1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 03 Nov 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 612       Contents: Re: Compaq guarantees? Re: Compaq guarantees? Re: Compaq guarantees? Re: Compaq guarantees? Re: Compaq guarantees? DEC DOCUMENT product removal? ! Re: DEC DOCUMENT product removal? ! Re: DEC DOCUMENT product removal?  HSZ40B vs. HSZ40C ! Re: savesets,  CDs and attributes  SHOW DEV/FILES question  Re: SHOW DEV/FILES question  Re: Undo disk Initialize Re: Undo disk Initialize  Re: VMS at Intel on The Inquirer& Re: X.25 profile documentation wanted.  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 03:04:06 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>  Subject: Re: Compaq guarantees? , Message-ID: <3BE3A4F5.54CF1A6A@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote:H > I don't think you understood the guarantee:  it had nothing to do withE > satisfaction with the products (which were Alpha products, not IA64  > replacements)      Here is a quote again: ##* Money Back Customer Satisfaction Guarantee@ If the transition to an Itanium processor family system running> OpenVMS or the planned converged enterprise UNIX does not meetC customer expectations, Compaq will take back the Itanium processor 0 family system and refund its purchase price(1)   ##  N If I didn't understand this correctly, I think that I am truly a hopeless case9 and I should register myself into a mentally ill auspice.   ! Now, as far as the first promise:  ##) "AlphaServer Product Continuity Guarantee C If the EV68 AlphaServer ES or GS family, from which you purchase or @ lease a product, is terminated following the consummation of theF proposed merger with HP, the customer may receive a trade-in credit onC a replacement product that amounts to 110% of the original purchase D price.(2)  Also, the terminated product will continue to be servicedD and supported for five years following end-of-life notification if a5 hardware product, or one year if a software product."  ##  L Couldn't this simply mean that if you buy a GS series between the merger andI the start of EV7 systems (which are incompatible with EV6x in a wildfire, H right ?), then you can send the EV6X system back for a refund of 110% toJ purchase an EV7. A bit like if you buy a old version of software a certainJ time before the new version is released, you get the new version for free.  L This would mean that Alpha sales have gone done significantly and Compaq areN trying to spur HP sales now with a garantee that a move to EV7 next year won't cost much of any.     N Now, the bad part of this though is that if you have invested a few million inK a wildfire, what this says is that your wildfire you purchased prior to the I merger won't have any value to upgrade to EV7, and when EV7 comes out and L terminates the EV6x product line, your machine will be maintained for only 53 years, forcing you to change hardware at that time.   N Assuming the merger is consumed in February 2001, if I was looking at buying aL wildfire, I would now wait until after the merger to buy it since when I buyK it after the merger, I essentially get a free update to EV7. So alpha sales B would drop big time between now and the consumation of the merger.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 08:25:11 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Compaq guarantees? @ Message-ID: <HRNE7.48343$U7.3575349@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  = Terry C. Shannon <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 5 news:gtLE7.3437$kw.1420394@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...    ...   I > I still don't see why Compaq or cHomPaq or Hewlett PAQard would scuttle  the  > Alpha products in question.   F Many of us have equal difficulty understanding why Compaq scuttled theG products it's already done in.  Didn't stop them from doing it, though.   /  Much of the heavy lifting has been done on EV7 H > and the Marvel platform; 32-way Marvels are up and running in the labs now.E > The platform seems to be on track for a late 2002-early 2003 debut. J > Cancelling the project would seal the fate of VMS since the VMS/IPF port$ > won't be street-ready until 2003-4  L Judging by the history of decisions by the brain-trust that to a significantC degree will be continuing to direct the future (or lack thereof) of K Alpha-related products, they're completely capable of deciding that EV6x is G good enough to carry VMS forward until such time as IPF can take over - K especially if it's clear that everyone who has any other option has already J exercised it and thus that the remaining VMS audience is almost completely captive.  