1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 24 Nov 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 654       Contents:) Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP - Re: Intel Itanium versus AMD Hammer (& Alpha)  MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL Re: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL@ Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha)@ Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha)@ Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha) Re: Problem with pathworks Re: Problem with pathworksA Re: RMS file structure internals documentation freely available ? 6 Re: Samba 2.0.3 handling of files with no ".extension"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 A Re: StongARM-Outside (was Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering ) 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------    Date: 24 Nov 2001 17:15:28 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>2 Subject: Re: Gartner hints VMS to be dropped by HP- Message-ID: <877ksgy1fz.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   ' Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:   ) > Norton Tools for Battleship Windows :-(   " Should that not be Bubbleships? ;)   --  < 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: 24 Nov 2001 17:38:28 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>6 Subject: Re: Intel Itanium versus AMD Hammer (& Alpha)- Message-ID: <873d34y0dn.fsf@prep.synonet.com>     Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:  ? > It has a integrated memory controller with a bandwith of 5.33  > Gigabyte/sec..  8 > The best thing however is that it seems it will have 3? > HyperTransport channels for interprocessor communication. One C > HyperTransport channel has a bandwith of 6.4 GigaByte/sec. It all " > reminds me of the EV7 design....  A Where do you think it came from? (Hint, AMD is an Alpha licencee)    --  < 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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:51:04 , From: "PIUS KOLADE" <pkolade@totalise.co.uk>! Subject: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL 9 Message-ID: <iss.6eed.3bff9690.498ea.1@mx2.east.saic.com>    ENGR. PIUS KOLADE  18 COWRIE HOUSE  LAGOS, NIGERIA.       Sir,   9 We have an immediate business proposal that involves US$  G 27,300,000 which we will like to invest under your custody. Please, do  K not hesitate to send me an email, so as to discuss with you the details of  @ the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing regarding the	 business.   G Your urgent response will be highly appreciated and will swiftly bring  D us to the commencement of the transaction. We hope to conclude this & transaction within 10-12 working days.  H Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this mail. And please you B have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending , transaction. I urgently await your response.   
 Best Regards,   
 PIUS KOLADE      ------------------------------   Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:37:29 , From: "PIUS KOLADE" <pkolade@totalise.co.uk>! Subject: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL 9 Message-ID: <iss.1ac0.3bffa171.e052f.1@mx2.east.saic.com>    ENGR. PIUS KOLADE  18 COWRIE HOUSE  LAGOS, NIGERIA.       Sir,   9 We have an immediate business proposal that involves US$  G 27,300,000 which we will like to invest under your custody. Please, do  K not hesitate to send me an email, so as to discuss with you the details of  @ the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing regarding the	 business.   G Your urgent response will be highly appreciated and will swiftly bring  D us to the commencement of the transaction. We hope to conclude this & transaction within 10-12 working days.  H Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this mail. And please you B have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending , transaction. I urgently await your response.   
 Best Regards,   
 PIUS KOLADE      ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:17:42 GMT 4 From: LESLIE@209-16-45-102.insync.net (Jerry Leslie)% Subject: Re: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL ) Message-ID: <a_NL7.2884$Oh1.33902@insync>   + PIUS KOLADE (pkolade@totalise.co.uk) wrote:  : ENGR. PIUS KOLADE  : 18 COWRIE HOUSE  : LAGOS, NIGERIA.  :    : Sir, :   ; : We have an immediate business proposal that involves US$  I : 27,300,000 which we will like to invest under your custody. Please, do  M : not hesitate to send me an email, so as to discuss with you the details of  B : the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing regarding the : business.  : I : Your urgent response will be highly appreciated and will swiftly bring  F : us to the commencement of the transaction. We hope to conclude this ( : transaction within 10-12 working days. : J : Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this mail. And please you D : have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending . : transaction. I urgently await your response. :    : Best Regards,  :  : PIUS KOLADE    : 6 The U.S. Secret Service has a web page for this fraud:  )    http://www.treas.gov/usss/alert419.htm     USSS Operation 4-1-9   I   "...If you have been victimized by one of these schemes, please forward I    appropriate written documentation to the United States Secret Service, G    Financial Crimes Division, 950 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001, 5    or telephone (202) 406-5850, or contact by e-mail.   