1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 25 Nov 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 655       Contents:. 6000 Linda Gillie's 1233weigh out story! 97502 DEC C Error on GS v7.03  Re: F$GETQUI wildcard bug?? 4 Re: Gartner and IDC say HP will effectively kill DLT Re: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL Re: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL Re: Non virtual QIO @ Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha) Problem with a customers system # Re: Problem with a customers system # Re: Problem with a customers system  Re: Problem with pathworks Re: Problem with pathworksE 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 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 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 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 ) $ Tech Wasteland: HWP/CPQ Profitless ?H Re: Terminal emulation quality, was: Re: Installing CC060 on VMS VAX 6.1 Test. Please disregard.  Re: tk70 blinking loud9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes 9 Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes ' Why Compaq is so in pushing Wintel crap   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:02:09 # From: 29750Darcy <john1012@371.net> 7 Subject: 6000 Linda Gillie's 1233weigh out story! 97502 9 Message-ID: <iss.4053.3c0070c4.25b40.1@mx2.west.saic.com>   > My name is Linda Gillie. I am 31 years old. A mother of three,> a wife  of 13 years to a wonderful man, Michael My heart told 9 me to share my story with you, so you don't give up hope.   ? I have found a weight loss  product that really works. It gets  + rid of fat fast and keeps it off, FOR GOOD! 9 The youngest of 6 children, with both sides of my family  ; prone to be he= avy, I have battled being overweight since  A I was a kid.  I've been on ;just about every diet program, pill,  ) liquid, & anything else you can think of. 8 It was a never-ending cycle. Up, down, up, down, up. My + weight loss and gain was a literal "yo-yo!" 6 Nothing I did worked permanently! I had always gained 8 back more than I would lose every time I got tired of a  particular diet.  7 I was disgusted with my looks, mentally and physically  6 depressed. I just about gave up hope forever of losing; my excess pounds, until I was introduced to an all-natural  = weight loss product, which has changed my life  in every way! = My dearest friend and her husband have  lost a lot of weight  9 on a product called "Weigh Out". So, I decided to try it.   = In the first month I dropped from size 24 to 18 in 10 months  @ I lost 78 pounds and  10 dress sizes and '85 I have kept it off  for more than a year. 9 I feel like a "new person" and everyone around me cannot  A believe the difference! I have a lot more energy and I just feel  < all around good. This is the easiest program I've ever been 8 on. You just follow the instructions and the pounds and ; inches just fall off! No more up and down." Weigh Out "has  5 changed all that. Now it's down,down, down, and away!   < All of my old belts were in the first hole. You can imagine = how excited I was when I used the last hole, and then had to  < buy a couple of new ones. It's the most incredible feeling!   > This is the first time in my life i have ever lost weight and  KEPT it off.  = I am still losing a pound or two every week or so and that is = fine with me My husband has lost 3 pant sizes during the same :  time and gets into clothes he had not worn in years! (He ?  looks great in his "tight fitting' jeans!)  I know people that < have lost over 80 lbs with "Weigh Out". There are literally 5 thousands of people like you and me who have WON the  / "battle of the bulge" because of  "Weigh Out"!    : Thank God for "Weigh Out" and David & Edie for helping me ? find it.  I have the BEST life now! I thank my family for being  so supportive.  ; I do hope you will check this out. I NOW have "no fear" of   EVER being overweight again.  < It doesn't matter how much weight you have to lose; 20, 40, > 100, or 200 + lbs pounds.  this will change your life forever.  <  I encourage you to try it for 30-days. I promise you'll be   calling for more soon after!   , Click on the  link below to see the details:   http://weighout.81832.com   < Thank you, for allowing me the opportunity to tell my story.   Good Life and God Bless    Linda Gillie   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 03:57:48 GMT - From: "Richard L. Dyson" <rickdyson@home.com>   Subject: DEC C Error on GS v7.03( Message-ID: <3C006C3C.8CBE07E8@home.com>  F I am working on getting GS v7.03 working for my OpenVMS systems.  I amG using Compaq C v6.4-008 on an OpenVMS/Alpha v7.2-1 system.  I get quite J a way into the build when I get the following errors that are entirely new to me:   [...]  $ e CC/NODEBUG/OPTIMIZE/DECC/PREFIX=ALL/NESTED_INCLUDE=PRIMARY/NAME=(AS_IS,SHORT)/DEFINE=("HAVE_MKSTEMP")  - H /INCLUDE=([.obj] ,[.src]) /OBJECT=[.obj]gdevpdfm.obj  [.src]gdevpdfm.c   $ e CC/NODEBUG/OPTIMIZE/DECC/PREFIX=ALL/NESTED_INCLUDE=PRIMARY/NAME=(AS_IS,SHORT)/DEFINE=("HAVE_MKSTEMP")  - F /INCLUDE=([.obj] ,[.src]) /OBJECT=[.obj]gdevpdfo.obj  [.src]gdevpdfo.cC Assertion failure:  Deleting instruction with DefinesRoutineCtx set 