D Not that it's clear they really think VMS's survival is particularlyG important, of course - which will be even more debatable if its revenue K takes the dive it seems to be taking after first the June 25th and then the  Sept. 4th announcements.  (  and the IPF hardware that's supposed toK > run the OS (the post-Marvel Blade and fabric server family) won't see the  > light of day until 2004-5.  K Everything that's been said so far has stated that the VMS port is targeted K to the McKinley family (including Madison and presumably Deerfield) members I of IPF, and has specifically rejected the notion that any yet-undisclosed J architecture changes will be required for full VMS support.  The CETS road? maps showed VMS fully ported and available (in 2004) before any  post-Deerfield member appears.   > J > The revenue (and margin) cost associated with the hypothetical MarvelousL > Interruptus would be extremely high, especially given that the majority of! > the R&D is a done deal already.   E Margin means nothing without sufficient volume to realize significant J revenue.  Should Alpha lack that volume next year, dropping EV7 would haveH little down-side and would eliminate the highly embarrassing performanceF comparisons with contemporary IPF members (since EV7's advantages overL McKinley, Madison, and Deerfield in memory bandwidth *and* latency should be
 decisive).   > J > Where would Compaq or cHomPaq or Hewlett PAQard turn to make up for this1 > lost revenue and margin? Windoze boxes? Hardly.   J They've already said they'll make it up in services:  that's why they wereJ happy to trash Alpha's *existing* revenues and margins.  Stupid, yes - butK assuming they'll be any less stupid in the future isn't a bet I'd encourage  anyone to make.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 08:41:12 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: Compaq guarantees? ? Message-ID: <I4OE7.650434$Lw3.41422612@news2.aus1.giganews.com>   8 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3BE3A4F5.54CF1A6A@videotron.ca... > Bill Todd wrote:J > > I don't think you understood the guarantee:  it had nothing to do withG > > satisfaction with the products (which were Alpha products, not IA64  > > replacements)  >  >  > Here is a quote again: > ##, > Money Back Customer Satisfaction GuaranteeB > If the transition to an ItaniumT processor family system running@ > OpenVMS or the planned converged enterprise UNIX does not meetE > customer expectations, Compaq will take back the ItaniumT processor 0 > family system and refund its purchase price(1) > ## > K > If I didn't understand this correctly, I think that I am truly a hopeless  case; > and I should register myself into a mentally ill auspice.   L Then I guess what you failed to understand was that the sub-topic explicitlyH referred (see my original post) to the guarantee you quote below, rather  than to the one you quote above.   > # > Now, as far as the first promise:  > ##+ > "AlphaServer Product Continuity Guarantee E > If the EV68 AlphaServer ES or GS family, from which you purchase or B > lease a product, is terminated following the consummation of theH > proposed merger with HP, the customer may receive a trade-in credit onE > a replacement product that amounts to 110% of the original purchase F > price.(2)  Also, the terminated product will continue to be servicedF > and supported for five years following end-of-life notification if a7 > hardware product, or one year if a software product."  > ## > J > Couldn't this simply mean that if you buy a GS series between the merger  F I read the intent as applying to pre-merger purchases, not post-mergerJ purchases.  And I'm frankly mystified as to what the intent is in terms ofL 'terminated' ES or GS products - unless they believe that people are worriedK about being able to continue to add identical members to their installation L for a lengthy period of time rather than mix in newer (potentially costlier,  I suppose) architecture members.  L Does the omission of DS mean low-end systems are kaput?  ISTR someone saying( something along those lines somewhere...    andK > the start of EV7 systems (which are incompatible with EV6x in a wildfire, J > right ?), then you can send the EV6X system back for a refund of 110% toL > purchase an EV7. A bit like if you buy a old version of software a certainL > time before the new version is released, you get the new version for free.  