F    If you have received a letter, but have not lost any monies to this?    scheme, please fax a copy of that letter to (202) 406-5031."   & This site is dedicated to such frauds:       http://www.quatloos.com/   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Nov 2001 13:21:37 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>I Subject: Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha) - Message-ID: <873d34zqu6.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   ' Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:   A > It's the EV7 that has no known showstoppers and these designers C > still work for Compaq. All the crap engineers (;-) were obviously : > working on EV8 and they are the ones Compaq handed over.  C Yep, I was told on Thursday that EV8 did not work. By a Q employee.    --  < 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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:12:01 GMT - From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> I Subject: Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha) D Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0111241206150.16466-100000@world.std.com>  % On 24 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote:   ) > Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:  > C > > It's the EV7 that has no known showstoppers and these designers E > > still work for Compaq. All the crap engineers (;-) were obviously < > > working on EV8 and they are the ones Compaq handed over. > E > Yep, I was told on Thursday that EV8 did not work. By a Q employee.  >   I I never heard that EV8 didn't work (in fact, the only thing that could or D could not work would be a simulation as they sure as hell don't haveI bootable silicon) but I've heard from several senior technical types that I EV8 posed some significant issues, SMT being among them. It was this data J that colored the IPF writeup I posted on www.tru64.org that lead to recordE traffic levels and much angst, not to mention a few personal attacks.   A Best that we all agree to a cease-fire (which seems to be working @ extremely well) and do whatever we can to make the best of a bad
 situation!   cheers,    terry s    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:28:11 GMT * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>I Subject: Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha) A Message-ID: <LMQL7.104949$dk.7760967@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>   8 Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message> news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111241206150.16466-100000@world.std.com...   ...   K > I never heard that EV8 didn't work (in fact, the only thing that could or F > could not work would be a simulation as they sure as hell don't haveK > bootable silicon) but I've heard from several senior technical types that : > EV8 posed some significant issues, SMT being among them.  D You *really* have to be careful when parsing Compaq statements.  ForL example, few in the industry would question the fact that applying SMT to anJ architecture of any complexity would pose significant issues (just imagineL the difficulty Itanic is going to have in this area) - but the real issue isK whether these issues, which have been being closely examined for years now, 3 were on-track with respect to being solved for EV8.   I The answer I've heard consistently from the design team is that they were J very much on track indeed, with no showstoppers in sight.  In other words,J Compaq's statement about this, while not an outright lie, appears to be as. deliberately misleading as so many others are.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:55:48 -0500 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com># Subject: Re: Problem with pathworks , Message-ID: <3BFFB4F4.8040407@tsoft-inc.com>   dre123@wi.rr.com wrote:   $ > Running VMS 6.1 and Pathworks 5.0D > B > I am using an old VMS machine to backup my home network and withH > Windows 2000 everything worked fine.  Now I went to Windows XP and theF > PC says that I have to use 8.3 file names.  I can see and get at theH > long file names on the VMS machine but when I go to save a file on theB > VMS machine I get the message saying I need to use 8.3 names.  IG > didn't change a thing on the VMS side, so I assume there is something G > on the PC side.  Any ideas?  Also, before I could see the VMS machine F > in the "entire network" window on the PC.  Now I have to specify the > path to get to a share.  >  > Don  >   F Interesting issue.  I've never seen my VMS systems from the PCs.  I'm H currently running Windoz 2000.  Can you be more specific on how you get , the windoz systems to 'see' the VMS systems?   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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:23:54 +0100 , From: "Bart Zorn" <B.Zorn@TrueBit.nospam.nl># Subject: Re: Problem with pathworks * Message-ID: <9tohnf$qot$1@news1.xs4all.nl>  4 David Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message& news:3BFFB4F4.8040407@tsoft-inc.com... > dre123@wi.rr.com wrote:  > & > > Running VMS 6.1 and Pathworks 5.0D > > D > > I am using an old VMS machine to backup my home network and withJ > > Windows 2000 everything worked fine.  Now I went to Windows XP and theH > > PC says that I have to use 8.3 file names.  I can see and get at theJ > > long file names on the VMS machine but when I go to save a file on theD > > VMS machine I get the message saying I need to use 8.3 names.  