 Instruction:  K COD INSTRUCTION  BNE  : NEXT=0109B848, PREV=0109B498, LOCATOR={17224:1-30},  S...D          DEFINES_ROUTINE_CTX, OPCODE=66, NOT_IN_CURRENT_RTN, OP1=R1, OP2=Targ... A %GEM-F-ASSERTION, Deleting instruction with DefinesRoutineCtx set / %TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows J   image    module    routine             line      rel PC           abs PC*  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_DB  GEM__DB_ASSERT_END>                                           844 0000000000000314 00000000005AE0B46  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_CODE_CELL  gem_cn_delete_code_cell>                                        109577 0000000000004934 0000000000474934)  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI_PEEP  MOVE_SECTION >                                          5685 0000000000007D34 000000000063C184/  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI_PEEP  REVERSE_CROSS_JUMP >                                          7842 000000000000A968 000000000063EDB8:  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI_PEEP  GEM_FI_PEEP_BRANCH_PROCESSING>                                          3004 0000000000002F14 0000000000637364=  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI_PEEP_ALPHA  GEM_FI_PEEP_APPLY_PEEPHOLE >                                           733 00000000000001C4 000000000063F8042   DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI_PEEP  PROCESS_PATTERN_LIST>                                          7461 0000000000009FF8 000000000063E448(  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI_PEEP  GEM_FI_PEEP>                                          1528 0000000000000638 0000000000634A88>  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI  rtn_phase      134194 0000000000000F64 000000000047D1C4>  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_FI  gem_fi         134376 0000000000001ACC 000000000047DD2C-  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_CO  GEM_CO_COMPILE_MODULE >                                          3428 00000000000010F4 0000000000550684'  DECC$COMPILER  COMPILE  gemc_be_master >                                         85852 0000000000000E38 00000000001B0E38'  DECC$COMPILER  COMPILE  gem_xx_compile >                                         85071 0000000000000000 0000000000000000'  DECC$COMPILER  GEM_CP_VMS  GEM_CP_MAIN >                                          2551 0000000000001CA8 0000000000526F88>                                             0 FFFFFFFF94CF1414 FFFFFFFF94CF1414D %MMK-F-ERRUPD, error status %X19DB800C occurred when updating target [.OBJ]GDEVPDFO.OBJJ %MMK-F-ERRUPD, error status %X1C14803C occurred when updating target MACRO  " 	Does anyone have any suggestions?  D 	Has anyone else successfully compiled GhostScript v7.03 on OpenVMS?   Regards, Rick   ------------------------------    Date: 24 Nov 2001 14:12:35 -0800. From: SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM (Alan E. Feldman)$ Subject: Re: F$GETQUI wildcard bug??= Message-ID: <343f30ae.0111241412.7046e47c@posting.google.com>   i "Malcolm" <malcolm@neverness.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9temo6$k9r$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>... = > "Alan E. Feldman" <SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM> wrote in message 9 > news:343f30ae.0111201328.523046ff@posting.google.com... D > > macarthur@encompasserve.org (Malcolm MacArthur) wrote in message2 >  news:<rnx4lOflI+TI@eisner.encompasserve.org>...9 > > > In article <oQaknjI9qB50@eisner.encompasserve.org>, # >  briggs@encompasserve.org writes: ; > > > > In article <WZEoWmSE4Ci9@eisner.encompasserve.org>, : >  macarthur@encompasserve.org (Malcolm MacArthur) writes:J > > > >> I decided it might be a nice idea to differentiate between remote >  printers 	 >  [sinp] L > > > >> write a generic COM file using f$getqui to find queues with a givenN > > > >> characteristic and execute a given command against them. But, issuing	 >  a SHOW J > > > >> QUEUE command whilst in an F$GETQUI wildcard operation resets the >  queueC > > > >> context, putting me back to the first queue on the system.  > > > >>M > > > >> Is this a bug in f$GETQUI? I've already figured out a way around it,  >  but I > > > >> shouldn't have to.  > > > > 	 >  [snip]  > > > > H > > > > SHOW QUEUE uses SYS$GETQUI.  And destroys the context created by > > > > your F$GETQUI. > > 
 > > [snip] > > A > > > BTW, the work-around is to stuff all the queue names into a  >  comma-separated: > > > string, then work on them outwith the F$GETQUI call. > > 0 > > You could also spawn the SHOW QUEUE command: > >  > > $ <commands using F$GETQUI>  > > $ SPAWN SHOW QUEUE$ > > $ <more commands using F$GETQUI> > > 5 > > This works because it creates a separate process.  > > J > Yeah, but I'm just interested in getting the queue name through F$GETQUIG > and nothing else. Spawning would involve the overhead of creating the 	 > process   F OK, how about $ SPAWN /NOSYMBOLS/NOLOGICALS/NOKEYPAD SHOW QUEUE <blah>  D It runs more than twice as fast on my box than a plain SPAWN. But it may still be to slow for you.    From another post of yours: B > But, I got it working in the end by putting the queue names in aN > comma-separated list, then working on the list. Until I run into a situationL > where the total list of queue names (and commas) exceeds 2,048 characters, > this should work OK.  