L Or not, since the scuttlebutt is that EV7 systems may well cost a great dealJ more than EV6 systems.  Especially now that there's far less motivation to5 try to price them competitively to gain market share.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 04:45:26 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>  Subject: Re: Compaq guarantees? , Message-ID: <3BE3BCAD.BB649289@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote: ##G > > If the EV68 AlphaServer ES or GS family, from which you purchase or D > > lease a product, is terminated following the consummation of theJ > > proposed merger with HP, the customer may receive a trade-in credit onG > > a replacement product that amounts to 110% of the original purchase  > > price.(2)  ##  H > I read the intent as applying to pre-merger purchases, not post-merger
 > purchases.    K You're right. The promise applies only if HP kills EV68. If Compaq kills it * before merger, then that promise is void.    Another way to look at at:  L as soon as EV7 is out, the timer for EV68 support is 5 years. After 5 years,M if you haven't upgraded, you're out of luck and at that point you have either L the dead EV7 or the new Itanium to choose, but you're forced to buy since HP3 will no longer support your million dollar machine.   F Another way to look at it: Existing EV68 customers will be given heftyN discounts when buying EV7 equivalents to their existing wildfire. Since CompaqN has probably committe to producing a certain number of EV7 chips, it will needK to spur sales of those machines with those hefty discounts otherwise nobody  would buy them.   H This isn't all that stupid. With Tru64 declared dead, and with VMS stillL ignored, by giving strong financial incentives to stick to Alpha and upgradeJ at very low cost, Compaq has greater chance of keeping the remaining AlphaM customers who would otherwise migrate to Sun or IBM right away (not bothering + to wait the 4 years for that Itanium junk).     I Without that promise, customers with million dollar investment in an EV6x L wildfire would be stuck with a box that is no longer upgradable since EV7 isM not compatible. That would be one opportunity to finally get out of VMS/TRU64 F for good and go to Sun/IBM. By making the upgrade to the new EV7 basedJ wildfile equivalents very cheap, it provides an affordable means for thoseN customers to stay with HP/Compaq on Alpha for a few more years, giving HP timeG to generate some IA64 solutions that might be palatable/acceptable as a $ replacement for those Alpha systems.  K In other words, give the alpha away for free to existing large customers so P that thety stay with HP long enough to buy the IA64 stuff when it becomes ready.  N > Does the omission of DS mean low-end systems are kaput?  ISTR someone saying* > something along those lines somewhere...  J Means that HP doesn't care about those. Besides, it *might* be possible toD upgrade a DS10 with an EV7 chip sicne it wouldn't be using the fancyL multi-processor interconnects of the EV7 generation of "wildfires". And evenK if it isn't possible to upgrade your smaller system, their costs are not so 4 high that investment protection is really necessary.  I Remember that Compaq /HP only care about keeping the large VMS customers. O Those are the ones that generate the profits. Not the small guys who buy DS10s.   N > Or not, since the scuttlebutt is that EV7 systems may well cost a great dealL > more than EV6 systems.  Especially now that there's far less motivation to7 > try to price them competitively to gain market share.   H Au contraire. Now that Alpha is dead and unmarketable, they can drop theI prices to existing customers to keep those customers until IA64 is ready. I Since Alpha won't be marketed, even if they were to sell a DS10 for $500, 8 nobody would buy them except the militant VMS hobbyists.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 09:42:06 -0500 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> Subject: Re: Compaq guarantees? , Message-ID: <3BE4023E.9000508@tsoft-inc.com>   Bill Todd wrote:  ? > Terry C. Shannon <terryshannon@mediaone.net> wrote in message 7 > news:KEIE7.3289$kw.1359673@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...  > 7 >>"David Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message ( >>news:3BE339BE.1040206@tsoft-inc.com... >> >>H >>>All it would have taken was a slightly better handled transition.  