small = 
 numbers (I=20 J am not sure that it has actually shipped - Does anyone out there know of =	 anyone=20 F who has one?).&nbsp; It seems to me - granted it may be a simplistic =
 approach -=20 H but the people at Intel could do a lot for their tarnished reputations =
 by just=20B repackaging and/or relabeling the existing Alpha as their 64-bit = solution.&nbsp;=20I Could anyone comment on the differences between the current Itanium and =  the=20I current Alpha (instruction set differences, performance, architecutral=20 G differences, whatever, but please try to keep it technical and to the = 
 point -=20E there are too many religious based arguements already - I want some =  facts - data=20 = that I can use to make a reasonable decision about what it=20  happening.</FONT></DIV> 4 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>I <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This looks to&nbsp;me that&nbsp;Compaq =  is getting a=20 B lot closer to what they wanted from DEC in the first place - the = services=20 H organizations.&nbsp; Now all they need to do is get someone to buy the = operating=20J systems and the remainind software groups and they will get to what they =   originally wanted.</FONT></DIV> 4 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>H <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It could be a good thing and it could = be a bad=20 H thing.&nbsp; I just don't have enough technical data to know what the=20D announcement actually means yet.&nbsp; They were probably vague on = purpose but=20= it would still be nice to know what is intended.</FONT></DIV> 4 <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>I <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>17 years of VMS (started with version=20 G 3.4)<BR><BR>Chuck Taylor<BR>Senior Infrastructure Developer Vishay -=20  Siliconix<BR><A=20F href=3D"mailto:chuck.taylor@vishay.com">chuck.taylor@vishay.com</A>=20 </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>   - ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01C0FE5C.F31415C0--    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:36:59 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>  Subject: Re: Alpha -> Itanium ( Message-ID: <9hb9l0$96f$1@pyrite.mv.net>  D < [You'll find that many in c.o.v. have a significant preference for plain-text format.] >   9 "Chuck Taylor" <Chuck.Taylor@Vishay.com> wrote in message 1 news:005701c0fe97$9f884a80$b7081eac@vishay.com... G Does anyone have any insigt as to what this "transfer of technology" to J Intel actually means?  Will a follow on microprocessor from Intel actuallyG be an Alpha in Intel clothing? or will there be some sort of merging of - technologies or will there be something else?   H < It seems likely to have negligible impact on future Intel offerings. >  I As I understand the way things are right now: the Alpha has some 15 years    < More like 8 years, IIRC. >  K  or so of actually being used and proven in the marketplace and the Itanium J is just beginning to ship in very small numbers (I am not sure that it hasJ actually shipped - Does anyone out there know of anyone who has one?).  ItI seems to me - granted it may be a simplistic approach - but the people at H Intel could do a lot for their tarnished reputations by just repackaging> and/or relabeling the existing Alpha as their 64-bit solution.  9 < Possibly true.  Almost zero probability of occurring. >   I   Could anyone comment on the differences between the current Itanium and J the current Alpha (instruction set differences, performance, architecutralE differences, whatever, but please try to keep it technical and to the K point - there are too many religious based arguements already - I want some G facts - data that I can use to make a reasonable decision about what it 
 happening.  H < realworldtech.com's archives have good articles by Paul DeMone.  OtherE messages here (you've got several hundred to catch up on) have listed J available technical documents (assuming Compaq hasn't yanked them as being0 too politically incorrect for the new regime). >  H This looks to me that Compaq is getting a lot closer to what they wantedL from DEC in the first place - the services organizations.  Now all they needL to do is get someone to buy the operating systems and the remainind software8 groups and they will get to what they originally wanted.   < Yup. >  5 It could be a good thing and it could be a bad thing.   J < I doubt that the former is a possibility, at least for customers and theH general health-through-diversity that the industry seems to thrive on. >  G   I just don't have enough technical data to know what the announcement K actually means yet.  They were probably vague on purpose but it would still ! be nice to know what is intended.   / < That I think you already stated just above. >   * 17 years of VMS (started with version 3.4)  # < Don't count on making it to 20. >    - bill   Chuck Taylor2 Senior Infrastructure Developer Vishay - Siliconix chuck.taylor@vishay.com    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 22:40:32 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)  Subject: Re: Alpha -> Itanium 3 Message-ID: <7ETaouuLtYS5@eisner.encompasserve.org>   f In article <005701c0fe97$9f884a80$b7081eac@vishay.com>, Chuck Taylor <Chuck.Taylor@Vishay.com> writes:. > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  % Please don't post MIME to newsgroups.   K > Does anyone have any insigt as to what this "transfer of technology" to =  > Intel actually means?   8 No, because it is not completed.  Ask again in 10 years.  E >                        Will a follow on microprocessor from Intel = I > actually be an Alpha in Intel clothing? or will there be some sort of = : > merging of technologies or will there be something else?  ' Certainly that is not the current plan.   J As I read what has been published, however, Intel would have the rights toI build an EV8 Alpha if in their judgement the IA64 plans did not work out.   H As I read what has been published, Compaq would have the rights to buildJ an EV8 Alpha (or hire IBM to do it) if in _their_ judgement the IA64 plans did not work out.   F Such contingencies are certainly not discussed, because this agreementE involves a united public front in support of IA64.  That doesn't mean " they don't preserve their options.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:24:40 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> D Subject: Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their' Message-ID: <3B3951F8.B9846E89@fsi.net>    Malcolm Dunnett wrote: > ) > In article <3B38AD84.1294C039@fsi.net>, : >      "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes: >  > > Hoff Hoffman wrote:  > >> [snip] N > >>   I like Alpha.  I've been through three other major platform transitionsM > >>   already (PDP11, VAX, Alpha), and I expect I'll see others...  I am now L > >>   starting to learn IA-64/IPF/EPIC, and (here's part of the fun :-) I'mL > >>   going to get to work directly on and work with "iVMS" before y'all... > >  > > So, there! Nyaah!  > >  > C >     Let's just hope Hoff isn't the only one who ever sees "iVMS".   ? Let's go back in time, chilluns, back to the time of a gleaming 
 *EMERALD*!   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:38:56 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> R Subject: Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their incompetence)( Message-ID: <9hb9om$96m$1@pyrite.mv.net>  ? "Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message + news:SJ1_6.146$rc5.4968@news.cpqcorp.net... > > In article <3B37BAD1.E11E9D58@mmaz.com>, "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Treahy@mmaz.com> writes: K > :Maybe I'm myopic as well as pig-headed, but in never too humble opinion,  the Q  > :screwed up big time...  > > >   Maybe I'm pig-headed (too), but I see this rather decision differently... > L >   Knowing what I know (systems and software engineering perspective), thisL >   IPF decision was a very tough one but (based on what I know) a good one.L >   This decision greatly simplifies the product line and the hardware lines >   for y'all,  F You can really see the relief about removing Alpha complexity from the& product lines all over the place here.  >  and it has obvious benefits for manufacturing.  This approachA >   also has obvious potential benefits from an end-user software  perspective.  C Listing those obvious benefits could be informative:  on balance, I  certainly haven't found any.  
 Let's see:  L 1.  I can run VMS, Tru64, Linux, and Windows all on the same hardware - evenH all in the same Wildfire box!  Whoops - I could be doing that today (not8 years down the  road) if Compaq hadn't axed NT on Alpha.  J 2.  I can run VMS on inexpensive hardware.  Whoops:  Itania cost more thanF Alphas, and since one of Intel's major reasons for developing IA64 wasH reportedly an interest in penetrating high-end, high-margin markets that situation may well not change.  G 3.  I can run VMS on commodity hardware.  Whoops:  one of the important E aspects of a commodity is that it can be purchased from more than one 3 source:  Alpha fits that description, but not IA64.   I 4.  I can run VMS on the fastest hardware available.  Whoops - only after L Alpha's disappearance gives IA64 at least the ghost of a chance of being theK fastest hardware available:  to all appearances, the performance advantages H Alphas enjoyed over the EPIC architecture seemed likely to increase over2 time, even given Intel's far heavier expenditures.  H 5.  I can use hardware from a company that's committed to developing itsL technology rather than so uncomfortable with it that they will discard it ifF at all possible.  Well, yes, but if you don't trust the second kind ofK company to support your hardware are you that much more willing to trust itg to provide your software?s  I But the above list may by no means be exhaustive, so please enlighten us.s   >eL >   Maybe the wrong thing to say (particularly if taken out of context), but" >   this is gonna be a fun ride...  K That's understandable, but really isn't the kind of enjoyment customers canq share.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:48:24 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>eR Subject: Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their incompetence)( Message-ID: <9hbaae$a09$1@pyrite.mv.net>  : "Warren Spencer" <wspencer@ap.nospam.org> wrote in message) news:tji1gd7ml5t6ae@news.supernews.com...    ...l  F > With my "software engineering" hat on, I suspect the EPIC IA-64 will@ > dovetail nicely with specific Alpha technologies, specifically out-of-orderI > execution and maybe even Simultaneous Multi-Threading.  Since the IA-64 I > forces the compiler to perform significant optimization before runtime,aJ > what better processor core to feed a pre-optimized instruction stream toI > than an Alpha, which in turn performs additional run-time optimization?aK > Two stages of intense optimization have gotta produce superior results tocJ > one stage (assuming they're correctly integrated, of course).  Maybe I'mF > over my head here, but throwing all the patents into the one (Intel) basketH > *should* lead to performance that Alpha alone could not have otherwise > achieved.   F I suspect you're over your head, but only because people who I suspectI *aren't* over their heads seem to believe that adding OOO and SMT to EPICTL would cause its already-large real-estate and power requirements to escalate
 dramatically.   I My guess (as someone only qualified to guess at this) is that if Alpha asuB planned over the next few years didn't get close enough to optimalH performance not to worry about further tweaks that adding a few selectedJ compiler hooks to Alpha (*after* some experience to find out which are theL important ones) would have made a hell of a lot more sense - and likely haveK been far easier - than attempting to add OOO and/or SMT to EPIC (not that IgH see any reason to believe that, especially in the absense of competition@ from Alpha, Intel is likely to do anything at all in that area).   - bill   >g > ws >  > --3 > << Marriage is Grand.  Divorce is Fifty Grand. >>  >t > Warren Spencer > Senior Software Engineer > The Associated Press >nA > ** My employer does not necessarily agree with my statements **o   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:26:52 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>.Y Subject: Re: An Engineer's Perspective (was: Re: Compaq proves their incompetence) incomp-' Message-ID: <3B39527C.18B1AFB2@fsi.net>-   Hoff Hoffman wrote:- > f > In article <cV5_6.256803$Z2.3012543@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> writes:B > :"Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in message. > :news:SJ1_6.146$rc5.4968@news.cpqcorp.net... > :>...-N > :>   I like Alpha.  I've been through three other major platform transitionsM > :>   already (PDP11, VAX, Alpha), and I expect I'll see others...  I am nowyL > :>   starting to learn IA-64/IPF/EPIC, and (here's part of the fun :-) I'mL > :>   going to get to work directly on and work with "iVMS" before y'all... > :>...  > :lO > :Can you copy the following lines into a .COM somewhere and when you are at as? > :point where it will run then please post the output here? :)  > :$ CALL GET_INFO ARCHFLAGt > :$ CALL GET_INFO ARCH_NAME > :$ CALL GET_INFO ARCH_TYPE > .. > H >   Um, I've already been excoriated once for "gloating" in this thread,H >   and am accordingly hesitant to the information you requested...  :-) > G >   But seriously, when we have more detailed and technical informationeI >   available on the port and the platform, I would expect to see it madegH >   available.  I'd expect that major milestones will be announced, too.  C Y'know, I got laughed at once because I coded an IF-THEN-ELSE-ENDIF F block in a DCL proc. where if the processor was neither VAX nor Alpha, it was assumed to be Intel.b   -- s David J. Dachterac dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:30:11 -0400l  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> Subject: Re: BACKUP listing []6 Message-ID: <1010626221100.38769F-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ) On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Ingemar Olson wrote:h  B > I had occasion to actually *look* at one of our backup listings.J > At the end there were a large number of files which were listed as being  > in directory "[]" (ie: blank).A > When I check the disk I find they *are* in an actual directory.t > F > This is happening for 2 of our disks, the system disk and one other.O > The files from the system disk that show up on the listing as in "[]" appear /P > to be those in the aliased common directories. Although this is a bit hard to I > say definitively since I haven't memorized all the files in that tree.  ( > And there are more than 10000 of them.C > The directory VMS$COMMON does not appear on the listing, however.a > N > On the "other" disk we do not have any aliased directories, nor files, that O > I'm aware of. In fact I listed out the file-id of every file on the disk and eI > the sample file's (from the backup listing) file-id appeared only once.t > N > It would appear that the backup *is* doing all the files ok, but the listing& > is confusing / misleading at least.  > / > Does anyone know what the reason for this is?s, > Is there any way to get a "clean" listing? >   > We are on Alpha OpenVMS 7.1-2. > The backup command ise+ > $  BACKUP                               -j+ >         /IMAGE       /NOALIAS           -r   /NOALIAS is the key.  + >         /BLOCK=65534 /RECORD            -e+ >         /IGNORE=(INTERLOCK,LABEL)       -;+ >         /NOASSIST         /NOREWIND     -t( >         /MEDIA_FORMAT=COMPACTION      	 > etc etco >  > TIA for any ideas.  < It sounds like you probably have a broken directory backlink8 somewhere, so that backup (with /NOALIAS) doesn't find a8 primary directory entry for these files.  At the end, it> does a scan for files like this, and backs them up separately,) using [] as the directory in the listing.,  : I think if you restore the backups to a new disk, you will; recreate all the structure exactly as it is (you won't losee< anything) so there is no immediate cause to panic, but there$ might be problems with VMS upgrades.  : ANALYZE/DISK generally won't report this as a problem, nor< will it fix it, because it isn't really an error, it is just< an unexpected variant of the disk file structure.  (In other> words, it is usually okay to have files with no primary entry,
 just aliases)i  9 The other cause of files with [] as the directory is lostt; files, files that are in no directory at all.  ANALYZE/DISK : will find lost files, and put them in [SYSLOST] (if you do ana/disk/repair.)T  : This is a command file I wrote many years ago, based on an5 entry in one of the DEC/Compaq problem-solving sites: 7 (p1 is the device name of the disk you want to fix up.)i   $ set proc/priv=allh; $ dump 'p1'[0,0]vms$common.dir/header/block=count=0/out=a.al $ set default 'p1'[000000]1 $ set file/enter=syscommon.dir vms$common.dir/log/% $ set file/remove vms$common.dir;/logi) $ rename syscommon.dir vms$common.dir/log= $ set default sys$login ; $ dump 'p1'[0,0]vms$common.dir/header/block=count=0/out=a.a>  = Note the 1st line: you need lots of privs to do this, because 8 it is dangerous.  (Probably should be done from SYSTEM.): You are playing with the directory structure of the system= disk, so if something goes wrong, you could totally trash it!-= I would try this on a copy of the system disk before doing it = on the live disk.  (Or make a backup of the system disk, boot-= the backup, fix it, and reboot.  If the system comes up okay, < you are done.  If not, go back to the original system disk.)  1 Before doing this, check the out the display fromiB "$ show device/files sys$sysdevice:"  It should show lots of files@ in [VMS$COMMON.SYSEXE], [VMS$COMMON.SYSLIB], etc.  If instead itF shows files in [SYS0.SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE], etc. or in [SYSCOMMON.SYSEXE],A then you have a bad directory backlink in [000000]VMS$COMMON.DIR,f- which is what this command file tries to fix.e  = This doesn't explain the []'s on the other disk, unless theret< is an alternate system disk on it (e.g. STANDALONE BACKUP or@ an Alpha "alternate minimal system disk", the Alpha equivalent.)    --  John Santosu Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:01:07 GMTe. From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>  Subject: Re: Changing platforms.: Message-ID: <T%b_6.9729$P5.3629159@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>  L Okay, so what products will most likely be dropped going from Alpha to IA64?  K For example, I can only guess that "mature" products will be "retired".  To. wit:  	  DECwrite.  Datatrieve   Ada  FMS  Notes  VTX
  DECintact   Any other ideas?   Aaronr --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html> Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/K "Oh my God, they killed Alpha!!!  You bastards!" (Anonymous Alpha Engineer)    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:20:34 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>t  Subject: Re: Changing platforms., Message-ID: <3B3950FE.2AA31520@videotron.ca>   Alphaman wrote:g >  DECwritev
 >  Datatrieveu >  Ada >  FMS >  Notes >  VTX >  DECintact >  > Any other ideas?   ALLIN1 (Aka Office Server).s  K I think that Mailbus400 will also disapear. Not sure about X.500 directory.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:27:52 +0010 % From: paddy.o'brien@zzz.tg.nsw.gov.auw  Subject: Re: Changing platforms.5 Message-ID: <01K59HC7G1B600208E@tgmail.tg.nsw.gov.au>a   JF Mezei wrote:    >Alphaman wrote: >>  DECwrite >>  Datatrieve >>  Adac >>  FMS 	 >>  Notesa >>  VTXl
 >>  DECintactg >>   >> Any other ideas?r >  >ALLIN1 (Aka Office Server). >sL >I think that Mailbus400 will also disapear. Not sure about X.500 directory.   GKS.  N This and FMS (above) are my main worries for my applications.  Both have been  in maintenance for many years.   Regards, Paddy   Paddy O'Brien, Transmission Development,t
 TransGrid, PO Box A1000, Sydney South,  NSW 2000, Australia    Tel:   +61 2 9284-3063 Fax:   +61 2 9284-3050& Email: paddy.o'brien@zzz.tg.nsw.gov.au  M Either "\'" or "\s" (to escape the apostrophe) seems to work for most people,c; but that little whizz-bang apostrophe gives me little spam.e   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:41:53 GMTr. From: brown_du@eisner.decus.org (Duncan Brown)  Subject: Re: Changing platforms.2 Message-ID: <3b3955aa.104158086@news.telocity.com>  , On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:01:07 GMT, "Alphaman"$ <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com> wrote:  M >Okay, so what products will most likely be dropped going from Alpha to IA64?  >sL >For example, I can only guess that "mature" products will be "retired".  To >wit:l >m
 > DECwrite > Datatrieve > Adao > FMS. > Notesi > VTX  > DECintact  >  >Any other ideas?l   Phone.  F (Seeing as how they obviously lost the source code at VMS 1.something,C but the executable kept running...and then they VESTed it for Alpha B after the Galludet folks complained...but I bet there is no VMS at Galludet any more!)s   Duncan   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:35:57 +0200e) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>t Subject: Re: Compaq kills Alphal, Message-ID: <3B392A6D.871DD573@infopuls.com>   "David J. Dachtera" wrote: >  > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >A' > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, bad bob wrote:i > >i > > > Hear ye, hear ye,uH > > > anyone upset with compaq to the point of throwing out their alpha,G > > > send me a note.  I have room for them.  They will be treated most- > > > respectfully.- > > >e8 > > > I am committed to running them as pdp10 emulators. > > > thanks
 > > > bad bob  > > >: > > >  > >e? > > It's probably a little late, but I actually had a couple of5< > > professors ask me today after reading the various online> > > press spins if this meant there was any chance I could get? > > some Alphas like I have PDP and VAX boxes to use as servers> > > in the department. > >.> > > Any donations, even of obsolete machines, gladly accepted. > >r > > :-(1 > F > I may be dumping my Alpha, MicroVAX and VAXstations RSN. Stay tuned. >  > -- > David J. Dachterae > dba DJE Systemsn > http://www.djesys.com/ > < > Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board:! > http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/  > H > This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings > is to be expected. > B > Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression. > H > However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are > strongly discouraged.o  @ So Compaq managed finally to provide affordable VMS HW by making= Alphas obsolete they lowered their value/prices more than any.? other business action could have done. I'm not sure if this waso meant with "affordable VMS HW".d   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:32:02 -0500-1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>2 Subject: Re: Compaq kills Alpha ' Message-ID: <3B3953B2.32704DF7@fsi.net>n   Bob Kaplow wrote:( > d > In article <H34_6.256744$Z2.3011370@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Chris Moore" <chris.moore@stelco.ca> writes:F > > Bob should be picking the stuff up in a Honda Prelude instead of aN > > Civic.....Honda announced today that they're killing THAT too!! (delicious