II > > didn't change a thing on the VMS side, so I assume there is something I > > on the PC side.  Any ideas?  Also, before I could see the VMS machine H > > in the "entire network" window on the PC.  Now I have to specify the > > path to get to a share.  > >  > > Don  > >  > G > Interesting issue.  I've never seen my VMS systems from the PCs.  I'm I > currently running Windoz 2000.  Can you be more specific on how you get . > the windoz systems to 'see' the VMS systems? >  > Dave  I Things are a LOT easier when you enable NetBeui on both the Pathworks and  the W2K system!   	 Bart Zorn    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:37:42 +0100 ( From: Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch>J Subject: Re: RMS file structure internals documentation freely available ?- Message-ID: <VA.000004c9.9075cf47@bluewin.ch>   K In article <Yh_K7.73145$dk.5509046@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, Bill Todd   wrote:5 > Paul Sture <paul.sture@bluewin.ch> wrote in message ) > news:VA.000004c6.832e8c0f@bluewin.ch...  >  > .... > H > > The best explanation of RMS structures I have seen came in an RMS-11	 > manual.  > K > Thank you - that would be the one I originally wrote that got turned into J > English by Bob Abramson and may have been polished subsequently by LavarJ > Burton - two dedicated tech writers whom it was a pleasure to work with. > J I'll turn that around and say a Big Thank You to you and your co-authors.   O That manual served me extremely well in understanding RMS and getting the best  I performance out of it. I will add that I gave it all a thorough testing,  4 rather than just simply taking the manual as gospel.  J Now I've had my memory nudged I believe I'm referring to the RMS-11 Users  Guide, circa 1981-2.  K > > Sadly this wasn't carried through into the VMS V4.0 rewrite of manuals.  > For M > > example, instead of a simple statement that a secondary key of two values G > > (Male and Female) was a Bad Idea, it explained how SIDR records are N > > constructed, and you could easily see for yourself _why_ it is a Bad Idea. > > K > > I did manage to dig up a reference to an RMS-11 Internals manual in old  > DECUS L > > SIGtapes. How to get hold of them in readable format I don't know (did I > see a  > > mention of BRU in there?). > L > I have an ancient paper copy, but it was written during the implementationG > of RMS-11 V1.0 and AFAIK never got updated.  RMS-32 (and even RMS-11) I > progressed significantly beyond those structures over time, so while it N > sheds some light on design decisions it doesn't bear too much resemblance to' > the internals of the current product.  >   K Ayup, I never saw anything as detailed as I would have liked on Prologue 3  < files, for example, so it was a matter of empirical testing.  I > The most recent description I've heard of was a set of slides by Elinor J > Woods for 1990 Spring DECUS describing indexed file internals as of that > point in time. > 1 Any pointers to a url would be appreciated there.  ___ 
 Paul Sture Switzerland    ------------------------------    Date: 24 Nov 2001 17:01:12 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>? Subject: Re: Samba 2.0.3 handling of files with no ".extension" - Message-ID: <87bshsy23r.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   / Roy Omond <Roy.Omond@BlueBubble.UK.Com> writes:   B > Weird thing is, in a DOS window I can successfully create a fileE > with no extension (COPY X.X ABCD) and the file appears correctly on C > the VMS side, but the new file is invisible on the Weendoze side.   A Can you see a 'ABCD.'? Remember, VMS has a 2 part file name, with , the '.' as a seperator that is always there.   --  < 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: 24 Nov 2001 14:00:26 +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: <87y9kwyah1.fsf@prep.synonet.com>L  / Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:r  ' > On 13 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote: A > >BTW, does anyone know the name of 'the engineer' who said thati1 > >Alpha would lose it performance advantage yet?b   > Yep. David Fenwick.   ? This was the name I got on Thursday at the local version of the < IPF update. If anyone has an e-mail address, I would like to; extend him the chance to stop his name being taken in vain.s  C > I wouldn't be investing much stock in Tru64 futures, but VMS willsD > likely be in a stronger position once the IPF port is complete (at2 > least one cross-compiler is up and running now).  @ There was one very disconcerting 'fact' in the marketriodal crap that was trotted out:I  @ WARNING: 'Mixed Cluster' may not mean Vax+Alpha+itanic... It was> used to mean Alpha+IPF, and when asked, the Q people passed on that one...o  D From the people at the sessions, there will be virtually *NO* VMS in= WA soon... And one of the survivers would really like to knowT0 how to get their E10K plugged into their HSJ40s!   -- l< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.l@                                              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: 24 Nov 2001 14:14:44 +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: <87u1vky9t7.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   , Trent Worthington <fuckoff@none.nul> writes:  H > On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:19:00 GMT, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > wrote:   > [...]s  C > >Knuckle-draggers don't consider such differences significant, of 
