1 INFO-VAX	Wed, 14 Nov 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 633       Contents:/ Re: 3rd-party memory for AlphaServer DS systems  BofH strikes again!  Re: Compaq/HP merger in trouble  Re: Compaq/HP merger in trouble  Re: Compaq/HP merger in trouble ) C|Net - HP to kill older 3000 server line - Re: C|Net - HP to kill older 3000 server line D Re: Editing DCL command lines longer than the current terminal widthD Re: Editing DCL command lines longer than the current terminal width" Re: Garage Sale... Hey, Hobbyists!" Re: Garage Sale... Hey, Hobbyists!" Re: Here comes the Compaq spin ..." Re: Here comes the Compaq spin ..." Re: Here comes the Compaq spin ...2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!2 Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!! HP to kill older 3000 server line  HP's bloodthirst Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??  Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??  Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??  Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??  Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ?? A Inquirer: Compaq white paper gives rationale for June 25 decision E Re: Inquirer: Compaq white paper gives rationale for June 25 decision  Re: LIB$xxx  Re: LIB$xxx  Re: LIB$xxx  Re: LIB$xxx  Re: More Compaq lies exposed Re: More Compaq lies exposed Re: More Compaq lies exposed Re: More Compaq lies exposed Re: More Compaq lies exposedE OpenVMS v7.3, DECnet/OSI v7.3 eco 1, Mailbus 200 v2.0c, and X.25 v1.5  RDB - Technical ForumsE Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org E Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org / Re: Transactions per Minute  / How to measure ? # Re: Transparent RMS access to TCPIP # Re: Transparent RMS access to TCPIP ; Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples? ? Re: Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples? ? Re: Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples? ? Re: Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples? C Re: VMS 7.1 Alpha installation on PWS 433a (with correct SCSI card) 
 Re: VMS Crash . Re: What do you think of the HP/Compaq merger? What has Capellas achieved ?  Re: What has Capellas achieved ?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:02:37 GMT 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> 8 Subject: Re: 3rd-party memory for AlphaServer DS systems' Message-ID: <3BF1D3EC.32127001@fsi.net>    Nic Clews wrote: > [snip]J > You're right though Alan, you need to use an electrical earth, using the' > 'equipment' as ground is not correct!   D Curious 'bout that. Seems to me if you're at a "reference" potentialD (earth "zero") and the component/equipment as at some other, unknownH potential, the possibility of damage is at least as great as if you wereF not "grounded" at all. Seems to me that the idea should be to EQUALIZEE charges, not have one at "reference" zero and the other at an unknown  value.  H Same reason you have isolated ground circuits in your power distributionH - they're all at "the same" potential, regardless of its absolute value.  $ But then, what the hell do I know...   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:15:55 -0500 5 From: David Beatty <David.Beatty@qwertysasasdfgh.com>  Subject: BofH strikes again!2 Message-ID: <wuHxO2KfAyxuskTAjNA6wlwkvjgb@4ax.com>  . With some references to old DEC equipment, see3 http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/30/22794.html.    David R. Beatty    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:02:48 -0500 ; From: "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com> ( Subject: Re: Compaq/HP merger in trouble$ Message-ID: <3bf17c50$1@news.si.com>  8 >Double failure.  HP kept its old reputation and Agilent >is invisible.  > Only because Anthony Hopkins stopped making their commercials. --  A Brian Tillman                   Internet: tillman_brian at si.com A Smiths Aerospace                          tillman at swdev.si.com = 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS      Addresses modified to prevent < Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991     SPAM.  Replace "at" with "@"8        This opinion doesn't represent that of my company   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Nov 2001 15:48:42 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) ( Subject: Re: Compaq/HP merger in trouble3 Message-ID: <RYWGzJ4DuP8d@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <3bf17c50$1@news.si.com>, "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com> writes:9 >>Double failure.  HP kept its old reputation and Agilent  >>is invisible.  > @ > Only because Anthony Hopkins stopped making their commercials.  $ Who took over ?  David Copperfield ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:35:44 GMT   From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net>( Subject: Re: Compaq/HP merger in trouble+ Message-ID: <3BF1A053.1433E47B@prodigy.net>    Larry Kilgallen wrote: > d > In article <3bf17c50$1@news.si.com>, "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com> writes:; > >>Double failure.  HP kept its old reputation and Agilent  > >>is invisible.  > > B > > Only because Anthony Hopkins stopped making their commercials. > & > Who took over ?  David Copperfield ?   Worse.  Carly.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:29:38 GMT ( From: "Ken Farmer" <kfarmer@openvms.org>2 Subject: C|Net - HP to kill older 3000 server line> Message-ID: <CylI7.66059$9f4.8785465@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>  ! HP to kill older 3000 server line 9 http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7866745.html?tag=owv      Ken    -- Ken Farmer, kfarmer@OpenVMS.org # OpenVMS.org, http://www.openvms.org  OpenVMS.org Newsletter: = http://www.openvms.org/pages.php?page=Newsletter-Registration    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:23:19 -0500 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>6 Subject: Re: C|Net - HP to kill older 3000 server line, Message-ID: <3BF1FFC7.6040207@tsoft-inc.com>   Ken Farmer wrote:   # > HP to kill older 3000 server line   F Looks like the Compaq mentality has already infected HP.  "Let's see, , what can we do to piss off loyal customers?"   Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:17:44 -0500 - From: "Peter Weaver" <peter.weaver@stelco.ca> M Subject: Re: Editing DCL command lines longer than the current terminal width 2 Message-ID: <EleI7.57188$Z2.862875@nnrp1.uunet.ca>  4 "David Mathog" <mathog@caltech.edu> wrote in message% news:3BF1653B.96D42A2A@caltech.edu...  > R.J.S.@not.a.net wrote:  >...G > Given that API, one could relatively easily hack up a favorite editor  > (assuming thatI > source code is available) to allow arbitrarily long command line entry,  > retrieval, editing,  >...  J Before VMS V4 introduced line editing a person named Jay Beller (Bellar??)K had a utility that allowed us to edit DCL commands using a mini EDT editor. L KP1 would advance one word, KP2 was EOL, KP4 was Forward, KP5 was reverse...I I do not remember what it did with the line-wrap, but it was a very handy C program. Everyone I knew had a copy in their LOGIN.COM at the time.   L Any old ADMINS/11 or ADMINS/32 programmers out there know where Jay is these* days? I see his company is still listed atH http://www.admins.com/adminspr/contacts.html, but I do not know if he is$ still there or if he still does VMS.   ------------------------------   Date: 13 Nov 2001 20:44:50 GMT0 From: fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz)M Subject: Re: Editing DCL command lines longer than the current terminal width 5 Message-ID: <9ss0o2$c1t$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>   8 In article <vjd2vt0e30sit7172carngs09tq1ihidbb@4ax.com>,' Alan Greig  <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote:  :  : ... The best high level B : interface to COMND (IMHO)  was provided by Rutgers Pascal (Chuck? : Hedrick) but it wasn't exactly hard to use even from MACRO-10 
 : assembler.   : E Not at all.  There was a macro package from DEC called CMD to make it 9 even easier, by Ted Hess I think (DEC-20 Kermit uses it):      search monsym,macsym,cmd   .require sys:macrel,sys:cmd   0 I'm pretty sure it was standard on all TOPS-20s.  L Btw, we (at Columbia U) wrote a full COMND interface for SAIL (the language,L not the site) and used it quite heavily for many years.  I don't have a copy? of it any more, but it's probably on some DECUS tape somewhere.   J And then there was the hideous GLXLIB version, which is how you got COMND-H like features in TOPS-10 (e.g. in OPR and friends).  OK, I shouldn't sayK "hideous"...  I should know as well as anybody that portable code is rarely  a thing of beauty :-)    - Frank    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Nov 2001 20:34:52 -08001 From: dkatelansky@mercator.com (David Katelansky) + Subject: Re: Garage Sale... Hey, Hobbyists! < Message-ID: <ee979b7f.0111132034.f90ccdf@posting.google.com>  2 John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> wrote in message J > In Australia, some years back, I worked for a company who purchased someF > second-hand disk drives.  One of them still contained the details of2 > members of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. >  > Doh !  > G > (The Liberal party is the "conservative" political party in Australia ) > for anyone not familiar with the name.)  >  > 
 > John McLean   C Near the end of 2000, the company I worked for purchased a VAX 4000 E that used to belong to an oil company.  The people who sold it didn't A supply any passwords, so they thought it was safe to sell without D deleting any files.  I got into the system (OpenVMS 6.0) through theE hardware menu (I looked up how to do that on the Compaq site).  There B were bank account numbers on the system!  Being an honest person IF didn't try stealing from any of those bank accounts, but I did call upD operations (their phone number was on the system too) and asked them; if they still had any VAX 4000 manuals; they hung up on me!    Dave   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:40:47 GMT 3 From: Carl Nelson <carl.nelson@mcmail.maricopa.edu> + Subject: Re: Garage Sale... Hey, Hobbyists! 3 Message-ID: <3BF203E0.4CF408A7@mcmail.maricopa.edu>   & "Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-" wrote:   > K > Not only INITIALIZEd but /ERASEd too.  I also do it with the index at the K > beginning middle and end so as to make sure the data has been stomped up- K > on several times.  The folks at <no such agency> could probably find ways I > to resurrect the data even after several write and erase ops but I feel K > fairly confident that the recipients of the drives I ship out will not be L > as interested in the former contents -- unless, of course, you're an oper-8 > ative for Usama Ben Schmuckhead in Cantcodemyownistan. > --  O   The process, called a "palimpsest" is based on being able to see 'behind' the N current magnetic domains into past states. Very difficult with current storageV densities & methods, but not impossible. The best way to defeat it is to overwrite theR data with meaningless garbage several times, different patterns each time. This isN essentially what the security version of /erase does. The standard version (asT supplied with VMS) is simply a single pattern, good for 99.999% security. There is aU way to enable the multiple pattern erasure for 100% coverage, but few people are that I paranoid, and it does slow your system down with lots of additional I/Os.   R   Personally, I like just creating bazillions of files with the complete lyrics toA "It's a Small World, After All" and deleting them without /erase.   T p.s. The palimpsest process is of great use... to archeologists. Important documentsV were frequently written on lambskin, then scraped clean when a more important documentT needed to be recorded. With ultraviolet & infared lasers and false-color mapping youF can read a remarkable amount of second and even third layer documents.  V   The sample code is in he examples subdirectory of SYS$HELP, called DOD_ERAPAT.MAR. IR don't remember how, but I seem to remember that there is a way to link this to the /erase option of delete.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:41:00 +0100   From: Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch>+ Subject: Re: Here comes the Compaq spin ... B Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111132040180.6953-100000@awk.sture.ch>  ' On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, John McLean wrote:    > H > At URL http://www.theinquirer.net/13110111.htm an article "Compaq: why > the Itanium beats the D > Alpha" attempts to justify the dropping of Alpha in favour of IPF. > I > I was unimpressed.  We've heard most of their justifications before and / > they don't gain credibility with each repeat.  >  > 3 > A tip - don't read the article after eating   ;-)  >  >  Too late :-( __
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:43:39 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>+ Subject: Re: Here comes the Compaq spin ... C Message-ID: <fugI7.139981$7x1.10727540@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>   2 Pio Baettig <baettig@hotmail.com> wrote in message% news:3bf16bdb@siufuxsun02.unifr.ch... 