 > > irony) > M > That's been expected for a while. Honda did kill off the hatchback models IuM > really wanted, leaving me stuck with a coupe and cursing if I want to stickd6 > something the size of an Alpha 2100 box in the back.  @ Holy smoke, man! How strong are you? Alpha 2100's are not light!   --   David J. Dachterai dba DJE Systemsg http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/n  F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.f   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:35:03 -0500:1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>e Subject: Re: Compaq kills Alphau' Message-ID: <3B395466.5D36948D@fsi.net>r   Christof Brass wrote:s > [snip]B > So Compaq managed finally to provide affordable VMS HW by making? > Alphas obsolete they lowered their value/prices more than anyiA > other business action could have done. I'm not sure if this wasi! > meant with "affordable VMS HW".r  G Needles to say (misspelling intentional), no - that was not the intent.m  F If that were the case, it would opposite to DCL: DCL does what I said,2 not what I meant. That's partly why I hate pagers.   -- t David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemsr http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/r  F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.e   ------------------------------   Date: 26 Jun 2001 16:16:32 CDT= From: wayne@tachysoft.xxx.320117.killspam.015d (Wayne Sewell)g- Subject: Re: Compaq proves their incompetencei. Message-ID: <AJOHxL8ydJ80@tachxxsoftxxconsult>  ` In article <mZzELpNNikIL@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>, nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:k > In article <%aMZ6.118$rc5.4442@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> writes:a9 >> Bliss is a HLL, and I'll argue that so is Macro-32 ;-)  > H >    It sure is. Macro-32 is what I use when I have to do something thatA > seems too akward to do in BASIC ( saves me having to use C) :-)o > . >    I assume Macro-32 will be ported to IA64? >   K If it isn't, I think the vms port will take a little more than 18 months.  o     -- tO ===============================================================================tM 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  :-),O ===============================================================================sK Hotel guy (after bed demolition):  That bed goes back to Henry the eighth!!hO    Curly: That's nothin'!  We had a bed go back to Sears and Roebuck the fifth!t   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:44:45 -0700i1 From: Vance Haemmerle <vance@toyvax.Tucson.AZ.US>nR Subject: Re: Compaq Transfers Alpha to Intel after EV7 (was: Alpha design team...)3 Message-ID: <3B39105D.255D7220@toyvax.Tucson.AZ.US>a   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > h > In article <3B380BBC.225603B@toyvax.Tucson.AZ.US>, Vance Haemmerle <vance@toyvax.Tucson.AZ.US> writes: > > Warren Spencer wrote:r > >nK > >> Capellas made it clear in the NYC announcement that they are licensingeD > >> Intel to use the Alpha technology on a non-exclusive basis.  MyN > >> understanding is that Q *could* license others, but no doubt restrictions > >> apply.e > >t< > >   The transfer of employees isn't exactly non-exclusive. > E > It is in the sense that the employees can choose to work elsewhere.nI > SGI and Sun Microsystems both have facilities in Eastern Massachusetts.   H   Oh, so the EV8 design team will freelance to other chip manufacturers?   --B Vance Haemmerle               Internet   vance@toyvax.Tucson.AZ.USK Tucson, AZ                    Web        http://toyvax.Tucson.AZ.US/~vance/s   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 19:10:01 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)m1 Subject: Re: Compaq's Alpha design team for sale?g3 Message-ID: <1oLdQUf$qjm+@eisner.encompasserve.org>-  X In article <3B390CAD.2DBDBCBE@infopuls.com>, Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> P[ >> In article <3B37B50E.BF137CAC@infopuls.com>, Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> writes:- >> > Larry Kilgallen wrote:, >> u; >> >> If EV8 were late, it would be costly with no benefit.p >> >A >> > If a design is late there are reasons for that. This isn't avC >> > stroke of fate out of the blue. And even that could be managedtC >> > by a good project organisation. Given the quality of the Alpha@C >> > design team the reasons that the design was/is late are simply"? >> > management of resources, of specifications and of targets.  >> :H >> You are oh, so right.  The EV8 team is the successor to the EV6 team,< >> and we all know how the release of EV6 was right on time. >> aP >> >> If successor IA64 chips are late or underperformant, Compaq can sell EV7s. >> >< >> > They don't have a choice because they made it that way. >> iE >> You miss the point.  There will be buyers (even for Unix) if IA-64>. >> fails to improve performance significantly. > A > What does that mean? The team is gone! Where does the successorn > of EV7 come from??  @ Why does there need to be a successor if IA64 does not improve ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:54:34 +0200 ) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>a Subject: Re: FreeVMS, Message-ID: <3B3920BA.CA61AB39@infopuls.com>   Damien WYART wrote:e > 7 > * Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> in comp.os.vms:e > E > > > Even if he misses some (important) points, Linus is not totallygD > > > wrong when he says Mach is confusing and not-so-well designed. >  > > When did Linus say this? > 6 > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/18162.html>  = I read the short article which is BTW of questionable qualitys@ because the author obviously doesn't know the difference between; the Mach kernel and Darwin. I don't beleive also that LinusP? Torvalds said something that rude because I regard his attitude*? and behaviour wrt other people as one of his highest strengths.   F > He also lengthly explains this (and many other things) in his recent  > book about the story of Linux.  < Unfortunately I won't ever read the book because I also know@ that UNIX and Linux especially is real shit/crap. And I'm really9 inclined to agree on the Mach kernel critiques although Iu; couldn't say anyting on that from own analysis. I only read9> articles about that without ever studying the SW by myself. If; it's implemented in C or even worse C++ it's crap for sure.k  C > > I rate him especially strong in management, motivation and goode2 > > behaviour but not at all in technical matters. > < > Well, I wouldn't say he is a complete dummy... He might be& > ix86-oriented, but he is not a wimp.  > Not at all he is a decent but a bit clueless guy. As I said he9 excells in many areas - anything else but SW let alone OSb@ design. A person choosing UNIX shit as a base for an OS is brain? dead or clueless - I've chosen the least insulting consequence.l: Again I think he a very nice person who can motivate other> people to work on shit. This is better than most other people.  I > > I read an article about the Mach kernel which defended it against the D > > argument of performance disadvantages because of the dynamically > > loadable components. > F > Of course, Mach fans will say it's great, and monolitic kernels fansI > will tell the opposite. I think the truth (if any) lies in between. ButlG > Mach is far from perfect, and not a clean base to start a serious OS.a > -- > Damien WYART / dwyart@noos.fra  : Okay then, but monolithic kernels are crap by design. Mach% kernel may be crap by implementation.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:16:16 -0400 + From: John Eisenschmidt <jeisensc@aaas.org>  Subject: Re: FreeVMS# Message-ID: <sb38ed9b.052@aaas.org>T   while !(end_of_drivel) { //begin loopF I see someone watched last week's episode of South Park one too many =F times. Even when I'm adding "colorful" language I usually mix it up. =? You'll need a visit from the Knights of Standards and Practice.I  H As for the "OS written in C" is shit comment, Hoff said yesterday that =K while Macro is the most common language, over 3700 modules are written in =  C.=20e   <hoff>H Based on a quick check of one of the larger of the source libraries of =I OpenVMS Alpha operating system code around, Macro32 leads C and Bliss32 =o modules.=20i       *.MAR: 3811a     *.C:   3708i     *.B32: 2589i     *.ADA:  103      *.B64:  132n     *.COM: 2006r </hoff>   J Would you prefer an OS written in RPG or PL/1? I myself am hoping either =J vacuum tubes make a stylish comeback, or someone finally writes an OS in = COBOL.  K As for my 2 cents - I think it's too early to tell what Mac OS-X and Mach =fL are going to do. I think as a kernel Mach blows, (see, I could have called =K it shit, but I chose a unique epithet) but anything has to be better than =oC the Mac OS Finder. Rhapsody was interesting - that whole "display = K postscript" concept - really revolutionary even if it never saw the light = J of day. Plus they have three layers of API to deal with - Carbon, Cocoa, =L and Classic. Macs are like the Dune Buggy of the IT world, I'd never drive =G it on a highway or day-to-day, but it's a fun toy to drive around the =i beach. } //end loop  A >>> Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> 06/26/2001 7:54:34 PM >>>y   <SNIP-ITY DO DAH>[  < Unfortunately I won't ever read the book because I also know@ that UNIX and Linux especially is real shit/crap. And I'm really9 inclined to agree on the Mach kernel critiques although I ; couldn't say anyting on that from own analysis. I only readh> articles about that without ever studying the SW by myself. If; it's implemented in C or even worse C++ it's crap for sure.k  C > > I rate him especially strong in management, motivation and good 2 > > behaviour but not at all in technical matters. >=20< > Well, I wouldn't say he is a complete dummy... He might be& > ix86-oriented, but he is not a wimp.  > Not at all he is a decent but a bit clueless guy. As I said he9 excells in many areas - anything else but SW let alone OS @ design. A person choosing UNIX shit as a base for an OS is brain? dead or clueless - I've chosen the least insulting consequence.O: Again I think he a very nice person who can motivate other> people to work on shit. This is better than most other people.  I > > I read an article about the Mach kernel which defended it against theeD > > argument of performance disadvantages because of the dynamically > > loadable components. >=20F > Of course, Mach fans will say it's great, and monolitic kernels fansI > will tell the opposite. I think the truth (if any) lies in between. ButuG > Mach is far from perfect, and not a clean base to start a serious OS.r > --" > Damien WYART / dwyart@noos.fr=20  : Okay then, but monolithic kernels are crap by design. Mach% kernel may be crap by implementation.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 05:19:47 GMT 0 From: Monty Brandenberg <mcbinc@ne.mediaone.net> Subject: Re: FreeVMS/ Message-ID: <3B396CF4.68010709@ne.mediaone.net>a   John Eisenschmidt wrote: >  > - > Would you prefer an OS written in ... PL/1?    That would be Multics.  t -- "M Monty Brandenberg, Software Consultant                              MCB, Inc. M mcbinc@world.std.com                                          P.O. Box 426188cM mcbinc@ne.mediaone.net                              Cambridge, MA  02142-0021h 617.864.6907   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:05:55 +0200t) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>i Subject: Re: FUD, Message-ID: <3B392363.BD05D759@infopuls.com>   Alphaman wrote:r > 2 > Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> wrote in message% > news:3B37D8C1.7817B9C4@rdrop.com...dA > > Um, guys? Anyone notice that Andrew hasn't had a single thingsE > > to say about the Alpha -> Intel deal?  He doesn't need to, you're D > > all doing his job for him, as usual.  What with Sun and layoffs,5 > > he may soon fear his own self becoming redundant.r > H > He doesn't have to.  Perchance he is a gentleman and is wise enough to > respect our mourning period? > 3 > Nah, I suspect we'll hear from him shortly... ;^)n >  > Aaronm > --@ > Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html@ > Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/J > "The supersonic boom should hit you in just a few seconds." (Apollo 440)  < There is nothing to be happy from SUN people's point of view> because SUN will abandon SPARC very soon and Slowaris a little> bit later. All what is posted here from SUN people can be used against the them later.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:19:50 -0400 + From: John Eisenschmidt <jeisensc@aaas.org>j Subject: Re: FUD# Message-ID: <sb38ee71.053@aaas.org>1  I Umm...have you heard Bill Joy talk? The people running Sun are NUTS not =pH stupid. Why would they abandon Slowlaris (possibly the best Commercial =G Unix around)? To my knowledge, there isn't a free os that can compile =eF native 64 bit code on an Ultra II/III, and nothing but Solaris has a =/ mature enough kernel to support multiprocessor.   I They may not be doing well in a Wall Street sense, but they have money, =lI backorders they can eventually fill, and a good product. This isn't SGI =. we're talking about.  A >>> Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> 06/26/2001 8:05:55 PM >>>  Alphaman wrote:l >=202 > Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com> wrote in message% > news:3B37D8C1.7817B9C4@rdrop.com...0A > > Um, guys? Anyone notice that Andrew hasn't had a single thingaE > > to say about the Alpha -> Intel deal?  He doesn't need to, you'reJD > > all doing his job for him, as usual.  What with Sun and layoffs,5 > > he may soon fear his own self becoming redundant.e >=20H > He doesn't have to.  Perchance he is a gentleman and is wise enough to > respect our mourning period? >=203 > Nah, I suspect we'll hear from him shortly... ;^)- >=20 > Aaron  > --C > Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html=20 C > Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/=20tJ > "The supersonic boom should hit you in just a few seconds." (Apollo 440)  < There is nothing to be happy from SUN people's point of view> because SUN will abandon SPARC very soon and Slowaris a little> bit later. All what is posted here from SUN people can be used against the them later.l   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:11:46 GMT = From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-)e Subject: Re: FUD0 Message-ID: <009FE204.B04A90D1@SendSpamHere.ORG>  X In article <3B38C733.B44B35DF@prodigy.net>, cjt & trefoil <cheljuba@prodigy.net> writes:' >"Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" wrote:  >> iv >> In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106260906170.5295-100000@world.std.com>, Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes: >> > >> >- >> >On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Dean Woodward wrote:o >> >C >> >> Um, guys? Anyone notice that Andrew hasn't had a single thingeG >> >> to say about the Alpha -> Intel deal?  He doesn't need to, you'rei* >> >> all doing his job for him, as usual. >> >E >> >Well stated. This newsgroup benefits Sun, et al, far more than it  >> >benefits Compaq and VMS. >> a >> ... and whose fault is that?0 >> rJ >> Where are all of the Compaq folks -- short of the few VMS eng. regularsJ >> here -- which should be here to squelch the FUD and quell the rebellionJ >> in light of this recent announcement?  They're probably busy looking atI >> their stock option portfolios and planning ways to keep ahold of their L >> leather-lined-easy-chair-mohogany-panelled-meeting-room-martini-guzzling-I >> business-luncheon lifestyle after the Q goes the way of the dodo.  NOT I >> that their words will do us any good.  If they were all afflicted withcJ >> the Pinnochio probocis problem, they'd need an acre of clearance in all# >> directions just to turn 360 deg.o >> aJ >> Where are those roadmaps today?  The new cartographers are drawing them8 >> up at this moment... and all roads lead to Wintel. :( >f( >Not necessarily.  There's Solaris.  ;-)  4 So it's "set the controls for the heart of the Sun"?   --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM             oO city, n., 1. a place where trees are cut down and streets are named after them.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:32:42 -0400-  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> Subject: Re: FUD6 Message-ID: <1010626223139.38769G-100000@Ives.egh.com>  % On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Bill Todd wrote:g   > < > "Terry C Shannon" <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message? > news:Pine.SGI.4.21.0106260906170.5295-100000@world.std.com...a > >  > >h- > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Dean Woodward wrote:e > > C > > > Um, guys? Anyone notice that Andrew hasn't had a single thingaG > > > to say about the Alpha -> Intel deal?  He doesn't need to, you'ree* > > > all doing his job for him, as usual. > >aE > > Well stated. This newsgroup benefits Sun, et al, far more than ith > > benefits Compaq and VMS. > L > They're both incidental, since the purpose of this newsgroup is to benefitL > VMS *users* (even if that sometimes - or more often than not, these days -G > means airing problems).  The benefit or lack thereof to Compaq simplyt% > reflects Compaq's relevant actions.. >  > - bill  D D***.  I agree with Bill.  Almost as bad as agreeing with Andrew :-(   -- n John Santos  Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:38:26 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>n Subject: Re: FUD' Message-ID: <3B395532.B7ACCBA8@fsi.net>    The Grump wrote: > < > "Terry C Shannon" <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message? > news:Pine.SGI.4.21.0106260906170.5295-100000@world.std.com...n > >c > >a- > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Dean Woodward wrote:s > > C > > > Um, guys? Anyone notice that Andrew hasn't had a single thingrG > > > to say about the Alpha -> Intel deal?  He doesn't need to, you're * > > > all doing his job for him, as usual. > >aE > > Well stated. This newsgroup benefits Sun, et al, far more than ita > > benefits Compaq and VMS. > >  > L > So lets all be happy and upbeat like Terry..............although the "SKC" > moniker must now stand for > ' >             "Shannon Knows Chipzilla"=  @ Maybe instead of "SKC" he should use a wildcard: SK*, SK% or SK?   Nah!!!   -- f David J. Dachterat dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/=  F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.-   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:33:05 GMTe. From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com> Subject: Re: FUD; Message-ID: <5md_6.10282$P5.3717569@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>5  8 Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message= news:Pine.SGI.4.21.0106260906170.5295-100000@world.std.com...H+ > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Dean Woodward wrote:  > A > > Um, guys? Anyone notice that Andrew hasn't had a single thingCE > > to say about the Alpha -> Intel deal?  He doesn't need to, you'reh( > > all doing his job for him, as usual. >dC > Well stated. This newsgroup benefits Sun, et al, far more than its > benefits Compaq and VMS.  K Perhaps it's time for Compaq to listen to customers?  After all, it appearse their competitors are.  L If Compaq doesn't like what's being said by their customers in this forum orH anyplace else, they should take a look in the mirror, not bitch and moan about the customers.  J Maybe rather than saying "We are going to start porting to IA64", it wouldF have been better received if they'd said "Our initial port to IA64 hasG booted and is running at Spitbrook -- betas will be available within 120I months.  Here is a demo of iVMS on IA64."  Maybe if they'd started sayingCJ "Watch for great news in this space" and slowly let the cat out of the bagH instead of surprising everyone on Monday morning.  Again.  Maybe if theyL hadn't sold their soul to Barrett & Co. for some undisclosed "licensing fee"J to remove another 64 bit competitor from Inhel's path and had instead saidI they were going to a truly open multi-platform strategy.  Maybe if they'dbB gotten Larry Ellison to say "OpenVMS" on the same PAGE as "Tru64".  H Maybe if they hadn't chosen the one processor family more OpenVMS system managers HATE than any other...b  H But, these are their choices.  Life goes on, and we are stuck with them,C like them or not.  What a great position for a customer to be in...m   Aarons --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html> Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/K "Oh my God, they killed Alpha!!!  You bastards!" (Anonymous Alpha Engineer)r   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:48:25 -0400T' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>  Subject: Re: FUD( Message-ID: <9hbocf$m2l$1@pyrite.mv.net>  - "John Santos" <JOHN@egh.com> wrote in messagev0 news:1010626223139.38769G-100000@Ives.egh.com...   ...T  F > D***.  I agree with Bill.  Almost as bad as agreeing with Andrew :-(  L I'm finding myself in agreement with quite a few people whose ill-consideredK rhetoric I've decided to confront in times past (as well, I should note, as<B a lot of old friends whose even-handedness and civility are beyondL reproach).  I suspect it's because whatever our differences there's a sharedH respect for the technology and a shared disgust at how first DEC and nowK Compaq have squandered it and the opportunities it embodied (not to mentiondH all the false assurances they've offered along the way, some of which at6 least by proxy seem still to be cropping up even now).   - bill   >w > --
 > John Santoso > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > 781-861-0670 ext 539 >h   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:59:50 -0500 * From: cjt & trefoil <cheljuba@prodigy.net> Subject: Re: FUD+ Message-ID: <3B396846.7F2786B3@prodigy.net>    The Grump wrote: >  <snip> > L > So lets all be happy and upbeat like Terry..............although the "SKC" > moniker must now stand for > ' >             "Shannon Knows Chipzilla"e  * Maybe it's "Shannon Knows Commoditization"   ------------------------------   Date: 26 Jun 01 23:20:14 MDT" From: ivie@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) Subject: Re: FUD% Message-ID: <eRVFineOnW1t@cc.usu.edu>i  l In article <5md_6.10282$P5.3717569@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com> writes:L > Maybe rather than saying "We are going to start porting to IA64", it wouldH > have been better received if they'd said "Our initial port to IA64 hasI > booted and is running at Spitbrook -- betas will be available within 12nK > months.  Here is a demo of iVMS on IA64."  Maybe if they'd started saying L > "Watch for great news in this space" and slowly let the cat out of the bag5 > instead of surprising everyone on Monday morning.     I I'm not so sure. Had they done it slowly, there would be years of gripingvE and complaining about how Compaq is _really_ committed to iVMS and is F just milking the Alpha customers while hiding what they're up to. This3 way the outrage is all out in the open all at once.   