Do@ >>>the port first, then if it works, think about dropping Alpha. >>>  >>> L >>Makes sense on the surface, but I believe CPQ got a much better deal from,F >>and much more leverage with, INTC by announcing the end of the Alpha >>	 > roadmap  >  >>when they did. >> > 9 > Which, plus a buck or so, will buy you a cup of coffee.  > N > We don't seem to have seen any cash influx from Intel for the deal in the Q3L > results, which suggests that any compensation may have been in the form ofI > discounts.  But we don't see any profit from Intel-based products in Q3 * > either, so what does that leave us with? > N > There's a very real question whether Intel has anything of significant valueL > to offer Compaq.  It apparently can't compete with AMD on IA32 pricing, soI > unless AMD can be deprecated or destroyed there's really nothing it can N > offer Compaq in the low end short of selling IA32 processors at a large lossM > (anything less wouldn't noticeably affect total system cost) - just to make N > them cost-competitive with anyone else's AMD systems.  And the value of IA64N > has yet to be established:  it certainly doesn't promise to *do* anything asL > well as, let alone as cost-effectively as, its competition - ever, and itsJ > inability to run IA32 code at competitive speeds makes any claim that it > will replace IA32 laughable. > L > I suppose you could say that *now that Compaq has wholly committed to IA64K > as a platform* Intel can do it some favors, but given that it abandoned a M > far better platform (including one that has the demonstrated ability to run E > IA32 code far faster than Merced can...) to obtain those favors the 0 > reasoning behind the decision remains obscure. >  > - bill  P While not being astute enough to be all knowing, I can only see several reasons.    D 1) Some people who would have bought the golden gate bridge from an  inept con-man.   2) Incredible stupidity.   3) Bribes, very large bribes.    Dave     --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Nov 2001 02:56:23 -0800 ) From: P.Young@unsw.EDU.AU (Patrick Young) & Subject: DEC DOCUMENT product removal?= Message-ID: <55f85d77.0111030256.2b699686@posting.google.com>   6 I note that the DEC DOCUMENT software has been removed/ from the "Q3CY01" layered product distribution.   8 Sorry if this has been asked before (I'm a very strange,2 and forgetful type of person with _NO_ short term  memory).  6 I've just started to learn to use this software and am4 finding it not only very easy to use, but especially "Very Cool & Sexy"(tm).   5 I would not like to lose it now that I have found it.N  1 The instructions provide no clue as to why it was  removed.  2 Even more importantly, will the license be removed from next years CSLG????   Many (in advance) thanks.    ------------------------------   Date: 3 Nov 2001 07:01:27 -0600E- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) * Subject: Re: DEC DOCUMENT product removal?3 Message-ID: <qTZ+X50utZlh@eisner.encompasserve.org>   i In article <55f85d77.0111030256.2b699686@posting.google.com>, P.Young@unsw.EDU.AU (Patrick Young) writes:i8 > I note that the DEC DOCUMENT software has been removed1 > from the "Q3CY01" layered product distribution.1  8 > I've just started to learn to use this software and am6 > finding it not only very easy to use, but especially > "Very Cool & Sexy"(tm).> > 7 > I would not like to lose it now that I have found it.a  A I don't know about CSLG, but buying a personal use license directh5 from Touch Technologies should not be that expensive.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 16:44:40 GMT - From: "Richard L. Dyson" <rickdyson@home.com>l* Subject: Re: DEC DOCUMENT product removal?( Message-ID: <3BE41EF2.C3394673@home.com>   Patrick Young wrote:7 > I would not like to lose it now that I have found it.n > < > The instructions provide no clue as to why it was removed. > L > Even more importantly, will the license be removed from next years CSLG???  F 	I recently talked with the product manager and she told me there wereL no current plans to drop anything from the CSLG program nor make any changesK for pricing for the next year, 2002.  Of course, this is just hear say, butt* I have no reason to doubt it at this time.  1 Assuming there is still a HPaq company next year.    rick   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Nov 2001 01:05:49 -0600 + From: kuhrt@encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt)o Subject: HSZ40B vs. HSZ40C3 Message-ID: <7wDmpieSfrG2@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  C A week or so ago, you might have seen my questions about getting antA HSZ40 working with KZPSAs in a pair of AlphaStation 200 4/233.  