 > >course.  C > Bill, perhaps you should stick to something you know, like how to-@ > make bongs out of tennis ball cans, or angel dust out of dutch8 > cleanser, or how to lurk in stair wells to catch a fewE > up-skirt-beaver-shots.  In the mean time, pull that ring finger outcE > of your ass, sniff it, and type out something else for the audiencey > to laugh at.  F Oh, well perhaps you can post a quote of his admitting he was involvedG or responcible for 11 Sept, because I have not seen one. So I side withm Bill on this one as well.a   -- c< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.o@                                              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: 24 Nov 2001 14:31:23 +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: <87pu68y91g.fsf@prep.synonet.com>P  / JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> writes:A  F > And off all ironies, within a minute of my turning onto that turnoffF > to take a picture of that sign, the police showed up. Nearest policeC > station was ahout 50km away. A conspiracy theorist would say that B > the high tech radar facility were watching me slowly pedal on myB > bicycle up the dirt road and called the police to arrive just atF > about the same time I would be. But in reality, those cops were justE > coming back from their 2 day 4wd outing up the road and since I had E > warned them I was going to travel that road, when they saw me, they ! > stopped to ask how I was doing.   E Pine Creek? or Nurunga? or was it the Jindalee Over-the Horizon-Radaro trial site?A   -- s< 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: 24 Nov 2001 11:04:08 -06009 From: kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org3 Message-ID: <b+4fh7WSuUOP@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  \ In article <87y9kwyah1.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:1 > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:g > ( >> On 13 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote:B >> >BTW, does anyone know the name of 'the engineer' who said that2 >> >Alpha would lose it performance advantage yet? >  >> Yep. David Fenwick. > A > This was the name I got on Thursday at the local version of thed> > IPF update. If anyone has an e-mail address, I would like to= > extend him the chance to stop his name being taken in vain.   1 firstname.lastname@compaq.com usually works well.-  K David was not part of the Alpha chip team, but was the guy who designed the5H Turbolaser (8400) and Wildfire (GS320) platforms. As a user of both, I'mI most impressed with his teams work. I can't believe he'd rather be "intelo inside".    1 	26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamyN4 	Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:19:15 GMTi* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.orgA Message-ID: <nEQL7.100249$2w.5929827@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>u  D Bob Kaplow <kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message- news:b+4fh7WSuUOP@eisner.encompasserve.org...h> > In article <87y9kwyah1.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:f3 > > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:p > > * > >> On 13 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote:D > >> >BTW, does anyone know the name of 'the engineer' who said that4 > >> >Alpha would lose it performance advantage yet? > >  > >> Yep. David Fenwick. > >eC > > This was the name I got on Thursday at the local version of the @ > > IPF update. If anyone has an e-mail address, I would like to? > > extend him the chance to stop his name being taken in vain.m >a3 > firstname.lastname@compaq.com usually works well.i >CI > David was not part of the Alpha chip team, but was the guy who designed  the J > Turbolaser (8400) and Wildfire (GS320) platforms. As a user of both, I'mK > most impressed with his teams work. I can't believe he'd rather be "intelo
 > inside".  K Unless the alternative were to be out of a job (because Compaq was going to/G kill Alpha come hell or high water and the only question was whether itr1 would kill its server design team along with it).:  L This is consistent with an early 'clarification' that the 'concerns' in thisG area came from the server group rather than the Alpha design group.  IttK really doesn't take too much imagination to frame a question such as "Given L the eventual creation on IA64 of EV7-like on-chip glue to enhance memory andE MP performance, will the performance disparity between Alpha and IA64TJ shrink?" that can be answered in the affirmative by someone more concernedD with how to put together a decent server at a reasonable price usingJ available components than about specific performance time-tables, customer' migration grief, and corporate profits.-  J Funny how invisible David appears to have become since his name started toL be specifically associated with this, though.  