C Did you assemble this list using F$GETQUI or did you create them by D typing? I think you will run into trouble at around 1000 characters,	 not 2048.   F How often do you add, rename, or delete queues? You could perhaps keepF the queues organized in a database that is updated whenever you changeD queues. Each database would be a file that has one queue per line in it for each site.   C Is there a problem with doing all the F$GETQUI calls before running  SHOW QUEUE?    Just some more ideas.    --   Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman  afeldman&gfigroup.com    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:43:54 GMT 3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> = Subject: Re: Gartner and IDC say HP will effectively kill DLT / Message-ID: <3BFFF7CC.94BCA021@cableinet.co.uk>    "David J. Dachtera" wrote:    > I > Price points will be another issue. At $100+ (US) per cartridge, though ? > that has come down a bit, DLT-III and later DLT-IV were never 
 > economical.   0 Economical? How valuable is your employers data?   regards     --   Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk     C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of  ! my employers or service provider.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:02:32 GMT   From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net>% Subject: Re: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL + Message-ID: <3C000AE5.A799379A@prodigy.net>   K What a hoot.  I guess it's the requirement of absolute confidentiality that   caused him to post it on Usenet.   PIUS KOLADE wrote: >  > ENGR. PIUS KOLADE  > 18 COWRIE HOUSE  > LAGOS, NIGERIA.  >  >  > Sir, > : > We have an immediate business proposal that involves US$H > 27,300,000 which we will like to invest under your custody. Please, doL > not hesitate to send me an email, so as to discuss with you the details ofB > the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing regarding the > business.  > H > Your urgent response will be highly appreciated and will swiftly bringE > us to the commencement of the transaction. We hope to conclude this ( > transaction within 10-12 working days. > I > Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this mail. And please you C > have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending . > transaction. I urgently await your response. >  > Best Regards,  > 
 > PIUS KOLADE    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:26:02 GMT  From: "Rom" <rbujwid@home.com>% Subject: Re: MUTUAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL ; Message-ID: <e0WL7.62755$Y6.7056557@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com>   A "Jerry Leslie" <LESLIE@209-16-45-102.insync.net> wrote in message # news:a_NL7.2884$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$J > : 27,300,000 which we will like to invest under your custody. Please, doK > : not hesitate to send me an email, so as to discuss with you the details  ofD > : the transaction/the terms and condition of sharing regarding the
 > : business.  > : J > : Your urgent response will be highly appreciated and will swiftly bringG > : us to the commencement of the transaction. We hope to conclude this * > : transaction within 10-12 working days. > : K > : Do not forget to contact me on the receipt of this mail. And please you E > : have to maintain absolute confidentiality as regards this pending 0 > : transaction. I urgently await your response. > :  > : Best Regards,  > :  > : PIUS KOLADE  > : 8 > The U.S. Secret Service has a web page for this fraud: > + >    http://www.treas.gov/usss/alert419.htm  >    USSS Operation 4-1-9  > K >   "...If you have been victimized by one of these schemes, please forward K >    appropriate written documentation to the United States Secret Service, I >    Financial Crimes Division, 950 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001, 7 >    or telephone (202) 406-5850, or contact by e-mail.  > H >    If you have received a letter, but have not lost any monies to thisA >    scheme, please fax a copy of that letter to (202) 406-5031."  > ( > This site is dedicated to such frauds: >  >     http://www.quatloos.com/   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:45:44 GMT01 From: "Mark D. Jilson" <jilly@clarityconnect.com>n Subject: Re: Non virtual QIO2 Message-ID: <3C003EDF.DEC64791@clarityconnect.com>  G The IOPERFORM interface allows PSDC to collect FIDs from xxxxVBLK IOs. UF For all IOs that are non-virtual (xxxxLBLK or xxxxPBLK) the FID is not> known and thus not collectable by PSDC.  Later on PSDC will doD LIB$FID_TO_NAME calls with the FIDs to get file names.  If this callF fails it will just report the FID.  PSDC dumps all the non-virtual IOsH into the Non-Virtual bucket as it would be too time consuming to go backB and try to figure out what file an LBN was a part of and it's evenG tougher for xxxxPBLK IOs.  The items that usually play into non-virtualw IOs area   Image activation IOp Page & Swap IO File System IO  H If you rule out the 1st 2 then you are stuck with the last and this getsC more difficult.  Look for large directories that have a lot of file E creation & deletion activity which will cause a lot of directory file C writes.  