IdA finally did get it working, but I also ran across a few oddities,i* which I was hoping someone could clear up.  A I finally got an HSZ40B to work, but two different HSZ40Cs that IfA hooked up to the same combination of KZPSAs, storage shelves, HSZeF backplanes, and cables would not work.  All of the HSZ40s were workingC in production a few weeks ago, and would recognize the disks in thetF shelves just fine.  The HSZ40Cs would cause the AS 200 to crash at theB >>> prompt after a short while (no OS involved at this point, justE sitting at the >>>).  The HSZ wouldn't complain (i.e. show any errorsy> on the its console) when the console would crash in any of the@ configurations, so it seems unlikely that it was an HSZ problem.  E So, long question short, is there some fundamental difference betweenf an HSZ40B and an HSZ40C?   ------------------------------   Date: 3 Nov 2001 06:59:18 -06001- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)l* Subject: Re: savesets,  CDs and attributes3 Message-ID: <3NUA0hi$6EJ0@eisner.encompasserve.org>g  [ In article <3BE36B71.6A33131C@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:f > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> -^ >> In article <3BE21635.8FFCC3DE@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:	 >> [snip]:L >> > Then again, given how one MOUNTs an ISO-9660 disc, I don't see how thatK >> > could be enabled without mucho changes to the OpenVMS system software. B >> > See HELP MOUNT /MEDIA and/or the appropriate source listings. >> tI >> If VMS does not handle this correctly, then indeed DEQ has work to do, 3 >> but the fields are there in the ISO-9660 format.a > G > If anyone has any pointers to VMS documentation about how/whether anyeB > ISO-9660 cells are actually examined by VMS/RMS, please cite the: > appropriate documents. I'd really be interested to know.  ; I strongly believe the only documentation is in the source.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 08:26:16 -0500e- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>M  Subject: SHOW DEV/FILES question, Message-ID: <3BE3F076.8FFD077E@videotron.ca>  M Looking to check sanity of the installed images list to ensure optimum use ofrF TPU where you have a few processes running the editor, I stumbled onto, something strange I had not expected before:  9 $ pipe show dev/files $disk4 | search sys$input jfmezei_1e: JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]VAXCMSG.EXE;1D JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]DECW$TRANSPORTMSG.EXE;1? JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]DECW$XLIBMSG.EXE;1 C JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]DECW$TERMINALMSG.EXE;1e6 JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [JFMEZEI]TPU$WORK.TPU$WORK;1C JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [JFMEZEI]PROCESS_TRACK_PS_C.TPU$JOURNAL;1 D JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSLIB]EVE$WIDGETS_MOTIF.UID;1  L The listing does not include any files that the process has opened, but haveM been installed/shared. Yet, for files that are not installed/shared, they aree9 listed as many times as there are processes accessing it.n  J Is this a case of SHOW DEV/FILES filtering out installed files opened by aN process,  or are such files omitted because their are not opened "normally" by9 the process since they are in the installed images list ?M  M While I am at it, the few msg files listed above are all less than 10 blocks..G Is it a waste to install them /share when you have 2-3 instances of TPUM	 running ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 18:58:21 +0100 & From: John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch>$ Subject: Re: SHOW DEV/FILES question) Message-ID: <3BE4303D.4915E23@dplanet.ch>h   JF Mezei wrote:t > O > Looking to check sanity of the installed images list to ensure optimum use ofhH > TPU where you have a few processes running the editor, I stumbled onto. > something strange I had not expected before: > ; > $ pipe show dev/files $disk4 | search sys$input jfmezei_1i< > JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]VAXCMSG.EXE;1F > JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]DECW$TRANSPORTMSG.EXE;1A > JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]DECW$XLIBMSG.EXE;1sE > JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSMSG]DECW$TERMINALMSG.EXE;1 