You'd think he'd be right outK in front defending the details of the decision, given his apparent level of:J involvement - if indeed he came right out and said Alpha couldn't continue@ to compete effectively rather than something far more subject to interpretation.p   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:18:46 GMTt- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>rN Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.orgD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0111241212340.16466-100000@world.std.com>  % On 24 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote:r  1 > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:d > ) > > On 13 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote: C > > >BTW, does anyone know the name of 'the engineer' who said thate3 > > >Alpha would lose it performance advantage yet?r >c > > Yep. David Fenwick.o > A > This was the name I got on Thursday at the local version of theh> > IPF update. If anyone has an e-mail address, I would like to= > extend him the chance to stop his name being taken in vain.e >n  J I have a lot of respect for Mr. Fenwick, whose architectural acumen helpedD beget the TurboLaser, WildFire, and the forthcoming fabric-and-bladeI system. Dave is a system architect, not an Alpha microprocessor developeraG nor an Intel lapdog. We had a conversation a year ago about comparative.I CPU architectures and it was evident (if one read between the lines) thatpG some within Compaq were dispassionately evaluating all potential future  CPU architectures.  B I don't believe I took Dave's name in vain and would not have evenD mentioned his name had he not made statements on the IPF decision in public forums.      E > > I wouldn't be investing much stock in Tru64 futures, but VMS will F > > likely be in a stronger position once the IPF port is complete (at4 > > least one cross-compiler is up and running now). >iB > There was one very disconcerting 'fact' in the marketriodal crap > that was trotted out:t >mB > WARNING: 'Mixed Cluster' may not mean Vax+Alpha+itanic... It was@ > used to mean Alpha+IPF, and when asked, the Q people passed on
 > that one...s >u    B That would seem to be a reasonable assumption from a CPQ financialF standpoint. Perhaps not so reasonable to the ~150K VAX users still out there, though.    F > From the people at the sessions, there will be virtually *NO* VMS in? > WA soon... And one of the survivers would really like to knowe2 > how to get their E10K plugged into their HSJ40s!  ; Ah. The Cosmic Ray and Zinc Whisker problem must be solved!a   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 13:50:50 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>-N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org, Message-ID: <3BFFEC0A.911E8623@videotron.ca>   Paul Repacholi wrote:0  sG > Pine Creek? or Nurunga? or was it the Jindalee Over-the Horizon-Radark
 > trial site?    it was jindalee.  K Do they run VMS there ? Maybe I could have stopped and offered to help withnP any VMS problems they might have had... then again VMS doesn't have problems :-)   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Nov 2001 11:08:57 -06009 From: kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow)sJ Subject: Re: StongARM-Outside (was Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering )3 Message-ID: <V1XhSus7gid3@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  v In article <SdsL7.111151$pb4.66712766@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Joann Difrancesco" <joanndifrancesco@home.com> writes:N > While Compaq's iPAQ Pocket PC is StrongARM-based, it's a bit late for CompaqK > to get into the StrongARM manufacturing business. Not only doesn't Compaq M > have a fab in which to produce the microprocessor, the firm doesn't have any > architectural license. > L > Digital Equipment Corporation had both, they sold both to Intel as part of > the Fab-6/Alpha deal.F  J Most likely at Compaq's (EPs) request in order to sell the last merger ...  1 	26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy-4 	Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 07:08:04 GMTm* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>B Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes@ Message-ID: <oHHL7.99645$dk.7462013@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  3 Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message : news:J0HL7.50743$8q.8009096@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...   ...i  J > When I looked at the new survey a while ago, I decided to give it a passL > because several significant questions were not reasonably answerable givenJ > the way they were worded (a problem I also had with the original survey,J > though IIRC not to as great an extent).  Would you consider posting yourI > next survey questions for suggested rewording *before* creating a finalt" > version for gathering responses?  J (Sorry - I really should have included the details of my problems with the current survey:)  K Question 3 - the word 'confident'.  I'm certainly more confident now that I L *understand* Compaq's decision today than I was in June.  And more confidentD that I understand its possible repercussions as well.  I'm also moreK confident that it was a major mistake, with much solider reasons (though myn! initial reaction hasn't changed).h  J I suspect you may have meant to ask whether people felt 'better' about theK decision, or possibly whether even if they deplored it personally they feltnE it was at least reasonably defensible and/or potentially good for theaA company - but even then, the question does not leave room for thecG possibility that people might feel even *more* angry/disgusted/whatevert today than they felt in June.u  E Question 4 - what's a 'reasonable amount of time' for the port?  From H Compaq's viewpoint, instantaneously:  any delay in having an alternativeH platform to sell after the point where the existing platform is declaredK terminally ill is not reasonable in any reasonable sense of the term, since D this lack forces any purchases made during that delay interval to beI dependent on having faith that the new platform (or the old platform, nowiL that it has been officially defined as being a cash cow with minimal further) development) will indeed be satisfactory.t  L You could ask whether people feel that Compaq *can* complete the port in theL time that has been specified (I do).  