 > Cool :-)D > > It concludes: "The two ItaniumT Processor Family microprocessorsF > > that arescheduled to follow Merced, McKinley and Madison, are wellE > > underway. Intel  have announced their plans to be sampling these K > > microprocessors by the end of 2001, with the expectation that they will  > how 3 > > up in systems to be available in mid-year 2002. A > > Both of these icroprocessors are expected to have significant B > > gains in performance over Merced, over 50% according to Intel. > H > Put the clock frequency from 800Mc to 1.2..1.3 Gc et voila 50 percent.  L Because McKinley's pipeline is 10 stages rather than Merced's 13, to a firstG approximation it may be about 30% faster due to that alone, at the same E clock rate.  Given that it's expected to debut at 1 GHz (down from an D expected 1.4 GHz a year ago, and 1.2 GHz more recently, so you neverH know...), that would bring its expected performance up to a bit over 1.64 times Merced's (since Merced clocks at 800 MHz max).  I Still, 1.6 x Merced's 314 SPECint2K Dell number (the only one at the SPEC I site running 64-bit code, since the HP 358 number was reportedly obtained I using an ILP32 compiler) is only about 502, which isn't competitive today  let alone next year.  C > (And still some fifty percent slower than an Alpha from 2001....) G > Will McKinley and Madison come after their successors? (I thought McK E > was scheduled for ~mid 2002, how can systems of their successors be  > available  > at that date??  D It's just the artful practice of vague antecedents to imply a rosierI immediate future while retaining plausible deniability.  The only new IPF J member expected to appear in 2002 is McKinley.  Madison appears later, andJ is just McKinley on a diet (process shrink - which should generate a speedH bump - plus additional cache to take up the newly-available space on theH chip).  Something noticeably superior to McKinley (the first such likelyK being incorporation of on-chip MP and memory glue such as EV7 has) is on nosJ published road map that I've seen, and can't reasonably be expected before 2005.    >o >qC > > There really is no new work in the microprocessor core for EV7.eI > > Our innovation in EV7 is focused on system and server level features, J > > especially driving the integration of the system onto a single chip in > order 9 > > to deliver a truly seamless scalable SMP environment. H > > For CPU-specific benchmarks, especially those that do not stress theD > > memory, I/O or SMP environments, EV7 will perform about the same4 > > level as a comparable speed EV68 microprocessor. >eH > Does this mean (bse gesagt), there's only some additional cache and aE > better memory-bus in EV7 or do I overlook a fact? I thought I heardeL > something else (Someone from Cpq/Switzerland told me at Orbit one year agoI > that this processor (once more) would be faster than anything else. Arer CPQ 7 > now trying to make their product look bad in advance?e  L Well, it sure will be embarrassing if it blows McKinley out of the water, asG there's every reason to expect.  So it's not too surprising to see them J lining up arguments in advance about why *at its core* it's really just anJ EV68 and thus really nothing new (even though it'll blow the doors off theJ 'new' McKinley).  My (inexpert) impression is that EV7's main features areK far lower memory latency (due to its on-chip glue) and significantly bettero9 multi-processor performance (again, due to on-chip glue).   G This whole, sad affair makes a sick kind of sense if you begin with the$L single assumption that Compaq is run by people (and this includes the BoD asF well as Capellas and his minions, since it was the BoD that kicked outJ Pfeiffer) who believe that their first responsibility is to be comfortableJ (of course so that they can better exercise their leadership talents, suchG as they may be).  That means, among other things, not pursuing businessaK areas that they're not used to, such as any that require real, on-going R&D-G effort - regardless of how profitable they may be (and of course if younJ don't like something, you can always find *some* kind of reasons to expectJ that its profitability won't be sustainable).  It's a misinterpretation ofJ the concept of 'core competence':  they certainly acquired massive amountsE of core competence in Alpha development with DEC, but since it wasn'to; competence they particularly wanted to exploit they didn't.i  J I said more than 2 years ago that Compaq appeared to be uncomfortable withI the responsibility of owning architectures, whether hardware or software,nJ and seemed to prefer just being a box assembler, and have had no reason toL change that opinion since.  Which is why I expect VMS to go the way of Alpha& as soon as it's considered convenient.  I With that assumption, Intel really wouldn't have had to provide any great H inducements to get Compaq to give up Alpha:  it would merely have had toG help provide a fig leaf to avoid a complete customer revolt.  And whilehI Compaq was already doing a decent job of preventing Alpha from succeeding-K (so Intel may not have had major competitive fears on that score, save thatoI Compaq might be taken over by someone competent), Intel *did* have a realu problem with IA64.  I When HP got Intel to partner with them back in 1994, EPIC was an approach I with significant promise.  2+ years ago it started to become obvious thatnE Merced would be a real smoking pig, but HP's vaunted processor design L expertise would surely make McKinley the Grail that Merced had been supposedA to be.  Now in 2001, it's clear that McKinley won't be a dramaticeK improvement either:  not only will EPIC's original promise not be realized,oJ but it shows no likelihood of *ever* being realized, and just consumes die8 space that others are putting to far more effective use.  I But Intel is far too many years and billions of dollars down this road toiJ back up:  it *has* to make IA64 fly to have a future in a world that will,D eventually, turn in increasing numbers to 64 bits.  The Compaq paperC attempts to equate future performance improvements in IA64 with the K steadily-improving IA32 performance over so many years, but this misses the-J point:  while Intel indeed has some very smart people working on IA32, andI is in the process of bringing a dual-thread version ('hyperthreading') ofwJ SMT to that platform, even if this expertise were *directly* transferrableK to IA64 (which it isn't) it really can't afford to switch those people overBL to IA64 as long as IA32 remains so dominant in its revenues and AMD provides aggressive competition.n  J Process shrinks over time will at least tend to reduce the handicap EPIC'sI chip-area requirements entail, so with a really good engineering group it G should be possible to create something half-decent in the 2006 - 7 timesC frame - not a leadership product, but sufficiently competitive that I per-processor cost could become a deciding factor (which will still leave B Hammer a major problem, but Hammer's real abilities have yet to beI demonstrated, while other competitors are all too real today).  Intel has"I acquired much of HP's design team, but given McKinley it's not clear they-I have what it will take to do the job - while it *is* clear that the AlphagL team has *exactly* what IA64 will need if its next generation is to have any hope of becoming a winner.  J So Intel desperately needed a design team that Compaq would have been moreJ than happy to get rid of anyway if it could do so without overly upsettingJ existing customers.  All both of them needed was a fig leaf in the form ofI the fiction that a decent IA64 Alpha replacement was just around the nextpH corner (and 2004 is far enough away that if people buy into that fictionJ today, it'll be a while before they wake up and smell the coffee:  while aI major step up could occur in 2005 with EV7-style on-chip glue, it'll take K another 18 months or more before the significant technologies of EV8 can berL transplanted into an architecture as tortuous as EPIC and actually bring theI offering up to something like par):  Compaq to placate its customers, andiL Intel to fend off existing competitors and Hammer in the 64-bit space (sinceI some people will buy *anything* that they consider 'industry-standard' if ; they can be persuaded it has a viable future - look at NT).   J And it's believable that Intel actually did have aggressive plans for IA64K (since they're not dummies and major improvement was so clearly required) -tK they just didn't have the means to implement them (the paper even points to K the "ongoing industry shortage of key design talent"), until Compaq gave itrG to them.  So while the paper's contention that IBM's POWER architecturetH could have offered credible competition to EV8 is reasonable (though EV8L still had some apparent advantages to offer), the suggestion that IA64 couldL have (in the absence of the infusion of Alpha talent) is ridiculous (though,J as in other areas, the paper's phrasing is coy:  it *could* be interpretedK to refer to the ability of future *IA32* Intel offerings to compete where asL 64-bit environment was not required, so it's not *really* a lie - nor is theI implied association of IA64 with multi-threading at the end of the quotedlK portion of the paper, which is in no way a feature of McKinley, Madison, orrE any other IPF member yet announced, but will soon become available in 	 IA32...).1  > As John said, not material one should read right after a meal.  H Did Alpha have to be killed before HP made an offer?  Probably:  the FTCJ carefully protected Alpha during the Intel settlement a few years ago, andL if Alpha had remained a competitor to HP's hardware (especially IA64) at theK time of the offer it would have been hard to do less even under the currente administration.   J I've gotten a bit long-winded again, but the topic seemed to call for someL wrapping up, given the renewed Compaq spin offensive (can this late response6 be because they're getting worried about the merger?).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:56:55 -0600 % From: Keith Brown <kbrown780@isd.net>O+ Subject: Re: Here comes the Compaq spin ...n/ Message-ID: <tv3na9bl0vcab3@corp.supernews.com>t   Bill Todd wrote:   > 4 > Pio Baettig <baettig@hotmail.com> wrote in message' > news:3bf16bdb@siufuxsun02.unifr.ch...2 >> Cool :-)oE >> > It concludes: "The two ItaniumT Processor Family microprocessorseG >> > that arescheduled to follow Merced, McKinley and Madison, are wellhF >> > underway. Intel  have announced their plans to be sampling theseL >> > microprocessors by the end of 2001, with the expectation that they will >> how4 >> > up in systems to be available in mid-year 2002.B >> > Both of these icroprocessors are expected to have significantC >> > gains in performance over Merced, over 50% according to Intel.x >>I >> Put the clock frequency from 800Mc to 1.2..1.3 Gc et voila 50 percent.  > H > Because McKinley's pipeline is 10 stages rather than Merced's 13, to aJ > first approximation it may be about 30% faster due to that alone, at the > sameG > clock rate.  Given that it's expected to debut at 1 GHz (down from ansF > expected 1.4 GHz a year ago, and 1.2 GHz more recently, so you neverJ > know...), that would bring its expected performance up to a bit over 1.66 > times Merced's (since Merced clocks at 800 MHz max). > K > Still, 1.6 x Merced's 314 SPECint2K Dell number (the only one at the SPEC K > site running 64-bit code, since the HP 358 number was reportedly obtainedmK > using an ILP32 compiler) is only about 502, which isn't competitive todayi > let alone next year. > D >> (And still some fifty percent slower than an Alpha from 2001....)H >> Will McKinley and Madison come after their successors? (I thought McKF >> was scheduled for ~mid 2002, how can systems of their successors be >> available >> at that date??