 Just IMHO. -- nN -------------------------+----------------------------------------------------3 Roger Ivie               | Ben Stein for president!s ivie@cc.usu.edu          | http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ | -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----a Version: 3.18 GP dpu s:+++ a C++ UB- P--- L- E--- W- N++ o-- K-- w--- > O M+ V+++ PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t++ 5++ X-- R tv++ b+++ DI+++ D-  G-- e++ h--- r+++ y+++ h ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------a   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:17:00 GMT1. From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>( Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium: Message-ID: <Mec_6.9760$P5.3647765@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>  = Robert Deininger <rdeininger@mindspring.com> wrote in messagenF news:rdeininger-2606011123300001@user-2ive7jq.dialup.mindspring.com...B > DECnet V has been the subject of as much FUD as anything in thisI > newsgroup.  It isn't that bad.  The management interface is annoying atrD > first, and the learning curve is non-trivial.  But I don't see any( > fundamental problems with the product.  F My opinion is that if you have a product that smacks of English in itsJ verbosity, why take a giant step backwards to an NCL-like language that is anything but comprehensible?    Show known line counters2  L is an excellent example of what I would consider English-language-like.  And to Bart's example:    show routing child entity *  J I have no clue as to what that should do other than it might (might?) haveH something to do with displaying routing information.  Why children?  AreJ those circuits or lines?  What's an entity?  I can guess that the wildcardJ might mean all such entities, but are they routes, lines, circuits, nodes,J paths, links, WHAT?  All of the above?  This is _not_ intuitively obvious., Why deliberately make a product non-obvious?  D I've been trying to do Phase V since '94 (maybe earlier, but I don'tI remember specifically when I started).  I'm ready to give up and move ourM& shop and all customers to TCP/IP only.  J I find NCL to be the closest thing to a UNIX command line under VMS.  If I  wanted UNIX, I'd get a lobotomy.   Aaron  --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html> Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/K "Oh my God, they killed Alpha!!!  You bastards!" (Anonymous Alpha Engineer)'   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:57:48 -0500n, From: "Glenn C. Everhart" <Everhart@GCE.com>) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.s' Message-ID: <3B38DB2C.6A085D07@GCE.com>e   Hipenbecker, Doug wrote: > H > Wouldn't it have made more sense to have ported OpenVMS, Tru64, NSK toL > Itanium and have the working incarnations of the OS's ready to demonstrateM > *BEFORE* announcing the abandonment of the only chip platforms they operateh  ; We heard the answer to that one: the impetus came from the s@ technical folks who were concerned about the cost of maintaining> a chip design, and concerned because initial Merced benchmarks; showed it behaving decently. We'll leave aside worries thatl6 those benchmarks may have been utterly unrealistic and; that the IA64 design premise may be totally wrong; much mayr% be possible to do under the covers...a  > The key thing as it seems to me is that Compaq must be willing; (really willing this time) to market VMS' strengths againstc8 Windows, on the same iron. That means the folks who were? selling Windows on X86 must now sell AN OS on IA64, not pushingh> windows only, but making it clear that VMS is good if you want: secure operation and extreme crashproofness, Unix or LinuxC are good where you need less tightly coupled clustering (perhaps...t= I am not expert in why one would want Tru64 over VMS if therep= are reasons), Windows if you want drivers for your fishfinder ? that Linux lacks or if you want to run software that only workse on Windows....  ; The Tru64 and VMS sales folks must be free to say why theire: systems are good. They might not be free to say Windows is9 bad, but they must be free to say "VMS is the most securet= OS" or things like that, without having to say anything about < Windows. Ditto of course for the Tru64 folks.  Let Microsoft< sell its stuff without Compaq's sales folks shilling for it.  8 The key question is going to be whether that can happen.; It means a lot of changed habits, and means there must be a26 willingness to NOT get into any "exclusive" deals with; Microsoft, and to scream bloody murder to all and sundry if7
 pressured.  @ I hope mightily that this will happen. The thought that packages< like WINE (which assumes x86 now) might "just work" on a VMS8 platform is an attractive daydream. It will however take6 an uncommonly heavy dose of courage and determination,8 likely much more than has been seen to date, because the: competition will be on the exact same iron and may be seen% as a threat by Redmond down the road.n  0 Here is wishing best of luck to the gang in ZK3. Glenn Everhart   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:09:16 +0200y) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>i) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.a, Message-ID: <3B39161C.74E07971@infopuls.com>   Alphaman wrote:a > @ > Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message, > news:acKZ6.98$rc5.4164@news.cpqcorp.net...L > > I believe that the VAX port probably was the most tramatic for everyone.M > > Going from Alpha to IPF (Itanium Processor Family) will be less tramatic.d > Ii > K > But traumatic, nonetheless.  We are still cranking out both VAX and Alpha2H > code to this day and into the foreseeable future, still supporting VAXK > customers.  Now, we have to make it 3 platforms?  Why port to VMS on IA64aJ > when one could port to NT on IA64?  Contrary to facts, the perception isL > that NT is less expensive, and 2000 is "13 times more reliable".  And hey,N > IA64/Windoze 2000 developers' systems are available in beta today -- why not7 > get a head start instead of waiting for OpenVMS-IA64?p  7 I like the idea of porting to several HW architectures.l> Migrating from VMS/Alpha to VMS/IA63 might be much easier than to WindozeXYZ/IA63.o   > N > > While I am, and remain, an Alpha supporter.  You now will have a chance to* > > see VMS on a "open" hardware platform. > N > Just how open?  Will VMS run on a Dell box, Taiwanese clone, or Q only?  AndK > what is your definition of "open"?  You mean it won't be like Alpha, justsJ > one processor family controlled by one company?  Oops, like, say, Intel?L > That's "open"?  Or are you saying that work is afoot to make IA64 just theM > first platform, with Sledgehammer, PowerPC, SPARC, and others to follow, inv > a true open model?  = Open in the sense that you could buy computers from different?< vendors. I honestly doubt that this will happen because this9 almost didn't happen with Alpha where you could buy Alpha.? computers made by other companies but VMS wouldn't run on them. > If VMS ran on computers from different vendors it might truely: be called an open platform OS. We'll have to wait and see.  L > Not having a choice in processors is definitely NOT "open", IMHO.  OpenVMSK > remains an oxymoron, just that after EV7, part of the money goes to IntelU > instead of Compaq. > M > There's an old adage that applies very well today.  "Fool me once, shame on1L > you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  Forgive me, as I'm trying to decide ifJ > the Q has fooled me a second time, and what I should do before the third > time strikes.B > C > Nothing against you or your team mates, Fred -- you do fine work.a > 0 > Aaron, who does not like being made a fool of. > --@ > Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html@ > Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/J > "The supersonic boom should hit you in just a few seconds." (Apollo 440)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:19:12 +0200H) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com> ) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.s, Message-ID: <3B391870.33B63E5B@infopuls.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > T > In article <1010625202726.38769F@Ives.egh.com>, John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> writes: > D > > This might just be a pipe-dream though.  There doesn't seem to aC > > separate "GEM" shareable image, which you would expect if theretA > > was a really clean interface between the compiler's front-endrD > > and GEM.  It could also be GEM is still a moving targer, and theC > > compiler developers always want to ship the latest version withl7 > > their compiler since it has new features they need?  > B > Indeed, I have received bug report answers for certain languagesA > that say "we can't do that because our compiler is running on a'A > different version of GEM than the languages that support that".d > D > And a compiler language group would certainly not want bug reportsD > from someone running their front end against a version of GEM they > had not tested.i  = This is a bogus answer. If they did it according to the specse@ there is no problem. If the target platform uses a different GEM version, fix that.  @ Basically the GEM interface is not to blame for not implementing
 something.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:17:32 +0200e) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>o) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium. + Message-ID: <3B39180C.76340D4@infopuls.com>.   John Santos wrote: > , > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Hunter Goatley wrote: > R > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:41:14 -0300, fabio_compaq@ep-bc.petrobras.com.br wrote: > >0J > > >I believe will happend all that troubles of porting the VAX to Alpha.< > > >A lot of companies will not port from Alpha to Itanium. > > >lR > > As others have said elsewhere, I've ported a large number of programs/productsR > > from VAX to Alpha.  Once the Alpha compilers had matured some, the porting wasT > > trivial for all but the really low-level kernel-mode code that was tired closelyR > > to the VAX architecture.  I would expect that once Compaq has the GEM compilerL > > back-end generating IA64 code, porting the code should be as simple as aQ > > recompile of the code.  (GEM didn't exist on VAX, so moving from VAX to AlphaaQ > > wasn't quite as simple; since all (AFAIK) the Alpha VMS compilers use the GEM P > > back-end, there should be no compiler growing pains in the new architecture, > > once GEM has been fixed.)- > > # > > That's what I hope, anyway.....0 > >r
 > > Hunter
 > > ------= > > Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/3= > > goathunter@goatley.com     http://www.goatley.com/hunter/n > @ > I don't know what the internal interface between the compilers@ > and the GEM back-end looks like, but since all the compiles on( > Alpha use it, it must be fairly clean. > > > How difficult would it be to split the compilers from GEM so? > that developers could ship intermediate code and the customery> > could do the GEM phase at installation time?  Then you could< > ship a common kit for both Alpha and IA64, with the target> > platform selected by the customer's GEM compiler (shipped as > part of VMS.)e > B > A second benefit is (I think) most or all the optimization stuffF > is done by GEM, not by the front-end compilers.  (Some of the CompaqA > compiler-writers, Steve Lionel I think, have mentioned that theDA > optimization qualifiers, e.g. for the Fortran compiler are justfE > passed through to GEM, which is what leads me to believe this.)  So/C > you could pre-compile on whatever platform the developer has, butiC > final-compile for not only the architecture but the specific chipfD > on the end user's system.  If you really wanted to get every ounceB > of speed, you could do it without having to ship multiple .OLB's< > optimized (with /optimize=tune=xxx) for each architecture. > D > It might even be possible to create a VAX back-end (no optimizing,G > except maybe removing redundant instructions or other trivial stuff), ; > so you wouldn't even need to ship a separate VAX version.0 > B > This might just be a pipe-dream though.  There doesn't seem to aA > separate "GEM" shareable image, which you would expect if theret? > was a really clean interface between the compiler's front-endHB > and GEM.  It could also be GEM is still a moving targer, and theA > compiler developers always want to ship the latest version withh5 > their compiler since it has new features they need?  >  > --
 > John Santosu > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > 781-861-0670 ext 539  < While this idea is very old it is nevertheless brilliant. In< 1990 aa assistent of Prof Wirth had proposed the slim binary= format which is a substantial better version of your proposalh> but serves the same purpose: compiling on the runtime platform5 during loadtime. Having apps delivered in that format = additionally offers the chance to run the SW in the future oni= platforms not even invented at the time the app was deployed.I  3 Java is a different approach with the same purpose.t@ .NET is even more similar but has major design and architectural flaws.= There is also the new Amiga virtual assembly language betweenn .NET and Java.  ? But neither of these three alternatives come even close to slim 	 binaries.b  5 Good compilers for good languages (not C/C++) have any: optimisation in the front end to use all language specific> information. This is essential because a lot of information is6 lost by passing the intermediate code to the back end.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:23:30 +0200,) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>d) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium. , Message-ID: <3B391972.45E54170@infopuls.com>   John Santos wrote: > & > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, JF Mezei wrote: >  > > John Macallister wrote:uP > > > Today's announcement says that there will be a "Full port of ... VMS .. to" > > > Itanium ... starting now." . > > > P > > > That, to me, appears to be a fairly positive commitment to the longer term > > > future of VMS. > >vR > > 1- Alpha is dead as of TODAY. Who in their right mind will invest in a millionC > > dollar wildfire system today knowing the architecture is dead ?e > N > By this reasoning, P4 is dead.  Why would anyone invest in a million dollars > worth of P4 NT servers?y  6 Because you stay compatible. Your apps will run on any9 successor. But your Alpha apps won't run on any successore: because the successor is IA63, SPARC, PowerPC or whatever.  4 > (I left out "in their right mind" on purpose.  ;-) > N > > 2-With nobody buying Alpha systems, nobody will be buying VMS systems. VMSO > > revenus will dry up REAL FAST. Remember, it will take 4 (and knowing intel,oK > > probably 8) years before IA64 has the bit in it to support VMS and morerC > > importantly NSK. Meanwhile, NT will happily chug along on IA64.r > E > This is the great danger with this strategy, I think.  They need tohK > convince potential customers that switching from Alpha to IA64 in 3 years D > will be an upgrade, not a migration, and will be utterly painless. > K > One thing I found with VAX->Alpha:  It's a lot easier if you haven't lost D > your sources and if you have working build procedures to recompile
 > everything!. > O > > 3- This means that Compaq is wasting money porting VMS to IA64 (the port isoR > > probably just to save face). By the time VMS is ready on IA64, its market will > > be greatly diminshed.0 > L > The port is essential to my answer to 2, and thus to preventing the market > from diminishing.e > R > > 4-The only way Compaq can offload their current stock of Alpha is to lower the= > > prices WAY DOWN. I guess thsi is great news for hobyists.e > J > No, unfortunately.  I'd like to get a decent Alpha for home use, so thisE > means they will stay expensive.  Now, if I were to buy an expensiveoE > Alpha for home use, the price would immediately plummet.  (This hasiA > happens whenever I buy PC hardware, but I've never noticed thisnF > effect on software.  Instead, the vendor releases a new version withD > critical bugs fixed about one week after any free or cheap upgrade > period expires.) > N > > In one feel swooop, Compaq has managed to kill the revival effort that hadO > > been made for VMS in the past year. The uncertainty over VMS that will lastoR > > many years will make sure VMS returns into major downsizing mode. I personallyP > > do not beleive that VMS will survive. (Sure, Compaq will continue to support4 > > it, but it will have fewer and fewer customers). > B > I hope you are wrong.  It depends on both technology (having theE > port go smoothly) and marketing (convincing the customers of that.)o > @ > I have a lot of faith in VMS engineering getting things right,B > though not always quickly enough to keep me perfectly happy, but# > marketing is another story... :-(a >  > --
 > John Santos7 > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:29:19 +02007) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>g) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.s, Message-ID: <3B391ACF.9A123476@infopuls.com>   "Hipenbecker, Doug" wrote: > H > Wouldn't it have made more sense to have ported OpenVMS, Tru64, NSK toL > Itanium and have the working incarnations of the OS's ready to demonstrateM > *BEFORE* announcing the abandonment of the only chip platforms they operateeK > on...I find it hard to believe that a savvy business decision maker wouldoN > throw his "trust" into Compaq's following through on its promise to actuallyM > port the OS's.  This is also the reason that this announcement will severlyaE > hurt Compaq in the pocketbook immediately in terms of Alpha and NSKdE > sales...they will practically vanish...how stupid can a company be?a >  > Doug Hipenbecker > Miller Brewing Co.  ? My words. Migration first, selling later. I made a similar post   on that topic in this NG before.   > -----Original Message-----6 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca]& > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 11:14 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com + > Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium.  >  > "Main, Kerry" wrote:K > > Perhaps if one needed a 64bit OS solution that a long history of proven M > > 64bit based reliability. Keep in mind that the final release date for the 7 > > 1.0 release of Win64 has still not been determined.  > K > By the time VMS becomes available to customers on IA64, NT will have havet > moreM > maturity and more history on that platform compared to VMS. Same with Linuxo > and other unix systems.r > L > > With a semi-common HW platform, the various OS's will have to compete on > the   > > basis of their capabilities. > K > When you look at Tandem systems, you realise that this won't be the case.0 > FormL > Tandem to maintain their reliability, their systems may have the CPU based > onM > IA74, but I would expect their motherboards, bus interfaces etc to be quiteoK > different than commodity hardware in order to acheive the fault toleranceu > that0 > is required and expected from those customers. > N > The big question is whether VMS will be able to run on commodity stuff or ifM > it will also need to have systems built specifically to run (and boot) VMS.a > N > In my mind, Compaq won't really be saving that much money for these types ofI > systems because they will still need to be built differently than thosea > builtw% > for simpler OS such as NT and Unix.  >  > > Interesting times... > J > Correct. We now know not to trust any commitments made by Compaq because > theyM > can go and change them whenever convenient for its parent companies (MS and N > Intel). So all the commitments Compaq made for VMS along with those on Alpha > are now meaningless. > F > Will they complete the port to IA64 ? Probably. Will they market VMS > agressively: probably not. > M > I think that the Tandem migration will be far more important to Compaq than, > the VMS one since TandemJ > is the real "mission critical" operating system with lots of visibility, > especially on Wall Street.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:31:34 +0200e) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>s) Subject: Re: Full port of VMS to Itanium. + Message-ID: <3B391B56.4DDEF2C@infopuls.com>    Larry Kilgallen wrote: >  > In article <DD11CB6FEB21D41184510004ACA3715304C906C5@mbsus228.mbc.com>, "Hipenbecker, Doug" <Hipenbecker.Doug@MBCO.COM> writes:wJ > > Wouldn't it have made more sense to have ported OpenVMS, Tru64, NSK toN > > Itanium and have the working incarnations of the OS's ready to demonstrateO > > *BEFORE* announcing the abandonment of the only chip platforms they operateo > > on.  > H > It would seem the money that would have been spent on EV8 will insteadG > be spent on porting to IA64.  Compaq does not have an infinite amount75 > of money, even though they have more than you or I.T  > Yes but the important factor is what the money is spent on. If= they had used the VMS/Alpha revenues for exactly that part ofl= their business I suppose they wouldn't have needed to sell itn= for getting liquidity. If Compaq management had any clue theye@ would have lent money from a bank, of course you need a business- plan which obviously doesn't exist at Compaq.i   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:58:44 +0200-) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>9& Subject: Re: Future support of VAX-VMS, Message-ID: <3B3921B4.D696EE68@infopuls.com>   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > ^ > In article <3B38035A.79191808@videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes: > P > > And will Intel adapt IA64's architecture to support VMS, or will it tell VMS, > > engineers to adapt VMS to support IA64 ? > >eM > > At this point in time, I doubt very much that Intel engineers would allowrK > > any major changes to IA64 because IA64 is already in production. It allbM > > depends on what VMS wants to see on the chip and how complex it is to adduK > > such a feature without changing how the chip behaves to other operating  > > systems. > I > IA64 is in production, just as Alpha was in production with the releasehI > of the 21064 in 1992.  Somehow DEQ managed to put new features into the H > Alpha chips named 21064A, 21164, 21164PC, 21264 and whatever else.  OfF > course IBM and Motorola do this with the various PowerPC models, theJ > latest being called G3 and G4 by Macintosh users.  But Intel would neverH > put changes into a chip -- they are not capable.  If they were, by nowE > there would be a 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium 3 and H > Pentium 4.  But that is impossible because IA64 has too many bits. TheF > press reports naming Merced, McKinley and (I forget number 3) in theF > IA64 series are exaggerating -- those names just indicate the colors > of the package.e  @ There is another problem: architectural mismatches. What IBM and; others implement on their chips fits into the architecture. 6 Mixing EPIC and RISC is big step into terra incognita.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:37:21 +0200y) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>s% Subject: Re: Hobbyist OpenVMS on IA64 , Message-ID: <3B391CB1.1B603DDB@infopuls.com>   Phil Howell wrote: > A > "Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> wrote in messager- > news:3PMZ6.120$rc5.4606@news.cpqcorp.net...  > >y > >   Since somebody asked.... > >lF > >   I would expect to see this program continue to be offered on theG > >   VAX and Alpha platforms, and made available on the IA64 platform.7 > >t* > >  ---------------------------- #include) > <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------lN > >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com. > >  --------------------------- pure personal% > opinion ---------------------------w3 > >    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering  > hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com > >mJ > In the light of recent announcements I would think that everyone in this > group will be ableN > to have an alpha (or even a cluster) at home well before vms is available on > intel (2004) > Phil  > Exactly! This would be real affordable VMS/Alpha, wouldn't it?   ------------------------------   Date: 26 Jun 2001 17:16:50 CDT= From: wayne@tachysoft.xxx.320117.killspam.015d (Wayne Sewell)s% Subject: Re: Hobbyist OpenVMS on IA64l. Message-ID: <7BycYHSJO8Jz@tachxxsoftxxconsult>  ` In article <D1TZ6.4732$%L5.60427@insync>, LESLIE@209-16-45-102.insync.net (Jerry Leslie) writes:2 > Charles Sandmann (sandmann@clio.rice.edu) wrote: >  > : H > : I'll be interested to see if mixed mode clusters with VAX and IA-64  > : members work :-) > H > IA-64 Windows users will be able to use VMS' Backup (BACKUP/PHYSICAL),) > to finally have a reliable backup tool.s    L I didn't read that as clustering vax/alpha vms with ia-64 billyware.  I readL that as clustering vms-only systems on vax/alpha/ia64.  Billy doesn't really have clustering.  I That said, it would be possible to do what you say if the ia64 system can"O dual boot billyware and vms.  I used to do it regularly on an alphastation backM@ before I gave up on nt.  Shutdown nt, boot vms into the cluster,M backup/physical to a tape drive elsewhere in the cluster, then go back to nt.f   -- dO ===============================================================================tM 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  :-)-O ===============================================================================<K Hotel guy (after bed demolition):  That bed goes back to Henry the eighth!! O    Curly: That's nothin'!  We had a bed go back to Sears and Roebuck the fifth!,   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 17:42:22 -07003 From: Eric Smith <eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com>I  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World0 Message-ID: <qhae2un47l.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>  P Casper.Dik@Holland.Sun.Com (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer) writes:@ > Engineers shouldn't blame everything on marketing; Digital has: > made serious mistakes when it came to building hardware.   Such as?  L Mistakes more serious than hardware engineering at other comparable vendors?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:50:22 -0500h$ From: "del cecchi" <dcecchi@msn.com>  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World2 Message-ID: <BZa_6.158$wt2.7991@eagle.america.net>  . Check out Northstar/Pulsar/ISTAR/Sstar series.  
 del cecchi  2 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> wrote in message" news:9hauom$obb$1@pyrite.mv.net... > A > "Atlant Schmidt" <atlantnospam@mindspring.com> wrote in messagen* > news:3B38A767.6ED07B86@mindspring.com... > > Bill Todd wrote: > > G > > > If IBM doesn't cave like DECpaq did, the Power architecture seemsw to > haveD > > > the strength to stand up to anything HP comes up with (Intel's > contributionswE > > > being a non-issue if Merced is much indication).  Maybe they'lle steal an > SMTtF > > > page from Alpha to improve the chip-area (and power - small 'p') > efficiencyE > > > of CMP (please don't get upset if IBM invented SMT in the firsto place: > I'me8 > > > just a software type and don't know these things). > >l3 > >   IBM's latest PowerPC chips *DO* have SMT! :-)  >hG > My impression was that they had 'CMP' (Chip-level Multi-Processing?),E whichlH > instead of duplicating only a small portion (something like 10%, IIRC) ofD > the processor complex duplicates most or all of it, but I could be	 mistaken.o >o > - bill >  > >p@ > >   (You can find out more in the previous edition of the "IBM? > >   Journal of Research and Development" where they described A > >   *TWO* of their latest PowerPC chips and their latest OS/390/ > >   chip.) > >o# > >                          Atlantp > >s > >i >  >a   ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:02:28 +0000 (UTC)'7 From: dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net (Douglas Siebert)s  Subject: Re: IA64 Rocks My World+ Message-ID: <9hblsk$68u$1@sword.avalon.net>   ! "Bill" <billmuy@home.com> writes:t  H >I think you're selling yourself short.  After all, Alpha killed off oneJ >company and in 4 years came close to killing off another.  I give Intel 4 >years.u    E Well, if you are a believer in the 'free cash flow' theory of reading E early signs of a company in trouble, check out the $3 billion in cashe( Intel is currently burning each quarter.  G Maybe it isn't so much that Alpha kills off each company it touches, it E just makes its appearance when the company is in decline but it isn'trI yet obvious.  It was that way with DEC, then Compaq, perhaps now Intel :)s   --H Douglas Siebert                          dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net  M I have discovered a remarkable proof which this .sig is too small to contain!t   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:46:40 -0700 3 From: David Spencer <spencer@spaamfree.recneps.com>oB Subject: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices?> Message-ID: <260620012046403311%spencer@spaamfree.recneps.com>  C Okay, suppose you've got a lot of Alpha gear that's running VMS (orlD Tru64 for that matter).  Right about now you've got to be looking at= your choices down the road. As everybody knows, in the futurer> you're going to need more computing capacity. Given the recentE shocking news about Alpha going to Intel (and basically disappearing). - what are your choices?   1) Stick with Alphas.e  E You could snap up systems as they're released up to the point that noCA new revisions are available. Then you go into the used market andcD add additional systems and keep clustering. This might work out okayB as long as you can keep getting parts and somebody to maintain theG systems. You might actually do pretty well on the used gear as a numberiF of folks would be swapping out old Alphas for Itaniums or other vendor gear...s   2) Make the leap to Itanium.  F You trust that Compaq and Intel know what they're doing. Hang in thereF with what you've got until the new iVMS systems are available. By 2003E those Itanium systems will be as fast and as reliable as your currentgD (or the currently available) Alphas on the market. Then you make the6 conversion to the new hardware and keep on trucking...  * 3) Given the advance warning, get out now.  H You've decided against #1 because you're not sure you want to get lockedD into the same systems forever. Number 2 isn't for you either becauseG you're not impressed by Intel's track record on this chip, and besides,y@ if you're going to be doing a conversion why not interview other vendors?     Which number are you and why?c   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:40:59 -0400l- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> F Subject: Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices?, Message-ID: <3B3963D0.45623246@videotron.ca>   David Spencer wrote: > 1) Stick with Alphas.   L Stick with Alpha for your existing applications, but anything new gets addedL to a competitors' platform. And as your VMS apps grow old, they are replaced on new platforms.w  R This is essentially what has been happening countless places over the last decade.   > 2) Make the leap to Itanium.  M I have a feeling that sites willw ant to stick with Alpha as long as possible M to delay the porting effort. They will also want to see how Compaq will treatsK VMS once ported. I for one would suggest to customers that they tell Compaq L that it isn'ty a given that they will migrate to IA64-VMS and may migrato toK something else once Alpha is no longer an option for existing applications.s  M Remember that compaq has lost any credibility with its long term promises. ItrK will have to rebuild customer's trust in Compaq,s commitment to VMS. VMS is K dead for 4 years with a chance of revival when it start to run on IA64, and I that revival will be dictated by how much of a marketing comitment Compaqt
 makes to VMS.i  G Committing to the port is not enough. Comitting to marketing is just asnN important because the long period of inactivity between now and the completionI of the port will make VMS a totally unknown/invisible product and any newuA applications are not likely to be ported to VMS during that time.d  4 4 years is a hell of a long time in the IT industry.  , > 3) Given the advance warning, get out now.  G I don't think we will see mass exodus. It will be more of a question ofeL existing VMS sites becoming stable/"stale with not much growth or new ordersT as customers will build new applications on other platforms without Compaq noticing.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:39:53 GMTr From: LBohan@dbc.spam_less..comtF Subject: Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices?8 Message-ID: <4loijt8euraban7231o89f6v8iism2esju@4ax.com>  1 On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:46:40 -0700, David Spencerm& <spencer@spaamfree.recneps.com> wrote:  D >Okay, suppose you've got a lot of Alpha gear that's running VMS (orE >Tru64 for that matter).  Right about now you've got to be looking at.> >your choices down the road. As everybody knows, in the future? >you're going to need more computing capacity. Given the recenteF >shocking news about Alpha going to Intel (and basically disappearing) >- what are your choices?o >o >1) Stick with Alphas. >-F >You could snap up systems as they're released up to the point that noB >new revisions are available. Then you go into the used market andE >add additional systems and keep clustering. This might work out okaydC >as long as you can keep getting parts and somebody to maintain theaH >systems. You might actually do pretty well on the used gear as a numberG >of folks would be swapping out old Alphas for Itaniums or other vendoro >gear... >o >2) Make the leap to Itanium.' > G >You trust that Compaq and Intel know what they're doing. Hang in thereaG >with what you've got until the new iVMS systems are available. By 2003yF >those Itanium systems will be as fast and as reliable as your currentE >(or the currently available) Alphas on the market. Then you make thet7 >conversion to the new hardware and keep on trucking...r > + >3) Given the advance warning, get out now.z >[I >You've decided against #1 because you're not sure you want to get lockedME >into the same systems forever. Number 2 isn't for you either becauseiH >you're not impressed by Intel's track record on this chip, and besides,A >if you're going to be doing a conversion why not interview otherK	 >vendors?  >t >Which number are you and why?   ok.  I'll bite.f    probably #1 and then, later  #2. why...?     1. VMS is VMS     &  2. the transition from Vax to Alpha,      for us, if not quick, was      almost painless.  $ Getting clean-compile/links under a ) modern C compiler was 95 % of the battle.i  " Alpha to Intel, ought be as easy,  if not more so.     Would I rather that Alpha lived ! through EV8 and beyond?  you bet.u  ) otoh, figure that going to EV7/EV8 from, s" say, EV5x/EV6x was likely to be a 6 "forklift upgrade" anyway (ie, a complete system swap)   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:25:18 -0400t( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>F Subject: Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices?+ Message-ID: <3B396E3E.3E0D822D@bigfoot.com>.  A This question I think can best be answered, by not looking at VMSiC specifically, but by utilizing a series of questions that should beyD asked of any currently running computer system within an enterprise.  - I think the two main factors to consider are:   ' 1) Applications and Application Supportf  . 2) Platform Hardware and Software (OS) Support  H With respect to applications and application support, the questions are:  F Are there any applications that can be identified that have a definite7 limited lifetime based on your company's need for them?e  F Do the applications running on your platform do what you need now, andE are they designed to serve your needs for the next 8 years? Are thesepH applications architechted in such a way that they can handle 8 times theC current load? Or indeed more, depending on your company's projectedtG growth.(In other words, are they scalable, are they based on a databasea or flat files, etc. ?)  E Is the currently installed base of these applications large enough to-> insure the Application Vendor's survival for the next 8 years?  G Will these applications be supported by their respective vendors in the 
 next 8 years?3  F Do the application vendors make these applications for platforms other" than the one you are currently on?  @ Are there other applications running on ANY platform ANYWHERE byD different vendors that are just as good or possibly better, to serve) your business needs for the next 8 years?t  E Are there any applications which you do not currently use that run onnA the current or other platform which would be of great use to your  business in the future?e     -----------------h With respect to platform:i  C Do you expect the hardware vendor of your current platform to be ine business in 8 years?  ? Has the hardware vendor provided adequate and timely support as 	 expected?h  D Will the vendor provide hardware and software support on the current platform for the next 8 years?  E Is the hardware scalable for the next 8 years without having to shifttF architecture, or at least not cause great expense to your company as a! result of an architectural shift?s   ------------------D If the applications running on your current hardware/OS run on otherG platforms, do those platforms meet all of the tests for hardware above?m    F The careful answers to these questions should help in determining what2 to do no matter what platform you're currently on.     David Spencer wrote: > E > Okay, suppose you've got a lot of Alpha gear that's running VMS (oriF > Tru64 for that matter).  Right about now you've got to be looking at? > your choices down the road. As everybody knows, in the futureo@ > you're going to need more computing capacity. Given the recentG > shocking news about Alpha going to Intel (and basically disappearing)l > - what are your choices? >  > 1) Stick with Alphas.h > G > You could snap up systems as they're released up to the point that nohC > new revisions are available. Then you go into the used market andjF > add additional systems and keep clustering. This might work out okayD > as long as you can keep getting parts and somebody to maintain theI > systems. You might actually do pretty well on the used gear as a numberMH > of folks would be swapping out old Alphas for Itaniums or other vendor	 > gear...  >  > 2) Make the leap to Itanium. > H > You trust that Compaq and Intel know what they're doing. Hang in thereH > with what you've got until the new iVMS systems are available. By 2003G > those Itanium systems will be as fast and as reliable as your currenteF > (or the currently available) Alphas on the market. Then you make the8 > conversion to the new hardware and keep on trucking... > , > 3) Given the advance warning, get out now. > J > You've decided against #1 because you're not sure you want to get lockedF > into the same systems forever. Number 2 isn't for you either becauseI > you're not impressed by Intel's track record on this chip, and besides,0B > if you're going to be doing a conversion why not interview other
 > vendors? >  > Which number are you and why?3   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:49:06 -0400<' From: Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net>eF Subject: Re: If you operate VMS systems, what really are your choices?< Message-ID: <howard-E938FC.00490527062001@enews.newsguy.com>  > In article <260620012046403311%spencer@spaamfree.recneps.com>,5  David Spencer <spencer@spaamfree.recneps.com> wrote:    > Which number are you and why?u  O 4) Given the warning, get out the next time I'm ready to purchase.  Meanwhile, e- start moving to Linux, perhaps on an IBM box.  -- - Howard S ShubsD "Run in circles, scream and shout!"  "I hope you have good backups!"   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:10:52 -0600  From: Kevin Handy <kth@srv.net>n% Subject: Re: looking for old DEC geari' Message-ID: <3B39167C.3F9795F1@srv.net>n    gleason@encompasserve.org wrote: > F >   Time for my periodic message about old hardware I'm looking for... > A >   Anyone got any PDT/11-110's or PDT-11/130s, or any PRO series-J > ethernet adapters (DECNAs)? Willing to pay a fair piece o' change to add > them to my collection. > E >   Also could use a couple of MicroVAX 2000's, if there are any thatx  > haven't been thrown out yet...  E I have a MicroVax 2000, without disk or tape, that should have a goodw