You could then ask whether people feelI confident that Compaq *will* complete the port (I don't, but neither do I G feel strongly that it won't:  could go either way).  You could then askaL whether the time-frame that has been specified for the port is satisfactory.  K Question 5 is one that few people may feel they have sufficient informationoG to answer.  But they likely know where *they personally* might jump, so I asking that might be better (as would asking about the likelihood of suchnF defection and of its extent, since many defections will likely be onlyJ partial, at least initially).  You could also ask whom they might advise aI friend to jump to should they be asked, though again that would depend atl+ least somewhat on the friend's application.g  J Question 6.  Of course some ISVs will port their apps.  And of course someK ISVs won't port their apps.  The issue is how many fall into each camp, andiF how important the "won't ports" are (which, again, will vary with each
 customer).  J Question 14 is the only other substantive question.  While most people mayL well be able to find a response that suits them, it highlights a traditionalB multiple-choice problem of asking a question and then providing anI incomplete answer space.  One way of checking completeness is to make the L answers symmetric in all dimensions - e.g., if one can opine that the mergerJ is good/neutral/poor for Compaq and HP individually, then 9 answer chiocesL are required to cover the ground (assuming that 'neutral' also covers a 'not sure' answer).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 18:57:03 +0010 ' From: <paddy.o'brien@zzz.tg.nsw.gov.au> B Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes5 Message-ID: <01KB3CK4SBR6000OZ2@tgmail.tg.nsw.gov.au>    Bill Todd wrote:   [snips]h  K >Question 14 is the only other substantive question.  While most people may M >well be able to find a response that suits them, it highlights a traditionaltC >multiple-choice problem of asking a question and then providing an J >incomplete answer space.  One way of checking completeness is to make theM >answers symmetric in all dimensions - e.g., if one can opine that the mergereK >is good/neutral/poor for Compaq and HP individually, then 9 answer chioceslM >are required to cover the ground (assuming that 'neutral' also covers a 'notv >sure' answer).8  C Also, "I feel negative" is not really covered by the "Bad for ...".I  K Also, again, a "Bad move for me/my organisation" does not mean it is a bad h move for either company.  N Extend the bullet points under this question and allow more than one choice.  ! These are not mutually exclusive.n  M Points 7-13 and 15,16 are no doubt of little interest in this survey topic.  aL I.e., none of the answers are likely to get Compaq or HP management excited.   Regards, Paddy   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:18:03 +0100 1 From: John McLean <mcleanj@swissonline.delete.ch>iB Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes4 Message-ID: <3BFF73DB.F49AD74@swissonline.delete.ch>   Terry C Shannon wrote: > K > Well, after the Recent Unpleasantness regarding my synopsis of the CompaqoL > white paper on the Alphacide, er, "Compaq's IPF Decision," it appears thatA > the topic remains quite timely. If you haven't voted in the IPFnL > Cnsolidation Follow-Up Survey at www.tru64.org, please take a minute to doL > so. We're generating statistically significant results, but the more input9 > we have, the more seriously the findings will be taken.e > L > We've been collecting the suggestions for the third survey and will likely. > have something ready to go early next month. > 	 > cheers,  >  > Terry Shannon and Ken Farmer    	 Hey guys,   @ Do you mind dropping one of the 4 w's for the link "Subscribe to OpenVMS.org Newsletter" ?t  1 Three w's is quite enough for my Netscape ... :-).     John McLean-   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:05:12 GMTi- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>IB Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking VotesD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0111241201310.16466-100000@world.std.com>  % On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Bill Todd wrote:0   >0: > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message? > news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111231933060.8950-100000@world.std.com...f  N > > We've been collecting the suggestions for the third survey and will likely0 > > have something ready to go early next month. >rJ > When I looked at the new survey a while ago, I decided to give it a passL > because several significant questions were not reasonably answerable givenJ > the way they were worded (a problem I also had with the original survey,J > though IIRC not to as great an extent).  Would you consider posting yourI > next survey questions for suggested rewording *before* creating a finali" > version for gathering responses? >      >aJ Absolutely!  The fact that you decided to give the current instantiation aH pass indicates that others might have done the same thing. The better we6 can make the survey, the better results it'll produce.  : Thanks much for the feedback, it is sincerely appreciated.  H Whether or not we can make a difference at CPQ, the company does tend to  pay attention to survey results.  