- > F > It's just the artful practice of vague antecedents to imply a rosierK > immediate future while retaining plausible deniability.  The only new IPFgL > member expected to appear in 2002 is McKinley.  Madison appears later, andL > is just McKinley on a diet (process shrink - which should generate a speedJ > bump - plus additional cache to take up the newly-available space on theJ > chip).  Something noticeably superior to McKinley (the first such likelyJ > being incorporation of on-chip MP and memory glue such as EV7 has) is onH > no published road map that I've seen, and can't reasonably be expected > before 2005. >  >> >>D >> > There really is no new work in the microprocessor core for EV7.J >> > Our innovation in EV7 is focused on system and server level features,K >> > especially driving the integration of the system onto a single chip ina >> order: >> > to deliver a truly seamless scalable SMP environment.I >> > For CPU-specific benchmarks, especially those that do not stress thetE >> > memory, I/O or SMP environments, EV7 will perform about the sameo5 >> > level as a comparable speed EV68 microprocessor.  >>I >> Does this mean (bse gesagt), there's only some additional cache and a-F >> better memory-bus in EV7 or do I overlook a fact? I thought I heardI >> something else (Someone from Cpq/Switzerland told me at Orbit one yeareJ >> ago that this processor (once more) would be faster than anything else. >> Are > CPQe8 >> now trying to make their product look bad in advance? > K > Well, it sure will be embarrassing if it blows McKinley out of the water,  > asI > there's every reason to expect.  So it's not too surprising to see them L > lining up arguments in advance about why *at its core* it's really just anL > EV68 and thus really nothing new (even though it'll blow the doors off theL > 'new' McKinley).  My (inexpert) impression is that EV7's main features areF > far lower memory latency (due to its on-chip glue) and significantlyB > better multi-processor performance (again, due to on-chip glue). > I > This whole, sad affair makes a sick kind of sense if you begin with the K > single assumption that Compaq is run by people (and this includes the BoDtK > as well as Capellas and his minions, since it was the BoD that kicked outlL > Pfeiffer) who believe that their first responsibility is to be comfortableL > (of course so that they can better exercise their leadership talents, suchI > as they may be).  That means, among other things, not pursuing business I > areas that they're not used to, such as any that require real, on-goingeI > R&D effort - regardless of how profitable they may be (and of course ifoI > you don't like something, you can always find *some* kind of reasons toh > expectL > that its profitability won't be sustainable).  It's a misinterpretation ofL > the concept of 'core competence':  they certainly acquired massive amountsG > of core competence in Alpha development with DEC, but since it wasn'ta= > competence they particularly wanted to exploit they didn't.e > L > I said more than 2 years ago that Compaq appeared to be uncomfortable withK > the responsibility of owning architectures, whether hardware or software,uL > and seemed to prefer just being a box assembler, and have had no reason toH > change that opinion since.  Which is why I expect VMS to go the way of. > Alpha as soon as it's considered convenient. > K > With that assumption, Intel really wouldn't have had to provide any great:J > inducements to get Compaq to give up Alpha:  it would merely have had toI > help provide a fig leaf to avoid a complete customer revolt.  And while K > Compaq was already doing a decent job of preventing Alpha from succeedinghH > (so Intel may not have had major competitive fears on that score, saveK > that Compaq might be taken over by someone competent), Intel *did* have ac > real problem with IA64.d > K > When HP got Intel to partner with them back in 1994, EPIC was an approacheK > with significant promise.  2+ years ago it started to become obvious that-G > Merced would be a real smoking pig, but HP's vaunted processor designmE > expertise would surely make McKinley the Grail that Merced had beenp
 > supposedC > to be.  Now in 2001, it's clear that McKinley won't be a dramatic C > improvement either:  not only will EPIC's original promise not be@I > realized, but it shows no likelihood of *ever* being realized, and justrG > consumes die space that others are putting to far more effective use.c > K > But Intel is far too many years and billions of dollars down this road to L > back up:  it *has* to make IA64 fly to have a future in a world that will,F > eventually, turn in increasing numbers to 64 bits.  The Compaq paperE > attempts to equate future performance improvements in IA64 with thecI > steadily-improving IA32 performance over so many years, but this misses  > the L > point:  while Intel indeed has some very smart people working on IA32, andK > is in the process of bringing a dual-thread version ('hyperthreading') ofmL > SMT to that platform, even if this expertise were *directly* transferrableH > to IA64 (which it isn't) it really can't afford to switch those peopleJ > over to IA64 as long as IA32 remains so dominant in its revenues and AMD" > provides aggressive competition. > L > Process shrinks over time will at least tend to reduce the handicap EPIC'sK > chip-area requirements entail, so with a really good engineering group itiI > should be possible to create something half-decent in the 2006 - 7 timeIE > frame - not a leadership product, but sufficiently competitive thatlK > per-processor cost could become a deciding factor (which will still leave0D > Hammer a major problem, but Hammer's real abilities have yet to beK > demonstrated, while other competitors are all too real today).  Intel hasoK > acquired much of HP's design team, but given McKinley it's not clear theygK > have what it will take to do the job - while it *is* clear that the AlphadJ > team has *exactly* what IA64 will need if its next generation is to have  > any hope of becoming a winner. > L > So Intel desperately needed a design team that Compaq would have been moreL > than happy to get rid of anyway if it could do so without overly upsettingL > existing customers.  All both of them needed was a fig leaf in the form ofK > the fiction that a decent IA64 Alpha replacement was just around the nextmJ > corner (and 2004 is far enough away that if people buy into that fictionL > today, it'll be a while before they wake up and smell the coffee:  while aK > major step up could occur in 2005 with EV7-style on-chip glue, it'll takeeJ > another 18 months or more before the significant technologies of EV8 canG > be transplanted into an architecture as tortuous as EPIC and actually- > bring thehK > offering up to something like par):  Compaq to placate its customers, andnG > Intel to fend off existing competitors and Hammer in the 64-bit spaceV; > (since some people will buy *anything* that they consider'L > 'industry-standard' if they can be persuaded it has a viable future - look	 > at NT).  > L > And it's believable that Intel actually did have aggressive plans for IA64K > (since they're not dummies and major improvement was so clearly required) L > - they just didn't have the means to implement them (the paper even pointsH > to the "ongoing industry shortage of key design talent"), until Compaq	 > gave it I > to them.  So while the paper's contention that IBM's POWER architecture J > could have offered credible competition to EV8 is reasonable (though EV8H > still had some apparent advantages to offer), the suggestion that IA64K > could have (in the absence of the infusion of Alpha talent) is ridiculous 
 > (though,L > as in other areas, the paper's phrasing is coy:  it *could* be interpretedK > to refer to the ability of future *IA32* Intel offerings to compete whereiL > a 64-bit environment was not required, so it's not *really* a lie - nor isH > the implied association of IA64 with multi-threading at the end of theH > quoted portion of the paper, which is in no way a feature of McKinley,F > Madison, or any other IPF member yet announced, but will soon become > available in IA32...). > @ > As John said, not material one should read right after a meal. > J > Did Alpha have to be killed before HP made an offer?  Probably:  the FTCL > carefully protected Alpha during the Intel settlement a few years ago, andJ > if Alpha had remained a competitor to HP's hardware (especially IA64) atI > the time of the offer it would have been hard to do less even under ther > current administration.' > L > I've gotten a bit long-winded again, but the topic seemed to call for someE > wrapping up, given the renewed Compaq spin offensive (can this latecA > response be because they're getting worried about the merger?).a >  > - bill   Bill,   - I believe you have hit the nail on the head. w -- a Keith Brown  kbrown780@isd.net    ------------------------------    Date: 13 Nov 2001 13:03:57 -0600+ From: kuhrt@encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt) ; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!i3 Message-ID: <9X6saD4$N7PE@eisner.encompasserve.org>n  n In article <_24H7.79710$7x1.6919025@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > 5 > Bob Ceculski <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in messaget9 > news:d7791aa1.0111092135.7e7f89c5@posting.google.com...  >  > ...e >  >> what's with everyone onH >> this board?  must be some on this board are going thru change of life >> or something! > J > When everyone seems to be finding problems with you, you should at leastB > consider the possibility that the fault is not theirs but yours. >  > - bill  A As the man said after walking out of court after his 23rd divorcen% became final, "Do you think it's me?"u   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:08:40 -0500G; From: "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com> ; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger! $ Message-ID: <3bf16fa0$1@news.si.com>  E >with 39 alpha servers and stations to support, i rarely have time toaE >make things nice and pretty, but i seriously am wondering if you canvF >read and comprehend after stating i shove a reco down your throat ...  K Bob, I was originally glad when you appeared and started posting.  Now thathJ you're getting defensive over others' requests that you adhere to standardH English usage and capitalize where appropriate, I feel less enthusiasticI over your continued posts.  It had been known to nearly everyone else who-K posts to USENET that all caps is analogous to shouting, but your refusal to E modify you behavior to fit the society that has developed in c.o.v iso telling. --A Brian Tillman                   Internet: tillman_brian at si.comoA Smiths Aerospace                          tillman at swdev.si.come= 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS      Addresses modified to preventn< Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991     SPAM.  Replace "at" with "@"8        This opinion doesn't represent that of my company   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:14:59 -0500p; From: "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com>h; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!c$ Message-ID: <3bf1711b$1@news.si.com>  ( >Who the heck was the guy who wrote the : >stuff about the cat and the cockroach, all in lower case?   e.e.cummings -- tA Brian Tillman                   Internet: tillman_brian at si.com.A Smiths Aerospace                          tillman at swdev.si.com = 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS      Addresses modified to preventi< Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991     SPAM.  Replace "at" with "@"8        This opinion doesn't represent that of my company   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:35:04 +0100   From: Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch>; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!gB Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111132034070.6823-100000@awk.sture.ch>  & On 13 Nov 2001, Larry Kilgallen wrote:   > In article <y4668f838g.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, Jan Vorbrueggen <jan@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:3 > > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:u > >l3 > >> English is case-sensitive, even if DCL is not.k > >nK > > Well, it's more that human beings are case-sensitive, in the sense thatrQ > > our perception works better and faster (i.e., less compute resources requiredgL > > for the actual reading, and more available for comprehension) when mixed > > case is used.m >iE > Written English is a set of rules for setting down the spoken wordsi> > in a graphic format to facilitate reading and comprehension. >e@ > i kud ryght stough inn calmprihenssible weighs igknorrinn rulz# > buht knot yousingh rytin ingglysh  >n LOL! (understood that perfectly)i   __