8 > JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [JFMEZEI]TPU$WORK.TPU$WORK;1E > JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [JFMEZEI]PROCESS_TRACK_PS_C.TPU$JOURNAL;1-F > JFMEZEI_1       21600383  [VMS$COMMON.SYSLIB]EVE$WIDGETS_MOTIF.UID;1 > N > The listing does not include any files that the process has opened, but haveO > been installed/shared. Yet, for files that are not installed/shared, they arem; > listed as many times as there are processes accessing it.d >rL > Is this a case of SHOW DEV/FILES filtering out installed files opened by aP > process,  or are such files omitted because their are not opened "normally" by; > the process since they are in the installed images list ?u  G That's normal.  IIRC, the files that are installed are listed under PIDaH 00000000.  We are after all talking here of IO channels that are open to> the disk.  Installed images are not assigned to your username.    nO > While I am at it, the few msg files listed above are all less than 10 blocks.pI > Is it a waste to install them /share when you have 2-3 instances of TPUk > running ?u  C Not really a waste but not a big benefit either.  Sure there's somelC minor overheads, all for the sake of just a few processes accessing C them, but those processes don't have the overhead of doing the worke themselves.l  G To be precise, you are sacrificing some small amount of memory in orderrC that other processes may not have to do their own activation of thefH image.  (Note that running a program involves activating all images thatB are listed by ANALYZE/IMAGE, which of course means all the Runtime4 libraries such as the DECW$* routines listed above.)     John McLean    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 02:48:40 -0500.- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> ! Subject: Re: Undo disk Initialize , Message-ID: <3BE3A157.1198994A@videotron.ca>  M > > > Having no INDEXF.SYS to tie things together, it would be a *monumental*nN > > > task to scavenge the disk block by block to associate the data that each8 > > > contains with some previously defined association.  M If you were to scan each physical block of the disk looking for file headers,tN wouldn't you find the one that contains the file header for the desired file ?F From there, would you be able to read all of the data, even if file isL fragmented (i.e. are pointers to the next header/blocks contained inside the file or only in indexf ?)e   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 11:58:41 GMTo= From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-) ! Subject: Re: Undo disk Initializer0 Message-ID: <00A047BD.6F03643F@SendSpamHere.ORG>  N >If you were to scan each physical block of the disk looking for file headers,O >wouldn't you find the one that contains the file header for the desired file ? G >From there, would you be able to read all of the data, even if file iscM >fragmented (i.e. are pointers to the next header/blocks contained inside the  >file or only in indexf ?)  K Not necessarily.  The file headers are in the INDEXF.SYS file.  If the disktK was initialized the file headers of greatest interest may have been written1J over.  It's possible to recover some of the data -- even a majority of the$ data -- but it is not a simple task. --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMS            ,J   "And of course, I'm a genius, so people are naturally drawn to my fiery I   intellect.  Their admiration overwhelms their envy!" -- Calvin & Hobbesv   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 19:16:14 +01000 From: "Philip Lewis" <FerrariTR512m@hotmail.com>) Subject: Re: VMS at Intel on The Inquireru0 Message-ID: <fwWE7.121$Aw1.5674@news.get2net.dk>  J You mean they had to wait until SQLServer was re-written don't you ?  IIRC# SQLServer V7 is a complete rewrite.   = "Randy Park" <rjpark@mindspring.com.nospaam> wrote in messagef- news:9rs00q$t0g$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...y7 > Jan-Erik Sderholm <noone@dummy.com> wrote in message % > news:3BE14A29.51A602BD@dummy.com...e  > > An article at The Inquirer :- > > (http://www.theinquirer.net/01110105.htm)u > >l" > > Intel's dependent on the Alpha