J Thanks again for your suggested (and needed) improvements to Field Test 2!   terry sn   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:24:43 GMTc- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> B Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking VotesD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0111241219180.16466-100000@world.std.com>  % On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Bill Todd wrote:m   >.5 > Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message < > news:J0HL7.50743$8q.8009096@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... >t > ...  >dL > > When I looked at the new survey a while ago, I decided to give it a passN > > because several significant questions were not reasonably answerable givenL > > the way they were worded (a problem I also had with the original survey,L > > though IIRC not to as great an extent).  Would you consider posting yourK > > next survey questions for suggested rewording *before* creating a finala$ > > version for gathering responses? > L > (Sorry - I really should have included the details of my problems with the > current survey:) > M > Question 3 - the word 'confident'.  I'm certainly more confident now that I N > *understand* Compaq's decision today than I was in June.  And more confidentF > that I understand its possible repercussions as well.  I'm also moreM > confident that it was a major mistake, with much solider reasons (though myI# > initial reaction hasn't changed).a >t   Fair enough.  L > I suspect you may have meant to ask whether people felt 'better' about theM > decision, or possibly whether even if they deplored it personally they felt G > it was at least reasonably defensible and/or potentially good for theaC > company - but even then, the question does not leave room for theoI > possibility that people might feel even *more* angry/disgusted/whatever  > today than they felt in June.e  > Quite true, and a definite question to include in Round Three!   >aG > Question 4 - what's a 'reasonable amount of time' for the port?  FromsJ > Compaq's viewpoint, instantaneously:  any delay in having an alternativeJ > platform to sell after the point where the existing platform is declaredM > terminally ill is not reasonable in any reasonable sense of the term, sincefF > this lack forces any purchases made during that delay interval to beK > dependent on having faith that the new platform (or the old platform, nowmN > that it has been officially defined as being a cash cow with minimal further+ > development) will indeed be satisfactory.  >iN > You could ask whether people feel that Compaq *can* complete the port in theN > time that has been specified (I do).  You could then ask whether people feelK > confident that Compaq *will* complete the port (I don't, but neither do I.I > feel strongly that it won't:  could go either way).  You could then ask N > whether the time-frame that has been specified for the port is satisfactory.   Again, excellent clarification.o   >aM > Question 5 is one that few people may feel they have sufficient information I > to answer.  But they likely know where *they personally* might jump, so>K > asking that might be better (as would asking about the likelihood of such.H > defection and of its extent, since many defections will likely be onlyL > partial, at least initially).  You could also ask whom they might advise aK > friend to jump to should they be asked, though again that would depend att- > least somewhat on the friend's application.i   Yup.   >tL > Question 6.  Of course some ISVs will port their apps.  And of course someM > ISVs won't port their apps.  The issue is how many fall into each camp, andtH > how important the "won't ports" are (which, again, will vary with each > customer).    E This opens an opportunity for an entire ISV-centric survey. We can dom that!o   >hL > Question 14 is the only other substantive question.  While most people mayN > well be able to find a response that suits them, it highlights a traditionalD > multiple-choice problem of asking a question and then providing anK > incomplete answer space.  One way of checking completeness is to make theuN > answers symmetric in all dimensions - e.g., if one can opine that the mergerL > is good/neutral/poor for Compaq and HP individually, then 9 answer chiocesN > are required to cover the ground (assuming that 'neutral' also covers a 'not > sure' answer). >t  E That was a collaboratively-developed question and I did not craft thepD multiple-guess response options. I agree that they leave a lot to be desired.  I So it looks as if we have a value proposition for doing a merger-specificnD and and ISV-specific survey in addition to an overhauled IPF survey.  ? Again, thanks for the feedback, Ken and I really appreciate it!h     Have a great weekend,e   terry s:   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:26:07 GMTn- From: Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com>gB Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking VotesD Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.30.0111241225070.16466-100000@world.std.com>  ' On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, John McLean wrote:R   >e >l >F > Hey guys,  >SB > Do you mind dropping one of the 4 w's for the link "Subscribe to > OpenVMS.org Newsletter" ?. >.3 > Three w's is quite enough for my Netscape ... :-)e >    Good point!n   Oops,s   terry st   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.654 ************************