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:52:20 +0100e  From: Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch>; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!eB Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111132051440.7104-100000@awk.sture.ch>   On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, cjt wrote:i  " > Yes, but English is so "legacy." >uB Are you suggesting we use "Industry standard English" from now on?   > Jan Vorbrueggen wrote: > >s3 > > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:t > >,4 > > > English is case-sensitive, even if DCL is not. > >dK > > Well, it's more that human beings are case-sensitive, in the sense that Q > > our perception works better and faster (i.e., less compute resources required L > > for the actual reading, and more available for comprehension) when mixed > > case is used.f > >p > >         Jan  >w   __
 Paul Sture Switzerlando   ------------------------------   Date: 13 Nov 2001 20:12:07 GMT3 From: never+mail@panics.com.invalid (Michael Roach)o; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!l) Message-ID: <9sruqn$5c1$1@news.panix.com>e  B In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111132051440.7104-100000@awk.sture.ch>," Paul Sture  <paul@sture.ch> wrote:  >On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, cjt wrote: >l# >> Yes, but English is so "legacy."w >>C >Are you suggesting we use "Industry standard English" from now on?   2 Maybe it's time for an Open English list on Yahoo. --  & Help stamp out and abolish redundancy.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:22:31 GMTe  From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net>; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!1+ Message-ID: <3BF18F2A.86F9A95C@prodigy.net>    Paul Sture wrote:  > ! > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, cjt wrote:  > $ > > Yes, but English is so "legacy." > >sD > Are you suggesting we use "Industry standard English" from now on?  ) As long as _I_ get to set the "standard.".   Just call me Bill Gates. >  > > Jan Vorbrueggen wrote: > > >o5 > > > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:t > > >w6 > > > > English is case-sensitive, even if DCL is not. > > >M > > > Well, it's more that human beings are case-sensitive, in the sense thatnS > > > our perception works better and faster (i.e., less compute resources requiredlN > > > for the actual reading, and more available for comprehension) when mixed > > > case is used.s > > >f > > >         Jan, > >  >  > __ > Paul Sture
 > Switzerlande   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:31:18 -0500a- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>n; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger! , Message-ID: <3BF19124.3AC871E8@videotron.ca>   Michael Roach wrote:E > >Are you suggesting we use "Industry standard English" from now on?  > 4 > Maybe it's time for an Open English list on Yahoo.    I Why bother ? You know that Microsoft will want to impose its own improvedsL version of English that will have sufficient differences to annoy anyone who is not a Microsoft customer.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:34:21 -0500t  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger! 4 Message-ID: <1011113163002.349B-100000@Ives.egh.com>  ) On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Brian Tillman wrote:W  * > >Who the heck was the guy who wrote the < > >stuff about the cat and the cockroach, all in lower case? >  > e.e.cummings  @ I believe it was a newspaper columnist named Don Marquis.  There? was a cockroach named archie who wrote all the stories in lowert> case because he typed by jumping off the top of the typewriter> onto the keys, and there was no way he could press two keys atB once (SHIFT).  Most of the stories involved a cat named mehitabel.  < (Remembered from junior high school anthologies.  I may be a% VMS old-timer, but I'm not that old!)    > --  C > Brian Tillman                   Internet: tillman_brian at si.comeC > Smiths Aerospace                          tillman at swdev.si.comn? > 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS      Addresses modified to prevent > > Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991     SPAM.  Replace "at" with "@": >        This opinion doesn't represent that of my company >  >  >  >    -- n John Santose Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Nov 2001 15:46:46 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) ; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!t3 Message-ID: <OhV7+YJwUAfh@eisner.encompasserve.org>V  e In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111132051440.7104-100000@awk.sture.ch>, Paul Sture <paul@sture.ch> writes:m! > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, cjt wrote:e > # >> Yes, but English is so "legacy."y >>D > Are you suggesting we use "Industry standard English" from now on?   Kewl, dood.  That RULEZ !!!o   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:50:29 GMT 3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>y; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!t/ Message-ID: <3BF19448.755949B5@cableinet.co.uk>u   Bob Ceculski wrote:   hE > week on the post above?  a few times i have pasted a short article, G > but many others do the same on this board ... what's with everyone on G > this board?  must be some on this board are going thru change of lifeo > or something!c  E In Bob's defence others have requested in the past that people do not 2 just post URLs, but also include the article text.  @ ISP is having newsserver problems so having problems keeping up.   regards. --   Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  s  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of a! my employers or service provider.e   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:45:52 GMTh, From: "Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@epsilon3.com>; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger!s9 Message-ID: <kwgI7.15216$uO.450074@typhoon.austin.rr.com>u  5 In message <3BEF482D.37761A0C@videotron.ca>, JF Mezeio% <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote:' > "Jay E. Morris" wrote:D > > BTW, it's not VMS users who use all caps, it's COBOL developers. > D > Cobol on VMS supports lowercase (or at least it did back in 1987).K Ok, I should have said DSM.  I know Cobol does, I think it's the developersn5 who haven't installed the lasted patch in themselves.  -- p4 Jay E. Morris Epsilon 3 Productions www.epsilon3.com@ Posted with Ink Spot (for Windows CE) from DejaVu Software, Inc.8 Usenet wherever you are - http://www.dejavusoftware.com/   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:05:26 -0500p- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>i; Subject: Re: Hewlett family votes "NO" on HP-Compaq merger! , Message-ID: <3BF1A72E.5A9B0083@videotron.ca>   Larry Kilgallen wrote:F > > Are you suggesting we use "Industry standard English" from now on? >  > Kewl, dood.  That RULEZ !!!s    ) I tough it was "dude" instead of "dood".    K Perhaps another difference between USA english and standard English :-) :-)a   ------------------------------   Date: 14 Nov 2001 03:22:44 GMT) From: leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie).* Subject: HP to kill older 3000 server line' Message-ID: <9sso24$d60$1@joe.rice.edu>d Keywords: hp,3000,eol,vmsa  B Looks like the "nasty rumor" about HP's 3000 line has come true...  4    http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7866745.html@    HP to kill older 3000 server line -  Tech News -  CNET.com        "By Stephen ShanklandI    Staff Writer, CNET News.com"    November 13, 2001, 6:00 p.m. PT  G    Hewlett-Packard plans to announce Wednesday that it will discontinuesC    the venerated 3000 server line after 30 years, CNET News.com hase    learned.e  G    The Palo Alto, Calif., company, struggling with an economic downturn D    and an attempted acquisition of rival Compaq Computer, apparentlyH    decided the line was too expensive to continue, sources said. HP madeC    an effort to reinvigorate the line, which runs the MPE operatingtH    system, but most of the company's server attention is directed at its=    9000 Unix server line and its NetServer Intel server line.e  F    HP plans to support existing customers for the next five years, twoE    sources said. Sales of existing systems and upgrades will continuet    through the end of 2002.i  F    HP declined to comment on the move, but said an announcement on the$    subject is planned for Wednesday.  F    The economic slowdown has spurred layoffs and more layoffs at HP asF    the company. The company is grappling with its proposed merger with  C    Compaq and is focusing on reclaiming momentum in the Unix serverr(    market from Sun Microsystems and IBM.  G    The 3000 line was launched in 1972 to replace the HP 2000, accordingsH    to author Bob Green, who worked on early designs. The machine steppedH    in to fill a void after HP backed off an effort code-named "Omega" to    compete with IBM mainframes.e  G    In 1972 and 1973, the early versions of the HP 3000 were temporarily E    withdrawn from the market because of flaws in the operating systemdH    that led to frequent crashes and inferior performance. The Series II,7    introduced in 1975, was more successful, Green said.   I    Rumors of the move began surfacing at 3000 discussion sites last week.r  A    The HP 3000 line of servers have been converging onto the same H    hardware as the company's 9000 line of Unix servers. The servers haveI    a smaller but loyal following among tens of thousands of customers, inhE    specific industries such as health care, credit unions and retail.t  H    Those that have something to gain from the demise of MPE and the 3000B    line have begun efforts to take advantage of their opportunity.E    Sector7 and Transformix Engineering have begun touting services tos<    help companies move from MPE to other operating systems."    4 --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own)   ------------------------------   Date: 14 Nov 2001 05:16:55 GMT3 From: vance@alumni.caltech.edu (Vance R. Haemmerle)l Subject: HP's bloodthirstm, Message-ID: <9ssuo7$nus@gap.cco.caltech.edu>  G   Looks like HP is already getting bloodthirst to kill venerated lines:h  #   HP to kill older 3000 server linel  3   http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7866745.htmle     Think they'll stop there?l   -- Vance Haemmerlee vance@alumni.caltech.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:24:47 -0800c% From: Dean Woodward <deanw@rdrop.com>c" Subject: Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??) Message-ID: <3BF1818F.D683C6AB@rdrop.com>t  