 cpu if you) can find an RD54 and a TK50Z tape for it.t Make me an offer...l   (Located in Idaho)   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:19:55 GMTA- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>u Subject: Re: PredictionoD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106261914050.28481-100000@world.std.com>  ) On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Hamlyn Mootoo wrote:   E > I predict that Michael Capellas will not be CEO of Compaq within 14'I > months of the date of this message.  A view from the top: Having mappeduI > out his OWN EXIT strategy by whatever personal (monetary) forces causes F > him to make the decisions announced on the 6/25/2001, Mr. Capellas IG > predict will retire early, as the deal has made him quite financiallyn' > comfortable at the expense of Compaq.d  I Mr. Capellas' 180-day Transformation Plan (dated 12 June) might limit his=. tenure to the next 166 days if the Plan fails.  I If you take the time to read the details on executive compensation in themG last two CPQ shareholder meeting proxies, it will become evident that aaH near-term departure with shares at their current price will NOT make theH guy "quite financially comfortable." The vesting of the stock options is# heavily contingent on stock value.     ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:14:16 -0400h( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com> Subject: Re: Prediction-+ Message-ID: <3B394178.F9523A06@bigfoot.com>r  G And if you took the time to read my prediction, you might discover that@C I never indicated that his financial windfall would be derived FROM " Compaq, just at the expense of it.   Here's a line.  + 				<-----------------------Read In Between    Here's another line      HM       Terry C Shannon wrote: > + > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Hamlyn Mootoo wrote:n > G > > I predict that Michael Capellas will not be CEO of Compaq within 14aK > > months of the date of this message.  A view from the top: Having mappeduK > > out his OWN EXIT strategy by whatever personal (monetary) forces causes.H > > him to make the decisions announced on the 6/25/2001, Mr. Capellas II > > predict will retire early, as the deal has made him quite financiallym) > > comfortable at the expense of Compaq.p > K > Mr. Capellas' 180-day Transformation Plan (dated 12 June) might limit his 0 > tenure to the next 166 days if the Plan fails. > K > If you take the time to read the details on executive compensation in thehI > last two CPQ shareholder meeting proxies, it will become evident that a J > near-term departure with shares at their current price will NOT make theJ > guy "quite financially comfortable." The vesting of the stock options is$ > heavily contingent on stock value.   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 20:48:38 -05007 From: hamilton@encompasserve.org (Bradford J. Hamilton) ? Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannony3 Message-ID: <kHAyp1eyQh3i@eisner.encompasserve.org>-  	 Hi Terry,E  J I understand that the last 36 hours has been very trying for all involved.  O I don't think that there is anyone (c.o.v. posters, COMPAQ, even Intel) *wants*tS to destroy VMS.  I *do* think that a lot of the "negativity" seen in this NG ariseso/ from the *way* in which the news was delivered.m  Z There were (to my knowledge) *no* efforts by COMPAQ's sales force, marketers, or Engineers[ to "prepare" their customers for this news - probably because it was a surprise to everyone-	 involved.-  Z This surprise has generated a lot of the FUD that you think has been generated by this NG.V You have seen the word "shock" used here in many postings - human beings tend to reactA in previously-unknown patterns when a shock is delivered to them.   W Many of us have to answer to our customers and managers who *immediately* had questionse^ upon hearing the news.  I am on "vacation" this week, but I had to feed some quick information] to my colleagues at work who were caught by surprise by this announcement, and who spent mostnS of their time on the phone to customers and management on Monday morning, trying to  explain the "unexplainable".  ] We had just been given a great presentation on Thursday, showing our customers how they couldt_ use VMS, from Web server front-end, to DB back-end, to tie up a lot of "loose-end" applications Y on different platforms.  I was *very* pleased after that meeting - I thought that we had  _ finally turned a corner in our multi-year battle to convince our cutomers (and managers) of the4, worthiness of VMS as an enterprise platform.   What do we tell them now???o  ^ I will choose to interpret your one-liner at the bottom of this post as something arising from] extreme frustration and exhaustion, but please, don't let it appear as though you feel the NG6a is somehow responsible for the current situation!  It's alomst as if you think that VMS customerse
 are at fault!n   Thanks,r Bradw >> In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106251430450.16346-100000@world.std.com>, Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:p <snip>O >> Having a background effort to port VMS to IA-64 to cover all the bases makes P >> sense. Stopping development and selling Alpha to Intel doesn't. It sends all L >> the wrong signals. Compaq have just created their own FUD which may well ! >> destroy VMS, TRU64 and Compaq.y >  > J > And this newsgroup is doing its damdest to ensure the destruction of the > aforementioned.h >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:21:08 -0400s+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>p? Subject: RE: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon R Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4A19466@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Brad,   F >>> There were (to my knowledge) *no* efforts by COMPAQ's sales force, marketers, or Engineers)F to "prepare" their customers for this news - probably because it was a surprise to everyone involved.<<<  E As you stated, there is obviously lots of justifiable emotion runningo through the NG right now.   G However, please do understand that there was a huge effort to make sureuF Customers, partners and ISV's got the news in a very quick manner. TheH morning of the announcement, Sales and Marketing folks were out visitingF and/or setting up appointments with their Customers.  These visits are continuing as we speak.   , It is only a day since the announcement ...   L In addition, there was the information available on the web site immediately when the announcement was made.D  2 Was the info available on the web enough detail ?    Nope.     I Will more technical info likely be made available in the upcoming weeks /  months ?   Yes.  9 Was I surprised at the announcement? Sure - everyone was.   J However, on reflection, my personal opinion, albeit vendor biased (so takeK it for whatever its worth), is that Compaq has made a major statement abouta future support for OpenVMS.   L If Compaq did not view a good future for OpenVMS, would not the logical moveF been to announce that Tru64 and NSK were being ported, but OpenVMS was remaining on Alpha?t  J A decision to port to another platform is a huge expense that is obviously7 not taken lightly in these days of IT belt tightening. s  L So, imho, OpenVMS and its applications will be enhanced in the future as theL Eng's will have the chance to enhance / improve things that are issues todayL and it should be available on cheaper hardware IA64-2 (or whatever the Alpha- enhanced IA64 platform is called) platforms. n  K Since these OpenVMS Eng folks have a great deal of experience with porting, . I believe that the results will be very good.   G I personally think the idea of OpenVMS strengths going up against Win64oJ offerings is great .. each OS gets to compete on scalability, availablity,H performance on a similar HW platform. [No, I have no idea how similar or" identical these platforms will be]  I Course, everyone in a NG is entititled to their own opinions, so, on withe the discussions. e   Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultante Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Servicesx Voice: 613-592-4660m Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----D From: hamilton@encompasserve.org [mailto:hamilton@encompasserve.org] Sent: June 26, 2001 9:49 PMe To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comr? Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry ShannonM    	 Hi Terry,   J I understand that the last 36 hours has been very trying for all involved.  G I don't think that there is anyone (c.o.v. posters, COMPAQ, even Intel)r *wants*sL to destroy VMS.  I *do* think that a lot of the "negativity" seen in this NG arises/ from the *way* in which the news was delivered.g  B There were (to my knowledge) *no* efforts by COMPAQ's sales force, marketers, or EngineersoF to "prepare" their customers for this news - probably because it was a surprise to everyone	 involved.s  D This surprise has generated a lot of the FUD that you think has been generated by this NG.aH You have seen the word "shock" used here in many postings - human beings
 tend to reacthA in previously-unknown patterns when a shock is delivered to them.p  I Many of us have to answer to our customers and managers who *immediately*s
 had questionsoL upon hearing the news.  I am on "vacation" this week, but I had to feed some quick informationkJ to my colleagues at work who were caught by surprise by this announcement, and who spent mostI of their time on the phone to customers and management on Monday morning,g	 trying toh explain the "unexplainable".  D We had just been given a great presentation on Thursday, showing our customers how they couldF use VMS, from Web server front-end, to DB back-end, to tie up a lot of "loose-end" applicationsL on different platforms.  I was *very* pleased after that meeting - I thought that we had I finally turned a corner in our multi-year battle to convince our cutomersn (and managers) of the , worthiness of VMS as an enterprise platform.   What do we tell them now???   G I will choose to interpret your one-liner at the bottom of this post asi something arising fromF extreme frustration and exhaustion, but please, don't let it appear as though you feel the NGH is somehow responsible for the current situation!  It's alomst as if you think that VMS customers
 are at fault!    Thanks,n BradG >> In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106251430450.16346-100000@world.std.com>,o/ Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:  <snip>I >> Having a background effort to port VMS to IA-64 to cover all the bases  makes K >> sense. Stopping development and selling Alpha to Intel doesn't. It sends, all L >> the wrong signals. Compaq have just created their own FUD which may well ! >> destroy VMS, TRU64 and Compaq.- >  > J > And this newsgroup is doing its damdest to ensure the destruction of the > aforementioned.o >    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 19:46:21 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett)a? Subject: RE: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannonu, Message-ID: <pGskc6+y8zYz@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>  R In article <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4A19466@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>,1     "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> writes:n > I > However, please do understand that there was a huge effort to make sure H > Customers, partners and ISV's got the news in a very quick manner. TheJ > morning of the announcement, Sales and Marketing folks were out visitingH > and/or setting up appointments with their Customers.  These visits are > continuing as we speak.  > J     I'm pretty sure if you had an order for a dozen wildfires in the worksB you got a call first thing Monday morning. At the other end of theI spectrum are folks like me, who only buy a single DS10 or DS20 every yearoH or so. I'll bet you I *never* get a call from anyone from Compaq settingH up an appointment to talk about how the plan affects us - yet the impactE on our business will be as large (relatively) as it is on those dozeno Wildfire customers.n  J     I'm not saying that my level of business necessarily deserves personalL visits, but I hope you ( and Terry ) can understand how when the only sourceH of information one has available is this newsgroup and the various pressN releases etc that posted on the web it's hard to not get a few anxiety attacks over something like this.e   > N > If Compaq did not view a good future for OpenVMS, would not the logical moveH > been to announce that Tru64 and NSK were being ported, but OpenVMS was > remaining on Alpha?r >   H     Certainly not. It appears the reason Compaq is throwing in the towelH on Alpha is because they don't want to ( or can't afford to ) invest theH money necessary to keep it competetive. If they didn't announce that VMSG was getting ported they'd effectively have signed its death warrant andaE sales would tank immediately. I'm sure their hope is that people will E believe they call pull off the port in a timely and effective fashiontF and there will be a smooth Alpha to Intel migration path available forC all concerned . To say anything other than that at this point wouldpC clearly be suicidal and I suspect Compaq needs the revenue that VMS,& brings in, at least in the short term.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:17:18 -0400e' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>h? Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon ( Message-ID: <9hbq2n$n18$1@pyrite.mv.net>  D "Bradford J. Hamilton" <hamilton@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:kHAyp1eyQh3i@eisner.encompasserve.org...  > Hi Terry,e >yL > I understand that the last 36 hours has been very trying for all involved. > I > I don't think that there is anyone (c.o.v. posters, COMPAQ, even Intel)p *wants* K > to destroy VMS.  I *do* think that a lot of the "negativity" seen in thisp	 NG arises 1 > from the *way* in which the news was delivered.   L That may well be true for some.  For others, however, I doubt that there wasH any way in which the news could have been delivered that would have made much difference.  J When people have been assured for years that their fears for the future ofK the technology they were using were groundless (despite disturbing evidenceoK to the contrary) - because it was too important to the company, because the I Tandem products were absolutely dependent on it as their future platform, K because alternate technology was demonstrably inferior - it's *really hard*hL to turn around and say "Never mind..." in a way that won't leave them mad as hell.n   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:26:36 -0400a' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>n? Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon#' Message-ID: <9hbqk2$up$1@pyrite.mv.net>   6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4A19466@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net...   ...d  L > However, on reflection, my personal opinion, albeit vendor biased (so takeG > it for whatever its worth), is that Compaq has made a major statement- about- > future support for OpenVMS.9  L Words cannot express my relief that Compaq has made a major statement.  What more could one ask?e   >aI > If Compaq did not view a good future for OpenVMS, would not the logicalo moveH > been to announce that Tru64 and NSK were being ported, but OpenVMS was > remaining on Alpha?.  K Not if it wanted to retain *any* of the close-to-$4billion/year revenue andgH approaching-$1billion/year profit that VMS has been generating recently.J Even a small percentage of that easily pays for a port (in the first year,L so if you play your cards right you can cut off the port development cost if< it doesn't seem to be doing its job in retaining customers).   > L > A decision to port to another platform is a huge expense that is obviously8 > not taken lightly in these days of IT belt tightening.  H A decision to throw away $800 million/year in profits, however, is taken3 even less lightly:  lesser of two evils, I suspect.a   >OJ > So, imho, OpenVMS and its applications will be enhanced in the future as theaH > Eng's will have the chance to enhance / improve things that are issues today H > and it should be available on cheaper hardware IA64-2 (or whatever the Alpha0. > enhanced IA64 platform is called) platforms.  G I've addressed the above not-yet-even-vaporware elsewhere, so I'll just.J remind people that *should* it ever materialize its special-purpose natureI (if it indeed is Alpha-specific in some way) will likely make it anythingjI but cheap (not to mention that run-of-the-mill Itanics are more expensive@ than Alphas already).e   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Jun 2001 01:41:41 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)h? Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannonu3 Message-ID: <hE6MHVj3HP6S@eisner.encompasserve.org>y  Q In article <9hbqk2$up$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:s   > I > I've addressed the above not-yet-even-vaporware elsewhere, so I'll justoL > remind people that *should* it ever materialize its special-purpose natureK > (if it indeed is Alpha-specific in some way) will likely make it anything K > but cheap (not to mention that run-of-the-mill Itanics are more expensivei > than Alphas already).e >   ; 	My initial thought when I knew it was Intel (last Thursdaye- 	actually) was to post this Friday at 8 p.m.:   7 Intel is finally going to get the design help they needi* and if I were HP I would be fairly pissed.  8 	Why?  Because HP jumped through hoops and now a new pal9 	comes along to ride to the rescue.  I suspect Compaq mayu@ 	have made the most of that soured relationship.  Soured?  Sure.? 	Intel dropped the ball with Itanium , forcing HP and others tor5 	spin their wheels, trot out roadmaps , extend their h 	architectures and whatnot.l  A 	There are hooks in there to make PA-RISC work.  A few more hooksnB 	in the architecture itself to make NSK/Tru64/VMS work, won't meanB 	much and it surely won't be two separate architectures.  You have? 	any reason to support your assertion there will be a "fork" inaD 	the architecture?  IA64 "vanilla" and IA64 "special" for the Compaq* 	handicapped?  Where do you get that idea?  A 	The bit about Itanics being more expensive?  So what?  DeerfieldcB 	will be out in 12 months or so and you'll see IA64 parts approachE 	Pentium IV prices if you expect IA64 to ever make it to the desktop.i  	Something Alpha could never do.   				Robe   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Jun 2001 01:49:24 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)h? Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon 3 Message-ID: <OCUM8ICC9Wrs@eisner.encompasserve.org>   B Look at this folks... you can't say the word "pissed".  I use thatC in the context of "very angry".  Sorry to offend the offensive word 0 scanner.  What a whacky world.  Kids these days.   Policy = Dirty Words  * 	A duhty wuhd.  Uh..uh-uh.. uh... uh-uh-uh   	A duhty wuhd.    7 From:   IN%"MAILMAN-SA@StorNet.com"  "System Attendant" E To:     IN%"young_r@Encompasserve.org"  "'young_r@encompasserve.org'"o CC:CP Subj:   ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action t        aken.g    < Place = Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com; ; ; young_r@encompasserve.org" Sender = young_r@encompasserve.org@ Subject = Re: Question to Charlie Matco - reply to Terry Shannon0 Delivery Time = June 26, 2001 (Tuesday) 23:43:57 Policy = Dirty Words( Action on this mail = Quarantine message  # Warning message from administrator:r7 Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail.o     	I've been quarantined.    				Rob"    a In article <hE6MHVj3HP6S@eisner.encompasserve.org>, young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) writes:rS > In article <9hbqk2$up$1@pyrite.mv.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:o >  >> eJ >> I've addressed the above not-yet-even-vaporware elsewhere, so I'll justM >> remind people that *should* it ever materialize its special-purpose naturesL >> (if it indeed is Alpha-specific in some way) will likely make it anythingL >> but cheap (not to mention that run-of-the-mill Itanics are more expensive >> than Alphas already). >> a > = > 	My initial thought when I knew it was Intel (last Thursdayw/ > 	actually) was to post this Friday at 8 p.m.:t > 9 > Intel is finally going to get the design help they need , > and if I were HP I would be fairly pissed. > : > 	Why?  Because HP jumped through hoops and now a new pal; > 	comes along to ride to the rescue.  I suspect Compaq maytB > 	have made the most of that soured relationship.  Soured?  Sure.A > 	Intel dropped the ball with Itanium , forcing HP and others toi7 > 	spin their wheels, trot out roadmaps , extend their e > 	architectures and whatnot.  > C > 	There are hooks in there to make PA-RISC work.  