 > >   chip > >i > >   Uses it to make Itanicsv > >f, > >   By Mike Magee, 01/11/2001 10:35:04 BST > >e: > >   WE WONDERED WHY DOUG BUSCH, the IT manager at Intel,B > >   went all coy on us yesterday when we asked about the systemsG > >   running in its factories (fabrication plants) and a little bit ofh, > >   investigation has revealed the answer. > >aE > >   Its fabs are heavily dependent on Alpha microprocessors and runtI > >   OpenVMS to ensure that blue screens of death or glitches in its owna2 > >   chips don't bring the production lines down. > >tJ > >   Intel's long term plan was to migrate to the Merced processor but asF > >   we know that took longer to get to the starting gate than anyone > >   expected.t > >iB > >   For some time, La used VAX/VMS software such as Consilium toG > >   run the different lines and we are reliably informed it was stilln
 > > buying4 > >   Vax 7000 and Vax 10000 machines up until 1996. > >pJ > >   No one wanted to bow down at the shrine of the alien Alpha chip but,I > >   let's face it, Merced was late and so it contracted a big deal with  > > they9 > >   Big Q a few years back to convert to Alpha and VMS.m > >bI > >   That process is now finished, but unfortunately by the terms of thehD > >   agreement, Compaq is unable to shout out to the world that theF > >   Alpha chip is so good that it's even used to make Pentium 4s and > >   Merceds. > >tD > >   But now the game has changed because VMS is, as we believe, toF > >   be ported to the Intel IA-64 architecture, with the first of the > > systemse, > >   booting maybe at the end of next year. > >0A > >   But when will we see a production and rugged version of VMSs. > >   running on a post-McKinley architecture? > >"G > >   Maybe 2005, or 2004 if everything goes swimmingly, which it nevers > >   does.  > >h= > >   And that's why Intella thinks the Alpha is fabtastic. a > >   The Inquirer > >o > > Jan-Erik Sderholm.c >o >s> > Here's another flash that is not well known.  Microsoft used< > VAX/VMS systems to run their business from the early 1980s= > until 1997.  They had one of the largest Vaxclusters in them9 > Seattle area.  They used the Maxcim software package. Ir< > personally know that they were using the Order Processing,> > Receivables, and Payables modules.  I suspect that they also6 > used some of the manufacturing modules in the 1980s. >t> > How do I know these things?  I sold them software to enhance= > the Maxcim package and I knew people in their IT departmente
 > quite well.o >i@ > They starting switching to SAP on W2K using SQL Server in 1996? > but their first attempt failed performance testing.  They had:B > to wait until the row locking feature was working in SQL Server. >  >i >T   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 08:50:57 +0100g From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>/ Subject: Re: X.25 profile documentation wanted."' Message-ID: <3BE3A1E0.C6093ABB@home.nl>    "a.carlini" wrote:   > Alan Greig wrote: D > > When was the last sale date for the DECNIS? If it was later thanI > > 1-FEB-1996 then support should not have ended on 1-FEB-2001 according>E > > to the letter we received signed by Michael Capellas. An absolutetH > > minimum of 5 years hardware and software support should be availableI > > after date of last sale although I am still awaiting clarification on B > > Storageworks items which have ben retired from full support in > > violation of this promise. > @ > I don't have an official date handy but 1996 is way too early.! > 1998/1999 would be much closer.   K I think you're right. I remember that the Decnis was suppose to be dropped,iJ and then there was sudden rise in demand for them. So Digital kept selling	 them.....l  G I have had excellent software support from Compaq UK for the Decnis the 4 last couple of days, so I have no complaints so far.  K The problem is there is no replacement for the Decnis. I can't think of anyhI router product with this kind of functionality. The only thing that comessB close for X.25 purposes would be a Alpha system with the necessaryJ synchronous cards, OpenVMS , Decnet-plus and X.25 loaded.  Of course thereH will be no bridging, Appletalk & Novell routing etc. It's a shame reallyH that such a wonderful product can't be replaced by more modern hardware,0 while retaining and extending the functionality.         >m >sE > > Or did the DECNIS go to DNPG? If so do they not still support it?  >l- > By now, DECnis support may be being done byd( > DNPG - but since your support contract) > (if any) will be with COMPAQ, it should 2 > not matter to you where the call gets redirected
 > after that.i >y	 > Antonio  >2 > -- >  > ---------------c/ > Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.orge   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.612 ************************