 cjt wrote: > M > I assume the CPQ folks would then again change gears and we'd start to heara+ > about how great NonStop Power-4s will be?l  F At least IBM has, and appreciates, it's own R&D division.  Too bad theG EV8 team went to Intel.  (Where do I go to start a rumor that IBM wantst to hire 'em away? ;-)   ' Ah, well.  I'm just wishin' out loud...s   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 21:32:44 +0000n% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> " Subject: Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??* Message-ID: <3BF1917C.42216D27@virgin.net>  
 cjt wrote:  M > I assume the CPQ folks would then again change gears and we'd start to hearn+ > about how great NonStop Power-4s will be?l >   O Compaq stock has climbed 15% today. The rumour may have some currency. An offerrH of $15 dollars per CPQ share is double their value a couple of days ago.  1 Symbol: CPQ  4:02PM 8.80 +1.14 +14.88% 44,825,000s  & Better get that PowerPC port underway. --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:04:27 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>," Subject: Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??, Message-ID: <3BF1A6F3.8EAEC33D@videotron.ca>   Alan Greig wrote: ( > Better get that PowerPC port underway.  I I was thinking about why would IBM really want Compaq for. But with AlphafL dead, porting tru64 and VMS to power pc might put volumes just over the top,M allowing IBM to make Power PC a truly competitive chip and kill Intel's IA64.   M With HP and Compaq having stated that they wanted to be like IBM, if IBM wereeN to remove the stuff inside of Compaq that could make Compaq like IBM ( VMS andJ Tandem and Alpha), then IBM would ensure it remans well ahead of the pack.  L By buying Compaq, IBM could also gain control and access to all of the IP of1 Digital, some of which might be of value to IBM.    M The big question is whether that would be worth the purchase price of Compaq.@   ------------------------------  + Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:00:12 +0000 (UTC)r  From: mustang@ucc.asn.au.invalid" Subject: Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??* Message-ID: <9ssmns$nv6$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au>  . JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote: : Alan Greig wrote:$) :> Better get that PowerPC port underway.B  K : I was thinking about why would IBM really want Compaq for. But with Alpha.N : dead, porting tru64 and VMS to power pc might put volumes just over the top,O : allowing IBM to make Power PC a truly competitive chip and kill Intel's IA64.h  O : With HP and Compaq having stated that they wanted to be like IBM, if IBM were P : to remove the stuff inside of Compaq that could make Compaq like IBM ( VMS andL : Tandem and Alpha), then IBM would ensure it remans well ahead of the pack.  N : By buying Compaq, IBM could also gain control and access to all of the IP of3 : Digital, some of which might be of value to IBM.    O : The big question is whether that would be worth the purchase price of Compaq.m  I People with IBM for 20 years or more might consider it divine retribution H and righteous vengeance against those Compaq upstarts for building those, faster-than-ours "IBM-compatible" PC things.L On the plus side, IBM already knows how to build an Alpha, has VMS resources? in IBM GS and has a potential IPF-crusher already in the works.a  M Won't it be nice if all this conjecture ends happily one day & we can go backi to our day jobs?   D. --  ! I don't get mad.... I get stabby.g   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:37:23 -0500t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>o" Subject: Re: IBM to bid for CPQ ??, Message-ID: <3BF1E6F0.2FF934F7@videotron.ca>  ! mustang@ucc.asn.au.invalid wrote:tK > People with IBM for 20 years or more might consider it divine retribution J > and righteous vengeance against those Compaq upstarts for building those. > faster-than-ours "IBM-compatible" PC things.N > On the plus side, IBM already knows how to build an Alpha, has VMS resourcesA > in IBM GS and has a potential IPF-crusher already in the works.e  N I see it more as a way for IBM to prevent Intel from getting too much momentumB with its IA64. By depriving Intel from VMS and Tandem (and Tru64'sG technologies), and having those ported to Power, it will give Power therN "serious systems chip" while IA64 will be relegated to running wintel crap and HP's inferior Unix.e   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Nov 2001 15:47:16 -08001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) J Subject: Inquirer: Compaq white paper gives rationale for June 25 decision= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0111131547.3fb7604b@posting.google.com>n  C The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/13110111.htm) is reporting E today that Compaq has released a white paper giving its rationale for-B the June 25 decision, in a piece entitled "Compaq: why the Itanium beats the Alpha".>  ? I've been searching the Compaq web site but haven't yet found as" pointer to the actual white paper.C ------------------------------------------------------------------- C Keith Parris | parris at encompasserve dot org | VMS consulting on:uC Clusters, Disaster Tolerance, Internals, Performance, Storage & I/Od   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:13:01 -0500>- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>kN Subject: Re: Inquirer: Compaq white paper gives rationale for June 25 decision, Message-ID: <3BF1E13C.D6E83660@videotron.ca>   Keith Parris wrote:r > E > The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/13110111.htm) is reportingrG > today that Compaq has released a white paper giving its rationale foro > the June 25 decision,t  J Unless you're a brainwahsed Compaq employee, why should you bother readingJ such attempt at propaganda ? It would waste customer's time, especially if) they have to spend time searching for it.!  M Compaq murdered Alpha. There is no way that Compaq can spin this to make them-M look good. They broke their commitment to customers and in doing so customerslM lost trust into Compaq. Some white paper isn't going to fix that. As a mattergK of fact, any attempt at spinning this murder into something else would onlyv  diminish whatever trust remains.  K Compaq killed Alpha. Nothing we can do about it. The only thing that CompaqhN can do is to do it utmost to make EV7 the best chip (so it can't be accused ofJ purposefully slowling down EV7) and then get Intel to deliver the promisedJ goods. If Intel doesn't deliver an IA64 that is better than Alpha on time,L tough luck. Compaq put all its eggs in the Intel basket against's customers'M wishes. Too bad. I won't feel any sorrow for Compaq if Intel fails to deliverh
 IA64 ON TIME.x   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:19:58 -0500e; From: "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com>  Subject: Re: LIB$xxx$ Message-ID: <3bf18056$1@news.si.com>  G >Since we have LIB$FIND_FILE and LIB$DELETE_FILE and LIB$RENAME_FILE, Ig3 would like to know why there is >no LIB$COPY_FILE ?i  J Carl Lydick (or was it Ehud) once posted a callable form of COPY.  Perhaps its available in Google news.1 --A Brian Tillman                   Internet: tillman_brian at si.comgA Smiths Aerospace                          tillman at swdev.si.comt= 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS      Addresses modified to preventt< Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991     SPAM.  Replace "at" with "@"8        This opinion doesn't represent that of my company   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:17:08 -0800 < From: "Kenneth H. Fairfield" <Kenneth.H.Fairfield@intel.com> Subject: Re: LIB$xxx) Message-ID: <3BF19BE4.A4AF65E5@intel.com>g   Brian Tillman wrote:  I > >Since we have LIB$FIND_FILE and LIB$DELETE_FILE and LIB$RENAME_FILE, Is5 > would like to know why there is >no LIB$COPY_FILE ?e >lL > Carl Lydick (or was it Ehud) once posted a callable form of COPY.  Perhaps > its available in Google news.w  E     It was Carl.  I've kept a copy on disk, NOTLIB_COPY.C, along witheA another CJL jewel, NOTLIB_PAGINATE.C.  NOTLIB_PAGINATE implementsaH replacements for (really, wrappers for) LIB$PUT_OUTPUT and LIB$GET_INPUTF so that lengthy output doesn't scroll off the screen. (Is some of thatF now available though the CLI Utility routines?).  These date from 1992 and 1994 respectively.  7     I'd be happy to repost if anyone wants to see them.            -Ken --6 I don't speak for Intel, Intel doesn't speak for me...   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:06:53 GMT 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>h Subject: Re: LIB$xxx' Message-ID: <3BF1D4F1.28E95394@fsi.net>r   "Kenneth H. Fairfield" wrote:a >  > Brian Tillman wrote: > K > > >Since we have LIB$FIND_FILE and LIB$DELETE_FILE and LIB$RENAME_FILE, Ie7 > > would like to know why there is >no LIB$COPY_FILE ?f > >tN > > Carl Lydick (or was it Ehud) once posted a callable form of COPY.  Perhaps! > > its available in Google news.o > G >     It was Carl.  I've kept a copy on disk, NOTLIB_COPY.C, along withtC > another CJL jewel, NOTLIB_PAGINATE.C.  NOTLIB_PAGINATE implements3J > replacements for (really, wrappers for) LIB$PUT_OUTPUT and LIB$GET_INPUTH > so that lengthy output doesn't scroll off the screen. (Is some of thatH > now available though the CLI Utility routines?).  These date from 1992 > and 1994 respectively. > 9 >     I'd be happy to repost if anyone wants to see them.e   Register one Yes vote, please.   --   David J. Dachterat dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/s   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:48:53 GMTn- From: goathunter@goatley.com (Hunter Goatley)n Subject: Re: LIB$xxx1 Message-ID: <3bf1db34.286015388@news.process.com>l  M On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:06:53 GMT, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>v wrote:   >"Kenneth H. Fairfield" wrote: >> r >> Brian Tillman wrote:  >> rL >> > >Since we have LIB$FIND_FILE and LIB$DELETE_FILE and LIB$RENAME_FILE, I8 >> > would like to know why there is >no LIB$COPY_FILE ? >> >O >> > Carl Lydick (or was it Ehud) once posted a callable form of COPY.  Perhaps-" >> > its available in Google news. >> 5H >>     It was Carl.  I've kept a copy on disk, NOTLIB_COPY.C, along withD >> another CJL jewel, NOTLIB_PAGINATE.C.  NOTLIB_PAGINATE implementsK >> replacements for (really, wrappers for) LIB$PUT_OUTPUT and LIB$GET_INPUT1I >> so that lengthy output doesn't scroll off the screen. (Is some of thatNI >> now available though the CLI Utility routines?).  These date from 1992o >> and 1994 respectively.r >> n: >>     I'd be happy to repost if anyone wants to see them. >- >Register one Yes vote, please.a > M It's not quite a separate routine, but there is a COPY routine, written in C,.5 in the source to my FLIST file and directory manager:a  5 ftp://ftp.process.com/vms-freeware/fileserv/flist.zipk  H It could easily be pulled out into a separate, callable routine.  And it doesn't use the CONV$ routines.    Hunter ------9 Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/a9 goathunter@goatley.com     http://www.goatley.com/hunter/f   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Nov 2001 11:26:14 -0800( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)% Subject: Re: More Compaq lies exposedS= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0111131126.7941f61e@posting.google.com>   e Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<qd82vtkqrv4dtvdse4iecvo3drs97dga42@4ax.com>...rH > On June 25th Compaq announced the surrender of its Alpha technology toG > the technologically inferior Intel. On September 4th it announced thesH > plan to merge with HP.  