A few more hooksmD > 	in the architecture itself to make NSK/Tru64/VMS work, won't meanD > 	much and it surely won't be two separate architectures.  You haveA > 	any reason to support your assertion there will be a "fork" insF > 	the architecture?  IA64 "vanilla" and IA64 "special" for the Compaq, > 	handicapped?  Where do you get that idea? > C > 	The bit about Itanics being more expensive?  So what?  Deerfield.D > 	will be out in 12 months or so and you'll see IA64 parts approachG > 	Pentium IV prices if you expect IA64 to ever make it to the desktop.a" > 	Something Alpha could never do. > 	 > 				Robp >    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:24:02 GMTe- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>V' Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco.sD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106261922040.28481-100000@world.std.com>  " On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, D.Webb wrote:  v > In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106251430450.16346-100000@world.std.com>, Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes: > >o > >l' > >On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, JF Mezei wrote:g > >  > >> Mister Matco, > >> 7J > >Seems to me that the memo stated Compaq's commitment to OpenVMS. And ofJ > >couse, the port to IA-64 is something that people have wanted for quiteK > >some time. VMS will have a much larger addressable market, assuming thatpG > >the port goes well (it should take 18 months at max) and that CompaqoG > >maintains ISV support. If the OS port goes smoothly, and VMS becomeseG > >more widely adopted, ISVs will have more of a reason to port to VMS.p > >r > >  > M > Some people here have wanted a port to 8x86 so that VMS can be run on theiraG > home PCs or on spare Intel boxes in their organisations - like Linux.  > O > Porting to IA-64 is a much less common request. It's usually articulated wheneK > events appear to show Compaq lacking commitment to Alpha. Especially when N > Compaq were saying they were going to be porting TRU64 to IA-64 but not VMS.I > There was an obvious fear for the survival of VMS if Alpha were to havek > problems.v > N > For VMS porting to IA-64 has always been a backup option, an escape route ifK > there were problems with Alpha. I see zero reason to expect that IA-64 isaP > going to replace 8x86 (or compatible) chips on the desktop in the near future. > N > Having a background effort to port VMS to IA-64 to cover all the bases makesO > sense. Stopping development and selling Alpha to Intel doesn't. It sends all nK > the wrong signals. Compaq have just created their own FUD which may well t  > destroy VMS, TRU64 and Compaq.    H And this newsgroup is doing its damdest to ensure the destruction of the aforementioned.m   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:33:13 -0400'- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>n' Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco.e, Message-ID: <3B3945E9.80E2050C@videotron.ca>   Terry C Shannon wrote:J > And this newsgroup is doing its damdest to ensure the destruction of the > aforementioned.r  G Compaq is fully aware of the sensitivities of VMS customers. We,ve beene: screwed before and we are very sensitiove of not paranoid.  M As a result, Compaq knew that in making the announcement the way it did, thattM it woudl lose credibility due to all the broken promises and relegates VMS todB a OS that is essentially in maintenance mode for the next 4 years.  G Compaq's priority was to announce the big wad of cash it was getting to L abandon Alpha which would enable it to emulate IBM's services and solutions.* VMS is just a annoying sidenote to Compaq.  J Had Compaq continued to develop Alpha until IA64 was capable of runnng VMSF (port included), then the perceptiosn would have been quite different.  G Had Compaq announced, as part of the VMS porting effort, real marketingtL budgets allocated to VMS to start the buildup of VMS now that it will run on3 intel hardware, it might have had more credibility.'  K But the way Compaq announced it, they simply outlined in bold the fact thatoL are breaking the commitments they just made to customers. And breaking theseF commitments also means that there is little credibility in those other, promises Compaq made that aren't YET broken.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:43:11 -0400s+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@COMPAQ.com>r' Subject: RE: Question to Charlie Matco.eR Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4A19468@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   JF,o  J >>> Had Compaq continued to develop Alpha until IA64 was capable of runnng VMS-I (port included), then the perceptiosn would have been quite different. <<a  H Is this not what was announced ie. EV68 enhancements, EV7 Marvel servers ????  I EV7 servers won't even be here until later next year (or some time aroundo	 then) .. o  J >>> But the way Compaq announced it, they simply outlined in bold the factA that are breaking the commitments they just made to customers.<<<e  G Hey - it was a surprise to me as well, but Compaq has announced a majorjF OpenVMS investment in porting it to a new combined Alpha/IA64 platformL (providing very fast EV7 AlphaServers until the new platform is ready) along& with its other mission critical OS's.    Regards,    
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Servicesa Voice: 613-592-4660n Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----4 From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca] Sent: June 26, 2001 10:33 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ' Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco.      Terry C Shannon wrote:J > And this newsgroup is doing its damdest to ensure the destruction of the > aforementioned.s  G Compaq is fully aware of the sensitivities of VMS customers. We,ve beenc: screwed before and we are very sensitiove of not paranoid.  H As a result, Compaq knew that in making the announcement the way it did, thatJ it woudl lose credibility due to all the broken promises and relegates VMS toB a OS that is essentially in maintenance mode for the next 4 years.  G Compaq's priority was to announce the big wad of cash it was getting to L abandon Alpha which would enable it to emulate IBM's services and solutions.* VMS is just a annoying sidenote to Compaq.  J Had Compaq continued to develop Alpha until IA64 was capable of runnng VMSF (port included), then the perceptiosn would have been quite different.  G Had Compaq announced, as part of the VMS porting effort, real marketingCL budgets allocated to VMS to start the buildup of VMS now that it will run on3 intel hardware, it might have had more credibility.4  K But the way Compaq announced it, they simply outlined in bold the fact thatmL are breaking the commitments they just made to customers. And breaking theseF commitments also means that there is little credibility in those other, promises Compaq made that aren't YET broken.   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:20:24 -0400n- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>o' Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco.y, Message-ID: <3B395EFF.71E810A5@videotron.ca>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:J > Is this not what was announced ie. EV68 enhancements, EV7 Marvel servers > ????  K No. Alpha was killed on Monday, and as soon as the remaining project EV7 isr# done, those engineers are gone too.s  G Compaq could have delayed announcing the death of Alpha, keeping to itsmF commitments it has already made with regards to Alpha. They could haveM announced on Monday cross licensing to give Intel the Alpha patents, announcesI that Intel wants to see VMS on IA64 and will not only add bits to IA64 ton# support VMS but also fund the port.a  L This way, Compaq would not have broken its promises, and VMS customers wouldH know they could continue to count on Alpha UNTIL IA64 HAS PROVEN ITSELF.  J But by killing Alpha so dramatically, customers are left in a void becauseL IA64 is still vapourware and Compaq can't even say what changes to IA64 willL be needed to support VMS, and customers also know that after the next updateJ of Alpha, there won't be anymore which means that one year from Now, Alpha@ will start to lag big time against the 8086 and other platforms.  , Remember: IA64 is still unproven vapourware.  K Imagine if the a "pentium bug" crops up on IA64 next week and makes the big G news. How will that affect the credibility of the whole project to porte2 mission critical stuff to such an immatire chip ?   I > Hey - it was a surprise to me as well, but Compaq has announced a majoraH > OpenVMS investment in porting it to a new combined Alpha/IA64 platform  I Sorry, do not use "combined Alpha/IA64" platform unless you can show hard J commitments by Intel to merge the 2 architectures. Adding one or two AlphaF instructions to IA64 doesn't make IA64 a Alpha-IA64 combined platform.  J Also, What Compaq has announced is that VMS energies will be focused for 4D years on porting to that IA64 thing instead of keeping VMS's leadingK technologies progressing as fast as the rest of the industry. Consider thatr9 this is being funded by the wad of cash handed by Intel. 3  M It isn't as if Compaq started off by stating that they wanted to make VMS one M of their core operating systems. It started off by Compaq stating they wantedoH to streamline manufacturing and eliminate complex architectures/systems.  M So the port of VMS isn't to make it succesful, but rather is a necessary evilr to allow Compaq to ditch Alpha.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:11:52 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>e' Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco.f( Message-ID: <9hbpoh$mpg$1@pyrite.mv.net>  6 "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@COMPAQ.com> wrote in messageL news:BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4A19468@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net... > JF,u > L > >>> Had Compaq continued to develop Alpha until IA64 was capable of runnng > VMSoK > (port included), then the perceptiosn would have been quite different. <<e > J > Is this not what was announced ie. EV68 enhancements, EV7 Marvel servers > ????  L Not really:  completing already nearly-finished work (and work that *will* -B at least presumably - be finished long before the VMS IA64 port isH completed) is not the same as what JF described - especially in that theI conclusion of Alpha development is well-defined whereas the completion of7 the port is not.   >eK > EV7 servers won't even be here until later next year (or some time around,
 > then) ..  I Funny - that's *so* much later than was anticipated not all that long agoaH that one has to wonder whether some in Compaq had at least an inkling ofI their future plans for Alpha and took advantage of the opportunity to cute just a few more costs...   >oL > >>> But the way Compaq announced it, they simply outlined in bold the factC > that are breaking the commitments they just made to customers.<<<n >nI > Hey - it was a surprise to me as well, but Compaq has announced a major H > OpenVMS investment in porting it to a new combined Alpha/IA64 platform  J As I noted elsewhere, this new combined Alpha/IA64 platform seems to existH mostly in your mind (though others here have now picked it up).  I guessB there was some casual mention of technology transfer in the formal0 announcement, but hardly anything this specific.  L At the rate Intel appears to be able to bring new processor architectures toH market, we can expect that platform sometime around 2008 - assuming theyJ commit to it today and divert significant development resources from their0 current new platform's next several generations.  I And investment:  that's such a reassuring term, especially to a communityc3 that's been starved for VMS investment for so long.s  L Paying for a college education is an investment.  Launching a start-up is anK investment (in multiple senses).  But is seeking emergency medical care andeH subsequent reconstructive surgery for a massive, self-inflicted wound anB 'investment'?  Perhaps for Compaq, but it's likely not the kind of1 *enhancing* investment customers were hoping for.    - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Jun 2001 01:10:03 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)-' Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco.13 Message-ID: <apcMbq61Rqob@eisner.encompasserve.org>   \ In article <3B395EFF.71E810A5@videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes:   > N > This way, Compaq would not have broken its promises, and VMS customers wouldJ > know they could continue to count on Alpha UNTIL IA64 HAS PROVEN ITSELF. >    	[snip]s  . > Remember: IA64 is still unproven vapourware.  A 	Nonesense.  Part of the rationale behind Alpha getting set asidee> 	was a careful study of where IA64 will be in 3-5 years.  TheyB 	concluded the performance differential will be marginal.  You can@ 	call into question that reasoning... but you can bet they spent@ 	time and money on that and know more about McKinley performanceA 	than many outsiders do.  Point is, IA64 will be very competitiven@ 	and cheaper than RISCs 2-3 years out.  That is a very bad place, 	to be for non-IA64 platforms 2-3 years out.  M > Imagine if the a "pentium bug" crops up on IA64 next week and makes the bigr > news.   A 	Yeah, imagine that.  Imagine if a meteor hits the Ross Ice Shelfg= 	melting it and people in Flordia drown because of that.  Or e< 	imagine if a new virulent virus pops up that makes HIV look 	like a cold... imagine that.A  C > How will that affect the credibility of the whole project to portk4 > mission critical stuff to such an immatire chip ?  > A 	Come on.  HP/UX is there.  AIX 5L is there.  It has been brewing ? 	for 7 years.  How immature is it?  It isn't wine or cheese, it > 	is an architecture and others have been banging away on it inC 	one form or other for the last 2-3 years.  Immaturity isn't a goodiA 	argument against it.  Performance, maybe.  But as Intel has beenr= 	promising us it gets much better and IDF in February shockedtB 	a few people when they found out how fast McKinley will be going.@ 	Who knows about Madison?  Problem was/is for all others is that@ 	Intel is far too strong.  It is almost as if many are forced to= 	adopt their architecture because they surely can't afford to9? 	spend the money to compete against them.  Very few precedents  + 	like that in the world... very few indeed.n   				Robr   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:47:37 -0400l' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>r' Subject: Re: Question to Charlie Matco.h( Message-ID: <9hbrrf$24p$1@pyrite.mv.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:apcMbq61Rqob@eisner.encompasserve.org...v   ...o  6   Part of the rationale behind Alpha getting set aside? > was a careful study of where IA64 will be in 3-5 years.  TheySC > concluded the performance differential will be marginal.  You caneA > call into question that reasoning... but you can bet they spentnA > time and money on that and know more about McKinley performanceyB > than many outsiders do.  Point is, IA64 will be very competitiveA > and cheaper than RISCs 2-3 years out.  That is a very bad placev- > to be for non-IA64 platforms 2-3 years out.	   ...    as Intel has been3> > promising us it gets much better and IDF in February shockedC > a few people when they found out how fast McKinley will be going.  > Who knows about Madisons  9 Can this truly be the same Rob Young who has made so manyaL admiring-to-the-point-of-adulation statements about future Alpha performanceG (especially in comparison to future IA64 performance) for lo these manywI years?  Are we witnessing a deathbed conversion (so to speak - I hope nott literally)?c  D Rather than accept the conventional-wisdom-de-jour, I prefer to baseG projections on more stable data.  And the only part of that data that'stJ changed very recently is Compaq's platform of choice for VMS, which reallyI has no impact on my belief that Alpha would have been likely to enjoy *atcG least* a modest lead over Itanic for many years - based on the relative L strengths and projected directions of the architectures, and largely throughJ reading the conclusions of people better able to evaluate those than I am.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:34:57 GMTi( From: Terry Kennedy <terry@gate.tmk.com>% Subject: Re: RA81 (was you know what)f' Message-ID: <GFKCA9.1rv@spcuna.spc.edu>s  + antonio.carlini <arcarlini@iee.org> writes:m9 > The VAX 9000 would fit into that category, but I assume & > you are thinking of something else ?  ?   Actually, it was a pattern that was repeated over and over...l  4         Terry Kennedy             http://www.tmk.com2         terry@tmk.com             New York, NY USA         +1 646 792 7231 (voice)a   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:36:32 +1000 / From: "Phil Howell" <phowell@snowyhydro.com.au>  Subject: Rdb troll3 Message-ID: <BMa_6.12311$qJ4.502287@ozemail.com.au>    Since :-8 The reason for Oracle not continuing development of Rdb8; for I86 processors was that Compaq would not support bliss.cF There is bliss in vms so to port it to IA64 they will need a compiler." Can we expect a resurgence of Rdb? Phil   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:48:41 -050065 From: "Hipenbecker, Doug" <Hipenbecker.Doug@MBCO.COM>< Subject: RE: Rdb trollG Message-ID: <DD11CB6FEB21D41184510004ACA3715304C906C8@mbsus228.mbc.com>M  K I think the Compaq "Bliss on Windows" stance raises a valid suspicion aboutoH Compaq's true intentions with OpenVMS.  I don't believe Compaq seriouslyI intends to port OpenVMS.  I think that Compaq had no other option than toaD say that they are porting OpenVMS(you want to appear as good guys onL webcast), rationalizing that this would reassure the customers so that panicG wouldn't set in and cause OpenVMS revenues to vanish rapidly.  The onlyaL problem is that Compaq is assuming that OpenVMS customers are that gullible.E I believe that the majority of customers will *halt* all future AlphaxJ purchases due to not being able to trust in Compaq's "promise" to port theI OS's to Itanium with a magic wand.  I know I could not trust the promise. I What about past promises?  This could be an unexpected short-term revenuetD hit for Compaq that could seriously cripple the company.  Talk about2 mismanagement of the enterprise computing group!    J Oracle could care less as most Oracle RDB customers will migrate to OracleI RDBMS.  However, the same cannot be said about keeping the hardware brando! Compaq for the database platform.    Doug Hipenbecker Miller Brewing Co.   -----Original Message-----4 From: Phil Howell [mailto:phowell@snowyhydro.com.au]$ Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:37 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comm Subject: Rdb troll     Since :-8 The reason for Oracle not continuing development of Rdb8; for I86 processors was that Compaq would not support bliss.4F There is bliss in vms so to port it to IA64 they will need a compiler." Can we expect a resurgence of Rdb? Phil   ------------------------------    Date: 27 Jun 2001 00:58:21 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)a Subject: RE: Rdb troll3 Message-ID: <URBsaJjB4Gg7@eisner.encompasserve.org>v   In article <DD11CB6FEB21D41184510004ACA3715304C906C8@mbsus228.mbc.com>, "Hipenbecker, Doug" <Hipenbecker.Doug@MBCO.COM> writes:dM > I think the Compaq "Bliss on Windows" stance raises a valid suspicion about J > Compaq's true intentions with OpenVMS.  I don't believe Compaq seriouslyK > intends to port OpenVMS.  I think that Compaq had no other option than tosF > say that they are porting OpenVMS(you want to appear as good guys onN > webcast), rationalizing that this would reassure the customers so that panicI > wouldn't set in and cause OpenVMS revenues to vanish rapidly.  The onlyhN > problem is that Compaq is assuming that OpenVMS customers are that gullible.G > I believe that the majority of customers will *halt* all future AlphaAL > purchases due to not being able to trust in Compaq's "promise" to port theK > OS's to Itanium with a magic wand.  I know I could not trust the promise.fK > What about past promises?  This could be an unexpected short-term revenuewF > hit for Compaq that could seriously cripple the company.  Talk about4 > mismanagement of the enterprise computing group!   > L > Oracle could care less as most Oracle RDB customers will migrate to OracleK > RDBMS.  However, the same cannot be said about keeping the hardware brandl# > Compaq for the database platform.a >     ; > not being able to trust in Compaq's "promise" to port the $ > OS's to Itanium with a magic wand.  ; 	I guess the assumption will be that everyone inside of VMS @ 	engineering will be absolutely dead silent about the "non-port"> 	of VMS to IA64?  Such that 6, 8, 12 months out no one outside+ 	of VMS engineering will be none the wiser?b  > 	In other words, the bee-hive of activity involving the actual@ 	porting process will never take place and we won't know a thing 	about that non-activity?v  5 	Come on... surely you can do better than that for a l 	conspiracy theory.  Sheesh....n   				Rob.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:54:25 -0400   From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> Subject: Re: Req VMS Tutorialr6 Message-ID: <1010626214646.38769D-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ( On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Hoff Hoffman wrote:  [ > In article <1010625205702.38769G-100000@Ives.egh.com>, John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> writes:n+ > :On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Hoff Hoffman wrote:s > :r` > :> In article <3b3754f0$1_3@news.arrakis.es>, "Jose Carlos Duclos" <duclos@arrakis.es> writes:9 > :> :I'm looking for a good VMS-VAX tutorial in Internet0 > ..M > :>   Note: "VMS-VAX" is more commonly refered to as "OpenVMS VAX", and thislK > :>   trivia may well help you better understand when you are reading the M > :>   available materials.e > : I > :Only among the Compaqly Correct.  To all others, the "open" is silent.n > :;-) > : B > :Seriously, the name change from "VMS" to "OpenVMS" was purely a > :marketing move... > K >   My point there was to make it clear to the original poster exactly what D >   was meant by what was read, and not to open the open discussion.  E Yes.  My point to the original poster was that (at least at the earlyoE stage) he shouldn't worry too much about the differences between VMS,aH Open VMS, VAX/VMS, etc., since the differences (from a user perspective)F are trivial, and the terms are often used interchangeably, at least by$ the non-Compaq people on this group.  A Hopefully, the same will apply to "Open-VMS Intel" or whatever itt ends up being called.A  B I know employees of Compaq have to be careful about trademarks and? official product names, etc., but the rest of us can still pullf your leg about it, I hope!  P >  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------P >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    P >  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------N >    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   -- r John Santosr Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:59:32 -050006 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@DELETETHIS.mac.com>1 Subject: Re: Software to create PDF files on OVMSy8 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20010626124847.02a596a0@exchi01>  _ "Thomas Steuver" <steuver@nku.edu> wrote in message news:<tjf2i717r2lk56@corp.supernews.com>... M > I've downloaded txt2pdf 5.0.  I have Perl 5 installed on my OpenVMS (Alpha)oG > system.  The VMS doc file included with txt2pdf is bad.  I can't makegM > anything work.  Does anyone have an easier procedure to get txt2pdf workingr > on the OVMS system?   K What does "can't make anything work" mean?  Did you get error messages?  I uJ just tried it and it seemed quite simple.  You do need gunzip and vmstar, I both on the freeware CD I believe.  (If you download the zip version for vL Windows, the line breaks will probably be wrong for VMS.)  I followed these  steps:   Download txt2pdf.tar.gz from .7         <http://www.sanface.com/archive/txt2pdf.tar.gz>e  / rename to txt2pdf.tgz to avoid invald file specC   $ gunzip txt2pdf.tgz $ vmstar -xf txt2pdf.tar $ set default [.TXT2PDF-5_0]% $ perl txt2pdf.pl sys$login:login.comp  G I then had a file called login.pdf in my login directory, which indeed AK turned out to be a valid PDF version of my login.com, suitable for viewing eL with XPDF under DECWindows or Acrobat Reader on other platforms.  I have no K idea how good the documentation is since I didn't bother to look at it :-).e  M This was with Perl 5.5.3, though I suspect it'd work with any version Perl 5.e  _ You do have to define the logical name TXT2PDFCFG to to make it find the configuration file if n: you're not running from the directory where txt2pdf lives.  K Someone mentioned the C freeware txt2pdf by P.G. Womack (confusingly named  J the same but not related to the Sanface product).  I just tried it and it H worked great, though it doesn't have any of the spiffy features Sanface L does.  The Womack version doesn't do any argument handling so you'd have to  invoke it something like:   . $ pipe mcr []txt2pdf < myfile.txt > myfile.pdf   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:54:42 GMTi9 From: "Gerald W. Lester" <Gerald.Lester@acadian-beer.com>i Subject: Re: TCL in OpenVMS 0 Message-ID: <3B396776.D5812FFC@acadian-beer.com>   Sundaram P wrote:y  E > ...But when i load the exe in the tcl shell using the load command.a >r > load myrand.exe myrand >hA > the tcl shell is crashing and the following error is displayed., >t* > %SYSTEM-F-IVLOGNAM, invalid logical name1 > %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows-) > image module routine line rel PC abs PC % > 0 FFFFFFFF80476818 FFFFFFFF80476818eF > TCLSHR TCLVMSLOAD TclLoadFile 7431 00000000000001AC 000000000008AABC > ....  N There is not a "standard" build of Tcl on VMS.  You need to take a look at the1 TCLVMSLOAD.C file to see how load is implemented..  O That being said, most of the VMS versions share an ancestry with the port I didb% so I'll take a guess at your problem.,   The command on VMS should be:b        load myrandshr myrand  O Where myrandshr is a logical defined to point at myrand.exe (include device and  directory).    --J +--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+J | Gerald W. Lester               | "Beer is proof that God loves us and  |J | geraldlester@acadian-beer.com  |  wants us to be happy." -- Franklin   |J |               Webmaster for http://www.acadian-beer.com                |J +--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:07:15 GMT - From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>s: Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggeratedD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106261857060.28481-100000@world.std.com>  & On 26 Jun 2001, Larry Kilgallen wrote:  ^ > In article <3B3814B5.31033974@videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes: > > "Main, Kerry" wrote:P > >> Quote from the press release "A portion of these engineers will remain withQ > >> Compaq to complete a next-generation Alpha microprocessor development efforttH > >> currently underway but will transfer to Intel as their projects are > >> completed"o > > O > > The way I read this is: " a portion of employee will be transfered a littlen9 > > later, after they have finished writing some reports.h > > ; > > Isn't the EV7 project essentially almost complete now ?  > D > Not at all.  There has not even been public discussion of what theD > systems will look like, and it still provides rumor fodder for the > likes of Charlie Matco.r >   H That's funny. I seem to recall a rather detailed description of EV7, theJ companion IO7 chip, and the Marvel, Raptor, and (now-defunct) Yosemite EV7E product family that was published in a public venue over a month ago.   E That said, EV7 Pass One is about to boot (if it hasn't already) Tru64sB UNIX. The Pass One database was shipped to IBM for fabbing back inH May. Pass 0, which could execute instructions but not boot an OS, becameJ available some months beforehand. EV7 developers will be kept busy throughG the rollout of the first-generation EV78 (1.2GHz) and second-generatione EV79 (1.6GHz) chips3   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:19:27 -0400 ' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com>R: Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated( Message-ID: <9hb8k5$8cd$1@pyrite.mv.net>  0 "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> wrote in message) news:tji3n47ge8e60b@news.supernews.com...c   ...s  J Thanks for clarifying that you were indeed simply giving us the benefit of4 your opinion rather than anything of greater weight.  K > 32 bit processors are a dead end for general purpose computing.  Intel is J > replacing the IA32 architecture with IA64.  IA32 will not be extended to 64L > bits by Intel (AMD is trying though).  Intel effectively announced the endJ > of life of IA32 when they announced IA64.  It will be a long time before9 > they stop manufacturing IA32 but it's still a dead end.d  I So is the universe, but that doesn't negate the importance of the time wer have to work with.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:13:28 +0200t) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>e: Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated, Message-ID: <3B392528.A01C7435@infopuls.com>   "Main, Kerry" wrote: >  > Aaron, > M > >>> It's how many customers will wait 18 months or 2 years so that they cano > port their apps to > yet another platform.>>> > $ > re: porting to another platform .. > L > I am not saying that the entire picture is rosy (it still has much left to? > be filled in), but is not every vendor in the same position ?i >  > - Win32 --> Win64w > - IBM --> Power4 > - IBM --> IA640 > - IBM MVS --> new 64bit mainframe architecture > - Sparc II --> Sparc III > - HP PA --> IA64K > - Alpha --> IA64-2 (or whatever the enhanced IA64 + Alpha architecture iss	 > called)o > I > Given that, in most cases, various levels of emulation capabilities aretM > stopgaps until the code can be recompiled into a native image, do Customersl; > have much of a choice with whatever platform they choose?I >  > Kerry Main > Senior Consultanta > Compaq Canada Inc. > Professional Services' > Voice: 613-592-4660e > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com >  > -----Original Message-----5 > From: Alphaman [mailto:alphaman64@nixspam-home.com]- > Sent: June 25, 2001 10:31 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com < > Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated > F > Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message/ > news:cvSLIFYRTFb0@eisner.encompasserve.org...i= > > In article <3B37E25A.57D5BD4C@bigfoot.com>, Hamlyn Mootooe > <univms@bigfoot.com> writes: > > E > > > I'll be plain.  There is no incentive for Compaq to port VMS tohJ > > > ANYTHING.  Wake up and smell the JAVA.  A little question to all theN > > > Pollyannas in this newsgroup: How much do you think it will cost to move > > > VMS to another platform? > > @ > > You have no realization of the revenue Compaq gets from VMS. > J > What's important is not how much it costs to do the port.  It's how manyN > customers will wait 18 months or 2 years so that they can port their apps toL > yet another platform.  Now compare that revenue stream against how much itN > costs to do the port.  Don't want to?  Don't worry -- the beancounters will.H > They're good at that; just ask DNPG, or Polycenter engineers, the FAB6K > employees, or the Alpha NT engineers, or the Alpha engineers, or the finei > folks at API.4 > > > Eh, they're just people, they don't count.  Rock on, IA64... > J > > You have no realization of the revenue PC sales by _all_ manufacturers > > _doesn't_ produce. > G > So, the multiple billions of dollars of low-margin, "me-too", revenuefK > outweighed the billion or so of high margin, differentiated, Alpha sales?VN > Yeah, that's it -- cut off the distinctive high margin product line.  What'sF > a billion dollars between friends, after all, if it can make Barrett
 > happier? > N > Killing Alpha takes no guts and no marketing initiative, both qualities thatI > Compaq management LACK.  Compaq will go down in history as the PC clone C > manufacturer that was handed a golden opportunity and botched it.: >  > Aaronr > --@ > Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html@ > Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/J > "The supersonic boom should hit you in just a few seconds." (Apollo 440)  ? While there is some truth in your observation it lacks the mainy< difference: All the other migrations include an HW emulation? (i.e. a proof by technique) that almost all apps will run rightm@ there from the beginning. With the Alpha -> IA63 transition this isn't the case.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:44:20 -0400o+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>R: Subject: RE: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggeratedR Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4A19465@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>  C >>> While there is some truth in your observation it lacks the mainm< difference: All the other migrations include an HW emulation? (i.e. a proof by technique) that almost all apps will run right @ there from the beginning. With the Alpha -> IA63 transition this isn't the case.<<<  K I suspect the OpenVMS Engineering folks don't know this yet, and you may be5! right, but how do you know this ?h  K Besides, while emulation techniques are typically ok for the desktop, proofqK of concept and minor minor apps you need, it is hardly a strategy to deployo7 your main business applications and support utilities. h  K I am not trying to say whether this decision was the right one or the wrongeC one. However, if one looks at the reality of all the platforms (seepG attached), their Customers are almost all looking at some major portingo! efforts in the next 12-24 months.u   Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant. Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Servicesw Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----0 From: Christof Brass [mailto:brass@infopuls.com] Sent: June 26, 2001 8:13 PMt To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com : Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated     "Main, Kerry" wrote: >  > Aaron, > I > >>> It's how many customers will wait 18 months or 2 years so that theyd can  > port their apps to > yet another platform.>>> > $ > re: porting to another platform .. > L > I am not saying that the entire picture is rosy (it still has much left to? > be filled in), but is not every vendor in the same position ?  >  > - Win32 --> Win64: > - IBM --> Power4 > - IBM --> IA640 > - IBM MVS --> new 64bit mainframe architecture > - Sparc II --> Sparc III > - HP PA --> IA64K > - Alpha --> IA64-2 (or whatever the enhanced IA64 + Alpha architecture is 	 > called)d > I > Given that, in most cases, various levels of emulation capabilities aredC > stopgaps until the code can be recompiled into a native image, do-	 Customers-; > have much of a choice with whatever platform they choose?o >  > Kerry Main > Senior Consultant: > Compaq Canada Inc. > Professional Servicesc > Voice: 613-592-4660a > Fax  :  819-772-7036 > Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com >  > -----Original Message-----5 > From: Alphaman [mailto:alphaman64@nixspam-home.com]q > Sent: June 25, 2001 10:31 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com < > Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated > F > Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message/ > news:cvSLIFYRTFb0@eisner.encompasserve.org...(= > > In article <3B37E25A.57D5BD4C@bigfoot.com>, Hamlyn Mootooh > <univms@bigfoot.com> writes: > >sE > > > I'll be plain.  There is no incentive for Compaq to port VMS topJ > > > ANYTHING.  Wake up and smell the JAVA.  A little question to all theI > > > Pollyannas in this newsgroup: How much do you think it will cost to* move > > > VMS to another platform? > >b@ > > You have no realization of the revenue Compaq gets from VMS. > J > What's important is not how much it costs to do the port.  It's how manyK > customers will wait 18 months or 2 years so that they can port their appsp toL > yet another platform.  Now compare that revenue stream against how much itH > costs to do the port.  Don't want to?  Don't worry -- the beancounters will.tH > They're good at that; just ask DNPG, or Polycenter engineers, the FAB6K > employees, or the Alpha NT engineers, or the Alpha engineers, or the fine  > folks at API.e > > > Eh, they're just people, they don't count.  Rock on, IA64... > J > > You have no realization of the revenue PC sales by _all_ manufacturers > > _doesn't_ produce. > G > So, the multiple billions of dollars of low-margin, "me-too", revenue2K > outweighed the billion or so of high margin, differentiated, Alpha sales?IF > Yeah, that's it -- cut off the distinctive high margin product line. What'sF > a billion dollars between friends, after all, if it can make Barrett
 > happier? > I > Killing Alpha takes no guts and no marketing initiative, both qualities. thatI > Compaq management LACK.  Compaq will go down in history as the PC clone2C > manufacturer that was handed a golden opportunity and botched it.r >  > Aaron- > --@ > Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html@ > Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/J > "The supersonic boom should hit you in just a few seconds." (Apollo 440)  ? While there is some truth in your observation it lacks the mains< difference: All the other migrations include an HW emulation? (i.e. a proof by technique) that almost all apps will run right @ there from the beginning. With the Alpha -> IA63 transition this isn't the case.i   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 18:32:14 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) : Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated, Message-ID: <MFVbm5gV2I4b@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>  0 In article <tji3n47ge8e60b@news.supernews.com>, +     "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:a > A > 32 bit processors are a dead end for general purpose computing.   A     Which problem in particular do you see 32bit processors beingl< inadequate for? Will those problems need to be solved by the  average desktop system customer?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:18:24 -0400e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>o: Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated, Message-ID: <3B394270.6AD34733@videotron.ca>   John Vottero wrote:"L > bits by Intel (AMD is trying though).  Intel effectively announced the endJ > of life of IA32 when they announced IA64.  It will be a long time before9 > they stop manufacturing IA32 but it's still a dead end.-  M When Digital embarked on the ALpha project, we knew that VAX woudl eventually M be retired. But Digital continued developpement of VAX for quite a while, and-K afterwards continued to build systems based on VAX chips built in one large E batch. The official word on the decommisionning of VAX was last year.d  K We know that IA32 will eventually be history, but it is not history yet. PC9K makers are still making it, intel is still fabbing it and I would very much ; doubt that new faster 8086s aren't already in the pipeline.c   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:07:42 GMT1. From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>: Subject: Re: The death of VMS has been greatly exaggerated; Message-ID: <i_c_6.10182$P5.3695665@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>P  8 Bob Koehler <koehler@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:Mh0T0Ht+Ir$3@eisner.encompasserve.org...mJ > Don't confuse hardware profit margins with software profit margins.  TheH > platform may be near cost to be competitive, but Compaq has shown thatF > people will pay a little extra for VMS.  It'd Tru64 that I can't seeG > people paying extra for.  I think it's a pretty good UNIX, but how doi5 > you sell one UNIX over another on similar hardware?t  A By cancelling the OpenVMS to IA64 port, move strategic componentstI (clustering, RMS compatibility, etc) out of OpenVMS and add them to Tru64hI (what?  OpenVMS bits in Tru64???), and offer it up as a 'better UNIX than F UNIX', while meeting DII COE and UNIX branding requirements.  One port& instead of two, one OS instead of two.  K Problem is, there won't be many OpenVMS customers left if they do that.  OfAJ course, the ones that are left will say they're happy with what the Q gave; them, and the others will never be interviewed or surveyed.t  J Who's going to pay $2,000 for an OS on a $1,000 platform?  A little extra,I yes, meaning the price will have to be within 2x or so of the rest of thewL industry, with Microsoft providing a good example.  $200 or so for a copy ofK the workstation version, $500 for the server; OpenVMS will have to come outiI with a workstation version and have it priced under $500 to keep everyone K from laughing outright, and under $400 to even be considered by more than adL few.  I hope this kind of a pricing and packaging structure is considered in! future plans if OpenVMS survives.T   Aaron  --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html> Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/K "Oh my God, they killed Alpha!!!  You bastards!" (Anonymous Alpha Engineer)i   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:43:46 -0400T& From: Joe Hodge <jhodge@biglizard.net> Subject: Re: VMS on UltraSparc?r0 Message-ID: <B75EB292.5393%jhodge@biglizard.net>  I Given the context of the discussion, calling SPARC a "dead end" is pretty L funny.  SPARC may not be a peak performer like Alpha, but it does have a few things going for it:  1 1.  An impressive and growing software catalogue.o  I 2.  A quite reasonably stable, 64-bit clean OS that is free on any systemF smaller that 8 processor.M  D 3.  A large population of developers, administrators and consultants available to employers.l  = 3.  A vendor with an actual, functional marketing department.l  H 4.  Small, inexpensive systems for development workstations, test boxes,I training, etc.  On the low end where hobbyists and help desks live, $2500o) buys a lot more SPARC that it does Alpha.   F 4.  Frankly, going by SPEC CPU2000-FP scores, performance that is onlyL ~25-33% slower per MHz than Alpha (comparing the 750MHz 21264A/Tru64 and theE 750Mhz US-III/Sol8).  For most purposes, that is probably acceptable.t    J Anyway, I've got Alpha/VMS and I've got SPARC/Solaris and I know which one I'll be buying more of.t   Joep  B in article Tb3_6.156$rc5.5071@news.cpqcorp.net, Fred Kleinsorge at6 kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com wrote on 26/06/2001 12:59:  J > Hmm.  And people complain about Itanium being a big "unknown".  Sparc isM > known, it's slow, it's a dead end.  Wait a couple years for Solaris/Itaniumd > to be Suns new platform. >  > F > Joe Hodge wrote in message <3b379b86.17644962@news.supernews.com>...I >> I have heard, although not from a reputable source, that a VMS port to I >> UltraSparc is a possibility as Compaq's exit strategy for both VMS andvE >> Tru64 customers -- customers who aren't going to want to move to asI >> first generation architecture.  Sun will happily cooperate in anythingm: >> that screws Intel and/or MS and Compaq has never been aB >> microelectronic or software powerhouse.  Should I give this any >> credence? >> m >> Joe >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:58:34 -0400t' From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> $ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning....( Message-ID: <9hb7cv$751$1@pyrite.mv.net>  : "Terry C Shannon" <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message> news:Pine.SGI.4.21.0106261847380.28481-100000@world.std.com... >i > ) > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Scott Vieth wrote:t >rH > > Regarding the messages in comp.os.vms after Compaq's announcement to > > port VMS to IA64:h > >nL > > Man, did it sound like this when the PDP systems were going away and the) > > awful new VAX systems were announced?oE > > Did everyone piss and moan and proclaim that the sky was falling?r > > 1 > > No, VMS is not going to dry up and blow away.f >iL > Ya never know. Thanks to the generous contributions of flamers and lamers,J > at least one Compaq competitor ALREADY is using threads from comp.os.vms > in its FUD portfolio.e  ; Methinks you need a remedial course in root cause analysis..   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:23:06 +10000/ From: "Phil Howell" <phowell@snowyhydro.com.au>j$ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning....3 Message-ID: <2Aa_6.12309$qJ4.502008@ozemail.com.au>.  1 "Scott Vieth" <svieth@wi.rr.com> wrote in messagea# news:3B37FEB3.2449B8EA@wi.rr.com...sF > Regarding the messages in comp.os.vms after Compaq's announcement to > port VMS to IA64:f >oJ > Man, did it sound like this when the PDP systems were going away and the' > awful new VAX systems were announced?gC > Did everyone piss and moan and proclaim that the sky was falling? ? Err yes - lots of people thought that vax/vms was a "bad thing"I5 and that dec should have developed the pdp-10/tops-10h >t/ > No, VMS is not going to dry up and blow away.eE > No, this is not the week you should switch jobs and give up on VMS.hG > If anything, there's going to be more work in the future as companiest > migrate from AlphaJ > to VMS.  Get a few of those migrations under your belt and you'll have a > pretty handsome resume.s >nH > If more and more of you "veterans" quit and run away, that just leaves, > more job opportunities for the rest of us. >MH > Hell, I might just hang out my shingle a few years from now and travel3 > around the country helping companies migrate frome! > Alpha (or VAX) to VMS-on-Intel.> > E > The best Alpha chip engineers will be joining forces with the Intele3 > Itanium chip designers to come up with a kick-ass F > system. It's going to be better than anything we have today.  Why is > this a bad thing?  > H > We'll have Intel-based servers that will crush today's top-of-the-line > AlphaServers.I >>G > There will *still* be a demand in the job market for VMS admins.  Youa( > guys are not employed because you knowH > a particular OS; it's because of the way you manage your systems.  You6 > have very reliable backup schemes in place. You knowH > how to apply OS upgrades off-hours without paralyzing the company. YouB > know how to design a system that can run 24x7, survive a naturalF > disaster and can pretty much manage itself through the use of crafty
 > scripts. >0G > Take a look at your "network admins" or your "NT admins".  The peopler@ > who apply service packs in the middle of the day or reboot theJ > server in the middle of the day without a second thought.  Wouldn't your6 > boss love to have "your way of doing things" appliedD > to the Intel-based servers so those numbnuts would learn from you? >@F > This is only beginning of a very glorious age.  I can't wait to lookJ > back five years from now when I get iVMS 9.0 running on a multiprocessor4 > Itanium system with a terabyte of memory on board. >  > -Scott :^)H I agree - the old grey book "guide to building dependable systems" still appliess: no matter what hardware or operating system you are using.J My view of this Intel/Compaq deal is that Intel, having developed a 64-bitK architecture that performed well in benchmarks, was having problems beating K Alphas when trying to get it to do "real work". One of the reasons for thist wasaH the close relationship between the alpha chip designers and the compiler developers.h= The solution for Intel - buy the people and development toolsy3 Just look where Steve Lionel and his team are goingu Phil   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 19:02:45 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) $ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning...., Message-ID: <bD98xHourTgk@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>  E In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0106261847380.28481-100000@world.std.com>, u4      Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes: >> n0 >> No, VMS is not going to dry up and blow away. > L > Ya never know. Thanks to the generous contributions of flamers and lamers,J > at least one Compaq competitor ALREADY is using threads from comp.os.vms > in its FUD portfolio.  >   L       So what are the Armani analysts saying about the plan? Don't you thinkI their opinions are going to carry a lot more clout with the PHBs than the 3 rantings of a few disgruntled (ex)Compaq customers?   L       You know, about a year ago I suggested in this NG that VMS engineeringG ought to be considering a contingency plan for migrating to IA64 shouldtH the plug get pulled on Alpha. I was roundly trounced by someone from VMSG management who basically said it was absolutely stupid to consider such H a thing until it happened. Well now it's happened and it seems they haveK a monumental task ahead of them and a pretty short timeframe ( particularlyqG given that the purported future Intel processor that will be capable oftR running VMS has not even been announced ). If this migration was a long range planH that had been on the drawing board since Compaq took over Digital I'd beM a lot more comfortable than if ( as someone here suggested ) it's more a casesI of Compaq waking up one morning and saying "we need some quick cash, whate  can we take to the pawn shop" ).  G     The biggest problem I see is that the roadmap shows no AlphaserversoL after the end of 2004. If I was contemplating a VAX migration today I'd wantK some hard answers about whether the conversion was worth the effort in thathD short timeframe ( ie will I have to do just as much work later to goL to IPF? ). I'm surprised CPQ isn't offering to keep selling Alphaservers forI quite a bit longer than 3.5 years from now - particularly when VMS on IPFc< will only start shipping to customers around that same time.  I      This decision may well be the correct one in the long range ( thoughnC I'd rather hear Hoff saying "we know we can do it" than "it will beeG interesting" ), but CPQ has yanked the rug out of a number of customerstE expectations and shouldn't be surprised if that creates concerns. The G sooner they make firm commitments about investment protection ( such asuB that all Alpha LP licences will transfer to IPF at no charge ) theI better. The sooner they get all the major 3rd parties in the VMS software M game ( Oracle, Process Software, Cognos, etc ) to commit to similar migration25 timelines and license transfer allowances the better.T  I      I'm still a strong believer in VMS and expect to still be running it G 10 years from now. Whether that will be with the co-operation of Compaqs% or in spite of it remains to be seen.o  G      In a perverse way it's nice to know that the competitors listen to D what we say on comp.os.vms. It's never seemed that Compaq management does :-)   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 22:45:56 -05009 From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) $ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning....3 Message-ID: <$e$Bz8Ndj+UL@eisner.encompasserve.org>A  ` In article <bD98xHourTgk@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>, nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) writes:  I >     The biggest problem I see is that the roadmap shows no AlphaserverstN > after the end of 2004. If I was contemplating a VAX migration today I'd wantM > some hard answers about whether the conversion was worth the effort in that F > short timeframe ( ie will I have to do just as much work later to goN > to IPF? ). I'm surprised CPQ isn't offering to keep selling Alphaservers forK > quite a bit longer than 3.5 years from now - particularly when VMS on IPFe> > will only start shipping to customers around that same time.  C I believe you have seriously mistaken the date for "no new designs" E with the date for "no further sales".  If sales of Alpha EV78 systems D are still rolling briskly along, Compaq has no need to stop selling.  A Large customers Not So Angry as this group might even make CompaqiB an offer they could not refuse to keep on making the Alpha models.   That does not mean new designs.k   ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 20:03:52 -07001 From: nothome@spammers.are.scum (Malcolm Dunnett) $ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning...., Message-ID: <PJ9MRPhuC3YW@malvm5.mala.bc.ca>  4 In article <$e$Bz8Ndj+UL@eisner.encompasserve.org>, A       Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) writes:m  J >>     The biggest problem I see is that the roadmap shows no AlphaserversO >> after the end of 2004. If I was contemplating a VAX migration today I'd want N >> some hard answers about whether the conversion was worth the effort in thatG >> short timeframe ( ie will I have to do just as much work later to golO >> to IPF? ). I'm surprised CPQ isn't offering to keep selling Alphaservers fortL >> quite a bit longer than 3.5 years from now - particularly when VMS on IPF? >> will only start shipping to customers around that same time.n > E > I believe you have seriously mistaken the date for "no new designs"aG > with the date for "no further sales".  If sales of Alpha EV78 systemsiF > are still rolling briskly along, Compaq has no need to stop selling. >   E      That may be ( I hope it is true ). Do we have any "last customer F ship" dates for Alphaservers. Do we have public statements from CompaqH along the lines of "we'll keep selling Alphaservers as long as customersI want them"?  If Compaq wanted to indicate their intention to keep sellingaC Alphaservers beyond that date it would have been easy to extend the C arrows on the chart ( this comes from the "High Performance systemsp^ Roadmap" at http://www.compaq.com/hps/ifp-enterprise/download/OVMS_Customer_Presentation.ppt )  :    As our company public relations department always says:  9   "In the absence of information people assume the worst"s   > Large customers Not So Angry  D     I'm not angry. I'm a little bit excited and a whole lot worried.  ' >  as this group might even make CompaqnD > an offer they could not refuse to keep on making the Alpha models. >   L     I don't really care if the NSA (or whoever) can keep buying Wildfires atN several million a pop - what I need to know is that there will be a $10-20,000) VMS box available when I need an upgrade.5  L     (actually the roadmap is quite interesting in that respect - what is theH 833mhz, 2 processor, 1U DS server due out this year? I'm going to need a5 replacement for an Alphastation 500/500 pretty soon )r   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:41:24 GMTo. From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>$ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning....; Message-ID: <EBc_6.10026$P5.3672750@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>   B > "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message- > news:k93_6.155$rc5.4946@news.cpqcorp.net...3 > >.! > > Alphaman wrote in message ...e4 > > >Scott Vieth <svieth@wi.rr.com> wrote in message > > >fE > > >My guess is that rather than port VMS to IA64, they'll find it's  cheaperb > toG > > >port pieces of VMS to Tru64 on IA64 and increase Tru64 marketshare- > > >overnight > >rJ > > If that were the case, I'd be moving to the Tru64 group.  My resume is NOTi5 > > on the street, or on the desk of anyone in Tru64.n > >f7 > > The option you propose hasn't even been brought up.i  F Well now wouldn't that be a fine solution?  Get rid of the proprietaryL OpenVMS, but give Tru64 enough OpenVMS components to "add value" and make itH "Compaq unique".  Then they'd only have a UNIX system to support, makingF things a lot easier for sales, code portability, and software engineerF hiring.  Ditch that wierd Digital baggage and do something based on an4 industry standard -- much more palpable, I'm afraid.  J Of course it's not been brought up.  I suspect that this will be somethingI that we will all be surprised with 6 or 9 or 12 months from now, when theeH port to OpenVMS is proving to be too expensive according to some unknownJ unseen beancounter in some far off ivory tower with metrics that are neverE seen by mortal man.  And please don't try to tell us that it couldn't I happen -- we all know the Q would never lie nor keep true plans concealednK from customers and employees, nor surprise anyone with a sudden reversal ind	 strategy.e  J Just watch your collective backs, Fred et. al.  I'd take heed to the priorK post regarding making a deal with management that if the Q decides to ditchoG OpenVMS before or after the port, it be given to the engineers with alla. rights and licenses to do with as they please.   Aaroni --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html> Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/K "Oh my God, they killed Alpha!!!  You bastards!" (Anonymous Alpha Engineer)    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:07:38 -0400i- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>$$ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning...., Message-ID: <3B395C02.58EFC942@videotron.ca>   Alphaman wrote:xK > that we will all be surprised with 6 or 9 or 12 months from now, when the.J > port to OpenVMS is proving to be too expensive according to some unknownL > unseen beancounter in some far off ivory tower with metrics that are never > seen by mortal man.     N For as much as I disagree with Compaq's decision and for as much as I distrustJ Compaq, I think that once the engineers are given the task to port to thatK inferior chip, they will succeed in doing it. They should know very quicklyeL what is involved in the port (eg: apart from the recompiles, what structuresI and facilities will have to be emulated because IA64 doesn't provide it).n  K Remember that this is a very small project that is being funded by Intel as0H part of a much greater project. While I have no confidence that Compaq'sN lawyers will ensure that Intel will fund the VMS port to its end, I think that4 they will succeed in booting VMS on that IA64 thing.  M If there are any cuts to the project, I suspect it will have to do with fancyaL stuff such as Galaxies. They'll get a basic VMS to boot, at which point theyL can declare the project done if the interest in VMS has gone away. RemainingC large custoemrs stuck on Alpha will be stuck on Alpha until offeredoK alternatives on other operating systems, all the while Compaq continuing tor support VMS.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:04:21 -0700d5 From: "cstranslations" <cstranslations@email.msn.com>n$ Subject: Re: Wailing and moaning....) Message-ID: <eTOvb1q$AHA.263@cpmsnbbsa09>h  : "Terry C Shannon" <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message> news:Pine.SGI.4.21.0106261847380.28481-100000@world.std.com... >c >a) > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Scott Vieth wrote:z >-H > > Regarding the messages in comp.os.vms after Compaq's announcement to > > port VMS to IA64:I > >oL > > Man, did it sound like this when the PDP systems were going away and the) > > awful new VAX systems were announced? E > > Did everyone piss and moan and proclaim that the sky was falling?5 > > 1 > > No, VMS is not going to dry up and blow away.i >uL > Ya never know. Thanks to the generous contributions of flamers and lamers,J > at least one Compaq competitor ALREADY is using threads from comp.os.vms > in its FUD portfolio.4  F Yup. Well there always has been moaning and groaning here that OpenVMSI doesn't run on IA32 and how beneficial it would be if it did. What's thati: saying, "be careful what you whish for, you might get it."  G It's "western philosophy " (spend your life chasing after "happiness"). K Eastern philosophies tend to run along the lines of your born in a state ofC7 happiness and you spend your life trying to stay there.w  I Now it's gonna run on IA64. Guess people need something to wail and gnash-B their teeth about. Be careful what you wish for in your pursuit of happiness...   Joel   ------------------------------   Date: 26 Jun 2001 23:01:12 GMT' From: prosullivan@aol.com (PROSULLIVAN)C, Subject: Re: What about performance issues??: Message-ID: <20010626190112.16010.00000864@ng-da1.aol.com>  @ >It has been said here that VMS performance, particularly I/O is+ >considerably slower than under other OSes.   L Digital's own spec ratings for Alpha were different if the alpha was runningM vms or (then digital unix). Guess which one was rated slower? Guess which one  was more resilient?    ------------------------------    Date: 26 Jun 2001 22:45:21 -0700" From: lyngwyst@aol.com (Jay Braun) Subject: Why not port?= Message-ID: <4ce97a1a.0106262145.698c25f4@posting.google.com>s  F I just completed a port of a VMS application to Linux.  Sure, it was a@ lot of work, but we no longer have to worry about the whims of aA single company like Compaq.  Also, most Linux tools are free, and-; there are plenty of books available on a variety of topics.m  E Applications and organizations are all unique, and a move to Linux oraE some other popular OS might not be for you.  UNIX and Linux are dirtyt? words to many of this newsgroups' regulars.  But if you can get8C yourself beyond the "religious" issues, you might add years to yourq applications' life cycles.  E Of what use is a better OS -- assuming VMS is better -- if it runs on  very few architectures?u   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.353 ************************