A number of people continue to want to believeD > that the two were not related and that Carly just happened to call; > Curly soon after the sell-out to Intel. Well according to ? > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5099466,00.html D > the HP board first discussed the proposed merger on July 19th justD > three weeks after the Alphacide. As Carly and Curly have helpfullyH > told us that they discussed the issue privately between themselves forC > a considerable time before approaching their boards it would seem F > impossible that this discussion did not begin long before June 25th. > E > No wonder Carly and Curly claim they can't exactly remember when ittB > all began. Anti-competitive behaviour pure and simple. Black andC > White. Let the current team of Carly and Curly away with this and@F > they'll screw us all again first chance they get. Terry Shannon it'sE > about time you switched sides and we looked at getting some seriousrA > legal advice. I'd like to see them rot in jail. Not because I'mmD > vindictive but because they appear to have colluded with Gates andG > Intel in a manner highly damaging to their customers and to their owna? > share price. They have not acted in the best interests of the F > shareholders or consumers and have intentionally misled both. It  is > time they were stopped.e > H > Could Compaq have announced the Alphacide in favour of an architectureG > co-designed by their prospective partner HP after the proposal becametE > public and before it was voted through? Judging by the SEC rules ito> > would seem not. So was it really a conspiracy (oh no he saidE > conspiracy) to break the rules by other means? Looks like it to me.0 > @ > You would almost think Wintel really did bribe Curly and CarlyF > personally. Of course that's unthinkable so we shouldn't even bother > investigating should we? > H > And I strongly advise any Compaq or HP lawyer reading this not to fireG > me off an anonymous piece of seemingly friendly legal advice. Terry'syH > statement that usenet postings don't get read is just another piece ofH > his bullshit whether he knows it or not. Any other genuine, interested > legal advice is welcomed.a > E > Maybe we should first contact the individual US States and EuropeanNG > Regulators still pursuing Microsoft as they likely have the guts, the D > technical knowledge and the right legal people to really look into > this.  > H > "There's no going back" said Carly, "We've burned our boats". ActuallyF > you've torpedoed the customers' cruisers (Alpha, OpenVMS, Tru64) butF > haven't managed to inflate the replacement rubber dinghy despite theG > enormous quantities of hot air blown in its direction. And you expectdE > us to believe you're happy to have VMS as a passenger in this boat? B > Possibly but only to give you one last thing to chuck out later. > G > To quote the Hitchhikers Guide: Carly and Curly I'd put your personalB@ > analyst on danger money. And now I understand  why Carly keepsG > referring to all the analysts she's been talking to. Makes sense thatm > way... > C > If legal opinion is that this is interesting but still a bit weak0G > there's a lot of other evidence regarding the intentional destructionoH > and non promotion of highly profitable non Wintel Compaq product linesH > in order to (one presumes) placate Mr Gates which numerous individuals > could help provide.v > E > DEC (remember them) products were not safe in Compaq's hands. Let'sn. > not let Carly finish the job and HP with it.  J if they try to kill vms, after still many years of service left we will go to anything but windoze!   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:34:27 -0700 - From: Bob Grumbine <bgrumbin@dimensional.com> % Subject: Re: More Compaq lies exposed / Message-ID: <3BF191E3.47E3CBFA@dimensional.com>n  D None of the companies is of any interest to me, Ben.  None produces H products which are satisfactory for my needs.  None qualifies as buyableF under my rules for purchasing stocks.  I was writing only from what I B recall from a quickie review that I did of the three stocks in theF process of excluding them from further consideration a year or so ago.H     In particular, my Bezzle Factor analysis requires a review of *who* J the directors are so that conflicts of interest may be identified.  That'sC where the interlock cropped up.  Having completed that exclusionarymJ analysis that long ago, there have been hundreds of companies and analysesJ across my desk in the meantime and remembering the name of that particularG interlock between companies which were only briefly under considerationm. is not within the scope of my memory capacity.G     Anybody who is interested in MSFT or HWP or CPQ or any combination fF of them could very quickly check the interlocking directorship matter C by looking at the latest Forms DEF-14A (proxy statements for their ,H annual meetings) at http://www.sec.gov since that is the document which E details the names and experience of all of the Board members of each lB corporation.  The same information is likely available directly orF indirectly via the annual report and proxy statement information which? can be downloaded from or via the individual company web sites.7     Bob Grumbine    :-)##j  5 +++++++++++++++   #   email  bgrumbin@dimensional.comnC Robert E. "Bob"   #   postal  PO Box 260203, Lakewood CO 80226-0203w) Grumbine, MBA     #   voice  303-232-4520%< visit Bob's web site at http://www.dimensional.com/~bgrumbin     Ben Myers wrote: > $ > Who's that?   Do tell... Ben Myers > M > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:28:00 -0700, Bob Grumbine <bgrumbin@dimensional.com>o > wrote: > G > >Alan Greig wrote a detailed analysis of some aspects of the proposed1H > >merger of CPQ into HWP.  I am responding in this brief manner only toM > >make sure that Alan understands there is an *interlocking* director sharednJ > >by MSFT and HWP.  There never has needed to be any subterfuge about theL > >suppression of non-Windoze technology by HWP in its product line.  It wasK > >all done in plain sight through that interlocking director who is one ofa7 > >only five members (last I looked) on the MSFT board.4 > >    Bob Grumbine    :-)## > >t8 > >+++++++++++++++   #   email  bgrumbin@dimensional.comF > >Robert E. "Bob"   #   postal  PO Box 260203, Lakewood CO 80226-0203, > >Grumbine, MBA     #   voice  303-232-4520? > >visit Bob's web site at http://www.dimensional.com/~bgrumbing >  > Ben Myersc > Spirit of Performance, Inc.a > 73 Westcott Road > Harvard, MA 01451. > tel: 978-456-3889n > eFax: 810-963-0412" > PayPal, MC, VISA, AMEX accepted.   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:39:33 GMT ) From: "Madman" <madman@killthewabbit.org>l% Subject: Re: More Compaq lies exposed ? Message-ID: <93jI7.23224$XJ4.14423146@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>p  7 I hear there's a gas shortage for black helicopters....    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:07:23 GMTr) From: "minime2323" <minime2323@yahoo.com>e% Subject: Re: More Compaq lies exposedi; Message-ID: <ftjI7.22418$4W.258974@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>w   check out www.theyrule.comG there's a map showing the relationship between msft and hwp's directorsw  4 "Ben Myers" <ben_myers@charter.net> wrote in message* news:3bf165ba.26110961@news.charter.net...$ > Who's that?   Do tell... Ben Myers >e2 > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:28:00 -0700, Bob Grumbine <bgrumbin@dimensional.com> > wrote: >iG > >Alan Greig wrote a detailed analysis of some aspects of the proposedbH > >merger of CPQ into HWP.  I am responding in this brief manner only toF > >make sure that Alan understands there is an *interlocking* director sharedJ > >by MSFT and HWP.  There never has needed to be any subterfuge about theL > >suppression of non-Windoze technology by HWP in its product line.  It wasK > >all done in plain sight through that interlocking director who is one ofI7 > >only five members (last I looked) on the MSFT board.s > >    Bob Grumbine    :-)## > >c8 > >+++++++++++++++   #   email  bgrumbin@dimensional.comF > >Robert E. "Bob"   #   postal  PO Box 260203, Lakewood CO 80226-0203, > >Grumbine, MBA     #   voice  303-232-4520? > >visit Bob's web site at http://www.dimensional.com/~bgrumbinu >c > Ben Myers  > Spirit of Performance, Inc.F > 73 Westcott Road > Harvard, MA 01451c > tel: 978-456-3889e > eFax: 810-963-0412" > PayPal, MC, VISA, AMEX accepted.   ------------------------------   Date: 14 Nov 2001 03:05:09 GMT) From: leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie)a% Subject: Re: More Compaq lies exposedn' Message-ID: <9ssn15$bl7$1@joe.rice.edu>b  ( minime2323 (minime2323@yahoo.com) wrote: : check out www.theyrule.comI : there's a map showing the relationship between msft and hwp's directorse :r www.theyrule.net              ---  4 --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own)   ------------------------------    Date: 13 Nov 2001 22:41:41 -08006 From: andrew.rycroft@intrinsitech.com (Andrew Rycroft)N Subject: OpenVMS v7.3, DECnet/OSI v7.3 eco 1, Mailbus 200 v2.0c, and X.25 v1.5= Message-ID: <58ba0101.0111132241.1690f5c8@posting.google.com>_   Hi,y  ? We have been trying to upgrade to an ES45 running OpenVMS v7.3,eE DECnet/OSI v7.3 Eco 1, Mailbus 400 v2.0c, and X.25 v1.5. All the IVPs6E pass, but when we start up the Mailbus X.400 the system crashes after1C a few minutes with INVEXCEPTN, Exception while above ASTDEL. We arerE sending the X.400 via X.25. We are communicating to X.25 via a DECnetC Phase IV node.   Current Process    NET$ACP> Current Image:     DSA0:[SYS0.SYSCOMMON.][SYSEXE]NET$ACP.EXE;1F Failing PC:        FFFFFFFF.80729A78    GAP_DISCONNECT_SESSION_C+000C8$ Failing PS:        20000000.00000804= Module:            X25$ACCESS    (Link Date/Time: 11-JAN-2001n 22:48:30.03)  E Anybody know if there are any patches for X.25 v1.5 or how fix this ?-   Thanks Andrew   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:34:07 -0500@2 From: "Sue Skonetski" <susan.skonetski@compaq.com> Subject: RDB - Technical Forums 3 Message-ID: <EzeI7.1526$RL6.49236@news.cpqcorp.net>>  # got this from the Oracle RDB group.u  6 ______________________________________________________      H The Oracle Rdb Engineering Group cordially invites you to attend another  H in the series of Oracle Rdb Technical Forums at Oracle Headquarters near  C San Francisco, California on December 1 and 2, 2001. We are holdingu  2 this forum on the weekend before Oracle Open World  F (http://www.oracle.com/openworld/us/conference/index.html) so that you  6 can attend both events and minimize your travel costs.  B We are very excited about the agenda for this event. It includes a  E number of new presentations on topics of interest to the community ofa  ? Rdb customers around the world. We think you'll be particularlyi   interested in presentations on   * Using Oracle 9iAS with Rdb   * Using Java and XML with Rdbt  = * Using the XA Protocol for Distributed Transactions with Rdb   $ * Porting OpenVMS and Rdb to Itanium  D In addition, you'll hear information on new features in the recently  F released Rdb version 7.1, practical experience on tuning Rdb databases  D to maximize performance and avoiding loss of data in a disaster. You  = can find the complete agenda (along with directions and hotel    information) atI= http://www.oracle.com/rdb/tech_forums/index.html?content.html1  D As always, there is no charge for attending the Rdb Technical Forum.  5 We hope you'll be able to attend this exciting event.s  F In addition, we are pleased to announce three new sessions of the very  > popular Oracle Rdb Internals course. These will be offered in,  - * De Meern, Netherlands on January 7-11, 2002a  ? (http://oracle.com/nl/education/specials/index.html?sp187.html)a  . * Nashua, New Hampshire on January 14-18, 2002  3 * Colorado Springs, Colorado on January 21-25, 2002   J Details on how to register for these course offerings will follow shortly.  
 Best regards,    Kevin Duffy2   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:21:57 GMTs& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org8 Message-ID: <9YXH7.6254$vM6.231480@typhoon1.gnilink.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message < news:tIWH7.125597$7x1.9642600@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...- > I dug around and came up with numbers, plus ? > qualitative but definite statements from Alpha's design team,   K No you came up with some suppositions your continue to portray as fact.  IflI your numbers were correct the bottom line of the Alpha server group wouldg/ have been noticeably positive and they weren't.T  D Fact - you do NOT have access to all of Compaq's internal numbers...   ------------------------------   Date: 13 Nov 2001 19:22:41 GMT3 From: bobd@araminta.uts.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula)tN Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org: Message-ID: <9srru1$rcm$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  B Jeff Killeen <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> carefully crafted electrons to say: > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:aF017zeUqWsN@eisner.encompasserve.org...m > >nB > > Don't go there.  He has done RMS development and was surprised0 > > that one of his techniques was still in use. > N > That does not mean he is currently employed in a significant decision makingM > position - but more importantly it does not mean he isn't shilling for IBM, D > Sun, or some other Compaq competitor because of a vested, and mostN > importantly it does not change the bitterness and the lack of current use of > the technology...P  G Why on Earth or any other planet you care to name would IBM or Sun neediF any help against Compaq? Compaq is making its' own cooked-goose gravy.G Quite frankly, if one were start doing an exhaustive examination of whoIG seems to be shouting in this thread, without any real arguments to make E or facts to back them, I'd say that the glass house protocol seems tooE be in full effect for a certain freakwent fryer and it doesn't appear- from this angle to be Bill....    H ========================================================================D (Note: Author not responsible for content effects caused by neuronicE distortions due to the close proximity to several largish EMR sourcest at the time of composition).   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Nov 2001 01:22:08 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org- Message-ID: <87eln2twlb.fsf@prep.synonet.com>$  ' Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:E  F > I have a hunch that the term "fully funded" Compaq used to re-assureC > customers that EV8 was secure was decided on and ok'd by Capellas.C > with the explicit intention being to mislead customers. I do knowaD > for a fact that at least one Compaq business unit manager used theB > term to current and prospective customers *after* he knew of the? > decision to kill Alpha. He had no choice in the matter. Terry1B > Shannon himself suggested to me that the term "fully funded" wasC > first used by Compaq a couple of years ago with reference to EV8.d  < As the EV8 was about to be floor-planed and detailed for the? initial tape-out, and that the SMT work has been going on sincee= 94/95, a large chunk of the dosh had already been spent. Pluse> Samsung was reported to have their own version of the EV8, and) it was significantly different to the Qs.r   -- o< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:54:45 GMT & From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org8 Message-ID: <pb_H7.6533$vM6.234168@typhoon1.gnilink.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message 9 news:68YH7.726916$Lw3.45637214@news2.aus1.giganews.com... F > I'm an engineer, not a paper-shuffler.  That does give me a slightlyL > different slant on these matters, but I don't consider that a disadvantage  J No it demonstrates your lack of background to making the public statementsI you have been making.  You have been claiming publicly, without access tocJ Compaq's internal numbers, that the public statements that Compaq has madeK about the business case behind the Alpha decision are false.  The statement G above now proves you lack both the information and the background to ber7 doing a business case analysis for something like this.o  3 > Looks like you're an asshole as well as an idiot.e  I Another professional statement from Todd.  Does my mother wear army bootsa also?   L > A bitterness shared with, to all appearances, the majority of participants9 > in this discussion, and for precisely the same reasons.e  K Well at least you are acknowledging your extreme prejudices.  As to whetherrJ it is shared with a majority you are using questionable data.  My point isI anyone who speaks a different point of view to the sage Todd gets poundedtH relentlessly.  The only question I guess in your mind when they disagreeJ with you is are they a "asshole" or an "idiot" or both.  It must be such aI hard burden going through life knowing you are always right and having tos) suffer the fools who disagree with you...   J > I suspect I'm far more conversant with most of the technologies on which VMSpJ > is built than you are.  But my DCL is very rusty, so if that's the level ofJ > your problem I can't disagree - though fail to see much relevance in the > observation.  G I suspect myself, and most reading these newsgroups, have far more of anI economic interest in the future of VMS than you do.  An economic interestoJ that requires us to put aside the bitterness that may have come from beingH separated from our former employer and focusing us to look at the issuesK from a rational business standpoint.  Stockholders don't want to hear theirq? employees are making decisions based upon bitter old grudges...c   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:20:06 GMTo& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org8 Message-ID: <qWXH7.5758$o16.307723@typhoon2.gnilink.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagea< news:tIWH7.125597$7x1.9642600@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...- > I dug around and came up with numbers, pluse? > qualitative but definite statements from Alpha's design team,   K No you came up with some suppositions your continue to portray as fact.  IfsI your numbers were correct the bottom line of the Alpha server group wouldp/ have been noticeably positive and they weren't.a  D Fact - you do NOT have access to all of Compaq's internal numbers...   ------------------------------   Date: 14 Nov 2001 00:32:30 GMT' From: dashw459@aol.comeatspam (Doug W.) N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org9 Message-ID: <20011113193230.02751.00005938@mb-fo.aol.com>t   Terry Shannon wrote:  K << One thing the Taliban vermin have not managed to do is deprive us of our.> right to freely express our opinion in a public forum. The IPFG consolidation remains an incendiary issue. What I find ironic about theeI matter is the fact that the shrillness of the diatribe often is inverselyuG proportional to the financial stake of the individual expressing his ord her opinion.    E PS-- liberally salting a polemic with expressions such as "bullsh*t,"pG "infomercial"," gall," "mealy-mouthed," "utter crap," "fool" and "pimp"tJ (to mention a few)  detracts immensely from the credibility of the message and the messenger alike.  >>-  O Perhaps.  But it is more surprising to see a technology journalist mix politicseO with news in a manner guaranteed to incite strong feelings (Todd baiting).  Are N you attempting to further your own interests?  Whats next, sex, religion?  Are5 these your own freely expressed opinions or Compaq's?a   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:16:30 GMTs3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>fN Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org/ Message-ID: <3BF1E123.659BD2D3@cableinet.co.uk>.   jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > / > In article <87d72nbu1d.fsf@prep.synonet.com>,i2 >    Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote:/ > >"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  > >nF > >> Do I believe that discussion and evidence would have obtained theG > >> Taliban's consent?  Not necessarily (and of course now we'll nevermI > >> know for sure) - but making the effort *would* have allowed us to beeE > >> perceived as having attempted to go about things properly ratheryG > >> than as a global bully who can all the more easily be perceived asm: > >> having in some ways deserved the sucker punch we got. > >eG > >The Taliban offered to deliver OBL to a 3rd muslim country for trialsD > >if reasonable evidence was presented to them. The shrub turned it
 > >down flat.  > >a > That was a delaying tactic.   6 you mean until they could scrounge up some reasonable    jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  e -- c Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk     C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of  ! my employers or service provider.s   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:55:04 GMTi3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>2N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org- Message-ID: <3BF1EA2A.A91458@cableinet.co.uk>~   jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > / > In article <87d72nbu1d.fsf@prep.synonet.com>,n2 >    Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote:/ > >"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:i > >tF > >> Do I believe that discussion and evidence would have obtained theG > >> Taliban's consent?  Not necessarily (and of course now we'll neveraI > >> know for sure) - but making the effort *would* have allowed us to beaE > >> perceived as having attempted to go about things properly ratherrG > >> than as a global bully who can all the more easily be perceived asa: > >> having in some ways deserved the sucker punch we got. > >oG > >The Taliban offered to deliver OBL to a 3rd muslim country for trialBD > >if reasonable evidence was presented to them. The shrub turned it
 > >down flat.  > >b > That was a delaying tactic.o  ? you mean until they could scrounge up some reasonable evidence?0    - --   Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  /  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of c! my employers or service provider.v   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:01:45 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org> Message-ID: <dNnI7.8062$jp.862753@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  > Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message' news:3BF1EA2A.A91458@cableinet.co.uk...t >. >  > jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > >-1 > > In article <87d72nbu1d.fsf@prep.synonet.com>,n4 > >    Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote:1 > > >"Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:9 > > >oH > > >> Do I believe that discussion and evidence would have obtained theI > > >> Taliban's consent?  Not necessarily (and of course now we'll neversK > > >> know for sure) - but making the effort *would* have allowed us to be G > > >> perceived as having attempted to go about things properly rather7I > > >> than as a global bully who can all the more easily be perceived asr< > > >> having in some ways deserved the sucker punch we got. > > >fI > > >The Taliban offered to deliver OBL to a 3rd muslim country for trialtF > > >if reasonable evidence was presented to them. The shrub turned it > > >down flat.e > > >r > > That was a delaying tactic.a >tA > you mean until they could scrounge up some reasonable evidence?t  K Excellent rejoinder.  But kidding aside, what Barb likely means is that shehK *thinks* it was a delaying tactic by the Taliban, since anyone sufficiently J acquainted with their inner councils to know it for a fact would also knowG where Bin Laden is and could quickly put an end to at least the current0I stage of this affair.  And, as with other aspects of negotiation, Dubya'ssK approach has made certain that we'll likely never know for sure either way.e  L Of course, allowing the Taliban to succeed in any such delay could have beenK disasterous:  who knows how long Bin Laden might have remained on the loose-I with as much as a week or so of extra time?  Oh, wait:  he's still on theuJ loose anyway, and there was adequate time for discussion during the periodF that our forces were being moved into position without losing an extra minute of time...e  L A lot of actions, both in the corporate and in the international arena, seemG to make sense as long as you don't examine them very closely.  And suchnI examination is so tedious for people who have no personal interest in the0J issues - it's far easier just to let leaders think for you and adopt their	 opinions.V   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:29:18 +11000/ From: "Phil Howell" <phowell@snowyhydro.com.au>y8 Subject: Re: Transactions per Minute  / How to measure ?0 Message-ID: <VOjI7.320$2Z5.16426@ozemail.com.au>  ; "Fabio Cardoso" <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br> wrote in messagee: news:20011113125242.18784.qmail@web20207.mail.yahoo.com... Sirs  & I would like to know if there is a way& to measure the Transactions per Minute- in an OpenVMS server (Alphasever 4100 5/600).d My OVMS is 7.1-1H2...    Regardsu  
 Fabio CardosoD  J if you enter rmu/show statistics disk_prod:[mac.rdb]macp.rdb (for example) you get_    D Node: C21 (1/1/16)      Oracle Rdb V7.0-61 Perf. Monitor 14-NOV-2001 12:14:08.595D Rate: 1.00 Second            Summary IO Statistics          Elapsed: 00:19:02.70 I Page: 1 of 1             DISK_PROD1:[MAC.RDB]MACP.RDB;7             Mode:- OnlineL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----A statistic.........      rate.per.second............. total.......D
 average......LA name..............      max..... cur..... avg....... count....... 
 per.trans...._A transactions                   0        0        0.0            5n 1.0gA verb successes               412        0        5.5         6385O 1277.0A verb failures                  0        0        0.0            0l 0.0i  A synch data reads             302        0       12.4        14230k 2846.0A synch data writes              0        0        0.0            0n 0.0dA asynch data reads           1033        0       45.2        51717a 10343.4.A asynch data writes             0        0        0.0            0s 0.0 A RUJ file reads                 0        0        0.0            0o 0.0 A RUJ file writes                0        0        0.0            0  0.0eA AIJ file reads                 0        0        0.0            0  0.0aA AIJ file writes                0        0        0.0            0t 0.0wA ACE file reads                 0        0        0.0            0u 0.0eA ACE file writes                0        0        0.0            0i 0.01A root file reads                0        0        0.0            0r 0.0 A root file writes               1        0        0.0           15t 3.0nL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----I Exit Graph Help Menu Options Pause Reset Set_rate Time_plot Unreset Writet X_plot  A In this context I think "Transactions" are Rdb transactions as ini prepare transactiond     do some stuffe commit transactionJ maybe you should be looking at "verb successes" or add up the reads/writesG In rmu/show one of the options is "report" and you get a lot of info in: statistics.rpt Phil   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:52:09 GMTy4 From: "Matt Muggeridge" <Matt.Muggeridge@compaq.com>, Subject: Re: Transparent RMS access to TCPIPA Message-ID: <ZejI7.334087$bY5.1377561@news-server.bigpond.net.au>    Duly noted and acted upon.  J As with all product requests which involve decisions to invest in one areaL at the expense of others, there is nothing like having identifiable customer- demand to help the concept get over the line.M   Matt.t  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3BEB16E6.E2D9EF63@videotron.ca... > Matt Muggeridge wrote: > >.I > > Will you be sending this request along to OpenVMS product management?e >iH > From what i was told, they only raise issues that have arrived throughH > official channels. And I don't have access to official channels, and I doubttL > that a 1980s paper SPR would make it way to the right people. I have a few > left in some binders.u > L > If the idea has merit, then perhaps a valued customer can bring this up to; > Compaq since they would have access to official channels.i >.J > And if Compaq staff do not have the ability to see some good suggestions andnF > raise them themselves in their committees, then it is Compaq's loss.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:15:55 -0500t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>a, Subject: Re: Transparent RMS access to TCPIP, Message-ID: <3BF1E1EA.A655FEE0@videotron.ca>   Matt Muggeridge wrote: >  > Duly noted and acted upon. > L > As with all product requests which involve decisions to invest in one areaN > at the expense of others, there is nothing like having identifiable customer/ > demand to help the concept get over the line.M  L And there is nothing like a vendor who takes leadership, takes ideas that itL sees as having value to further develop their products and implement it.  ByL the time customer's begging for a feature reaches Compaq, it means that such) features have been implemented elsewhere.m  L Leading the pack is better IMHO. Did customers beg for clustering or did theK VMS engineers see the potential for this idea and implement it, only to seet) customers really like the idea later on ?t   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:25:20 +0000f- From: Jamie Stallwood <jamie@project76.co.uk>tD Subject: Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples?8 Message-ID: <cta3vt88o4qklv44mr1fn84adori2ldrul@4ax.com>  E If anybody has any examples in FORTRAN of using the INETACP functions E with QIO in FORTRAN, I would receive them most gratefully! Especially  if they use the function above!-   Thanks Jamie P StallwoodN   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:52:12 GMTj5 From: "John Gemignani, Jr." <john@REMOVETHISossc.net>aH Subject: Re: Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples?> Message-ID: <w%kI7.5866$jp.677699@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  L Why are you asking the ACP for this information?  You are better off calling! the DECC function to do the work..   -Johnt  : "Jamie Stallwood" <jamie@project76.co.uk> wrote in message2 news:cta3vt88o4qklv44mr1fn84adori2ldrul@4ax.com...G > If anybody has any examples in FORTRAN of using the INETACP functionskG > with QIO in FORTRAN, I would receive them most gratefully! Especiallyr! > if they use the function above!m >h > Thanks > Jamie P Stallwood    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 03:47:58 GMTs3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>rH Subject: Re: Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples?/ Message-ID: <3BF1E885.AD7F0260@cableinet.co.uk>p   Jamie Stallwood wrote: > G > If anybody has any examples in FORTRAN of using the INETACP functionseG > with QIO in FORTRAN, I would receive them most gratefully! Especiallye! > if they use the function above!  >  > Thanks > Jamie P Stallwood    If    U http://www.openvms.compaq.com:8000/73FINAL/6529/6529pro_015.html#dev_func_dep_par_tabl  / doesn't help you then I am currently available.    best regards   --   Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  -  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of <! my employers or service provider.i   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 00:10:21 -0500p( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>H Subject: Re: Using INETACP_FUNC$C_GETHOSTBYNAME using fortran- examples?* Message-ID: <3BF1FCBD.90503@tsoft-inc.com>   John Gemignani, Jr. wrote:  G  > Why are you asking the ACP for this information?  You are better offe-  >  calling the DECC function to do the work.   >  > -John    , Only if you can get yourself to work in 'C'.    >  > "Jamie Stallwood" <jamie@project76.co.uk> wrote in message 2 news:cta3vt88o4qklv44mr1fn84adori2ldrul@4ax.com...  >    >?  >> If anybody has any examples in FORTRAN of using the INETACPt<  >> functions with QIO in FORTRAN, I would receive them most:  >> gratefully! Especially if they use the function above!  >>   >> Thanks Jamie P Stallwood  D Been way too many years since I did Fortran.  I've implemented some G socket communications in Basic using the system service interface.  If  E you feel that you can benefit from some of this, I can send you some.a  H Note that it can get rather interesting, and I found at least one place H where the manual had things backwards.  IO$_SETMODE and IO$_SETMODE are I both usable for the same action.  One requires privs, the other doesn't.  G   The damn manual had them backwards, at least the 'old' manual that I dG bought.  It appears that the 'new' manual, (must have come out the day nB after I bought one) only mentions the one that doesn't need privs.   Dave, still learning.a   -- e4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:51:01 -0500e0 From: "Island Computers" <dbturner@islandco.com>L Subject: Re: VMS 7.1 Alpha installation on PWS 433a (with correct SCSI card)/ Message-ID: <tv3bvair9r8450@news.supernews.com>t   FYI   $ SN-B3xxxd-P or Vx is the older style  1 SN-B3xxx-Rx is the newer style with on board scsir   David    -- David Turner   We sell Alpha systems & parts  http://www.islandco.coma sales@islandco.com Island Computers US Corp.n 2700 Gregory Streetq Savannah GA 31404i Tel: 912 447 6622u Fax: 912 201 0096g/ Brian <bkwalton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message : news:tdhH7.34959$LD.1515229@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...J > It should say on the front door 433a or 433au (or 500 or 600) if it does nottJ > say au then it is an a (I have one that just says 433 and it is a 433a). >d > Briand >e4 > "Dan O'Reilly" <dano@process.com> wrote in message> > news:5.1.0.14.2.20011110110340.0385ebf0@raptor.psccos.com...J > > How do you tell the difference in the series, so you know what to look > for? > > , > > At 10:54 AM 11/10/2001, Dirk Munk wrote:F > > >There were two series of the PWS. The IDE controller of the first series > isK > > >not supported in VMS, so you can not use the IDE CD-Rom in such a PWS.a > YouuI > > >need a SCSI CD-Rom, and indeed the Toshiba is the one Digital/Compaq- use- > for- > > >this purpose. > > >3 > > >Brian Walton wrote: > > >a > > > > Hi - > > > >cJ > > > > Does anyone know why on a Personal WorkStation 433a when trying to	 > install2H > > > > VMS 7.1 (DQA0) I boot the CD and it loads the bootstrap but then failsiH > > > > and states can't find "SYS$CPU_ROUTINES_1E05.EXE" and has a Halt Code > 5.L > > > > The system is running Linux right now on one disk and I want to have > anJ > > > > install of OpenVMS 7.1 or 7.2 on another but can't get VMS to boot for J > > > > the install. I have installed on a MicroVAX 3100 and other 433au's > (camexK > > > > with the SCSI card). The only thing I can tell that is different isr > thatI > > > > I do not have any cache on this system, is that a requirement for  VMS? > I"B > > > > have looked through the docs on the web but can't find any
 references > to > > > > my problem.. > > > > 6 > > > > Thanks in advance for any help in this matter. > > > >t > > > > Brian Walton > >n
 > > ------ > >eI +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+e% > > | Dan O'Reilly                  |  |iJ > > | Principal Engineer            |  "Why should I care about posterity? |-K > > | Process Software              |   What's posterity ever done for me?"l | H > > | http://www.process.com        |                    -- Groucho Marx |a > >KI +-------------------------------+---------------------------------------+k > >  >b >i >o   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:23:46 -0500u  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com> Subject: Re: VMS Crash4 Message-ID: <1011113161751.349A-100000@Ives.egh.com>  % On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Nic Clews wrote:h   > Jan-Erik S=F6derholm wrote:c > >=20 > > @SYS$SYSTEM:SHUTDOWN > >=20 > > Why "crasch" the system ?u >=202 > Yes, and use REMOVE_NODE option too in clusters. >=20E > (Why it's not the default in a cluster environment I'll never know)>  B MSCP-served disks:  you might want to reboot an MSCP-serving node,> and if you use REMOVE_NODE, IIRC it does a dismount/cluster onB the disks it is serving.  If other nodes currently have files openC on the disks, this spells trouble.  If you would rather have the=20r@ disks go into mount-verify until the node comes back up (usually= much less disruptive), you don't want to use REMOVE_NODE.  Ifi6 REMOVE_NODE were the default, you would need to have a "NOREMOVE_NODE" to override it.e   > --=20 * > Regards, Nic Clews CSC Computer Sciences > nclews at csc dot com      --=20- John Santos- Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:14:38 GMTI& From: Kentucky Kid <kkidd1296@uky.edu>7 Subject: Re: What do you think of the HP/Compaq merger?k7 Message-ID: <Xns91587C370BA7B567956890689@24.9.139.141>u  I On 09 Nov 2001, amalloy@techtarget.com (Amy) took a bong hit then coughed:$ up a lung while posting this message6 news:dfbaf67b.0111090549.23927379@posting.google.com:   F > I'm the site editor for searchHP.com. We provide news, expert adviceF > and technical information to HP users, but we are independent of HP.E > SearchHP members have expressed a lot of concerns about the merger,tB > wondering what it will mean to their technology investments. I'dE > really like to know what Compaq users think about the merger, and IdF > know that searchHP members would like to know too. If you would likeH > to share your opinion, please post it in our HP/Compaq merger forum atJ > http://searchhp.discussions.techtarget.com/WebX?230@186.1HfhaObfbsZ^0@.e= > e8474f!viewtype=&skip=&expand=. We'd love to hear from you.a	 > Thanks,d > Amy Malloy  H Great!  Now if you can just figure out a way to streamline the "ease" ofF registration for participation in this wonderful forum you'll have it  made.  -  + Doesn't seem like it's doing very well...  1   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:13:18 +0100e& From: John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch>% Subject: What has Capellas achieved ?n* Message-ID: <3BF20B7E.51FC03EF@dplanet.ch>  : Michael Capellas was appointed Compaq CEO on 22 July 1999.  E "In the end, our choice was easy. In a field of excellent candidates,.F Michael was clearly superior," [Compaq Chairman] Rosen said. "He has aB better understanding of where information technology is going thanH anyone else we talked with-inside or outside the company. He has a clearF vision for Compaq and the industry.... He understands our business and4 financial dynamics, and how to balance them properly  to deliver results.  D "The entire Board has never felt more confident of Compaq's future," Rosen concluded.  + (Quotes from inFORM magazine, Sep/Oct 1999)s  C Now there are fewer than 30 days remaining of his 180-day effort tovG transform the company.  The switch into services went quiet even beforebH the announced buyout plans by HP.  The HP deal now seems to be in dangerF of unravelling and if it does, Capellas may be out the door so perhaps# we should look at how he has fared.   G ***  What has Mike achieved for Compaq in the last 28 months and how don you rate his performance ??      John McLean,   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:25:05 GMTy* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>) Subject: Re: What has Capellas achieved ?i> Message-ID: <57oI7.8407$jp.881253@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  1 John McLean <mcleanj@dplanet.ch> wrote in message $ news:3BF20B7E.51FC03EF@dplanet.ch...   ...a  I > ***  What has Mike achieved for Compaq in the last 28 months and how dor > you rate his performance ??l  I To be (uncharacteristically) brief, I'd say that Capellas appears to be a L man without a clue about how to *make* money, so the only approach availableC to him is to try to *save* money, no matter what the cost - i.e., anL classical bean-counter.  Reorg upon reorg, downsize upon downsize:  Compaq'sL management even points to such things with pride, because there is after allK nothing else they *can* list in the way of accomplishments (save for having L been able to retain at least most of their Intel-based market share by being willing to sell below cost).  > I don't think it matters much whether you rate Curly on growthI accomplishments or stock price:  it's an F either way.  The only reason IiI have any pity for him at all is because it seems that there may be a good0H chance that he was mostly following the orders of an equally-incompetent board of directors.o   - bill   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.633 ************************