Also make sure your file system caches are properly tuned.o   Keith Parris wrote:r > \ > "Kenneth" <yeungkenneth@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9tgd9q$3s$1@news.net-yan.com>...P > > When I use the DECps to capture the hotfile for the disks, the list sometimeP > > has the file Non-virtual QIO with all the IO and split IO statistic. What is > > this file? > G > I saw a lot of this on a large cluster I had, and had to ask around aw- > lot until I got a satisfactory explanation:h > C > When a disk I/O occurs, DECps reportedly records the LBN (logicalnF > block number) range involved in the I/O request.  The goal is to mapH > these LBNs to VBNs, (virtual block numbers) within specific files.  ItE > is possible to do this based on the extent information available inoD > file headers, but DECps reportedly defers this work until slightlyH > later in time (I don't know exactly why -- perhaps because it's easierF > to do so in process context, with easy access to the index file infoE > via the file system, than in driver context; or perhaps to minimizeoH > the overhead in driver context for each I/O compared with trying to doF > this lookup in-line with each I/O request; and quite likely so as toD > minimize data collection overhead since you'll often be doing manyG > successive I/Os to the same file, and it might well cache file extent : > info for recently-accessed files for efficiency's sake). > G > I was told that sometimes (particularly when a lot of temporary fileshH > are being created and deleted soon after they are created) by the timeF > DECps tries to map the LBNs to VBNs within a file on the disk, thereA > is no match anymore, so this I/O gets thrown into the bucket of6D > non-Virtual I/Os (I/Os which don't correspond to the Virtual Block$ > Numbers within any existing file).E > -------------------------------------------------------------------oE > Keith Parris | parris at encompasserve dot org | VMS consulting on:-E > Clusters, Disaster Tolerance, Internals, Performance, Storage & I/O    --  D Jilly	- Working from Home in the Chemung River Valley - Lockwood, NY0 	- jilly@clarityconnect.com			- Brett Bodine fan. 	- Mark.Jilson@Compaq.com			- since 1975 or so, 	- http://www.jilly.baka.com               -   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:17:53 -0500r( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>I Subject: Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering (was Re: Life After Alpha) , Message-ID: <3C001C91.4030507@tsoft-inc.com>   Bill Todd wrote:  : > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in message@ > news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111241206150.16466-100000@world.std.com... >  > ...t >  > K >>I never heard that EV8 didn't work (in fact, the only thing that could orvF >>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 thata: >>EV8 posed some significant issues, SMT being among them. >> > F > You *really* have to be careful when parsing Compaq statements.  ForN > example, few in the industry would question the fact that applying SMT to anL > architecture of any complexity would pose significant issues (just imagineN > the difficulty Itanic is going to have in this area) - but the real issue isM > whether these issues, which have been being closely examined for years now,n5 > were on-track with respect to being solved for EV8.7    E Well, in this one, Compaq could be absolutely right.  If there is no eD money to continue the project, then EV8 definitely won't be made to 2 work, unless it's already working, which it's not.    K > The answer I've heard consistently from the design team is that they were L > very much on track indeed, with no showstoppers in sight.  In other words,L > Compaq's statement about this, while not an outright lie, appears to be as0 > deliberately misleading as so many others are.  : Ah, slight correction.  One big showstopper.  R&D funding.    7 Compaq, a firm believer in self fulfilling phrophisies.e   Dave   -- 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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:43:36 -0000t6 From: "Paul Savage" <paul@the-savages.freeserve.co.uk>( Subject: Problem with a customers system/ Message-ID: <9tot6a$3ds$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>a   Hi AllK Firstly let me tell you I have absolutly no idea about VMS systems, but....O  K I work for a company that has recently aquired another company who producednH a very clever software package on a VMS system. We have now had to start supporting these systems.   L One of these customers has recently had a serious power cut on their system.I When thay have tried to restart the VMS system they have tried to enter aeJ log off password, this didn't work correctly. They then tried to enter theJ log on name and password. The system came back with file not found errors.  I My question is this, Is there a way of being able to start the VMS systeml easily..  J Again I will apologise for maybe not giving a good enough description, and* also for being a complete novice with VMS.   Paul Savage  Software Engineero   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:47:50 -0500h- From: Jack Patteeuw <jjpatteeuw@peoplepc.com>r, Subject: Re: Problem with a customers system, Message-ID: <3BFFF966.70F7EF28@peoplepc.com>   Paul Savage wrote: > L > Again I will apologise for maybe not giving a good enough description, and, > also for being a complete novice with VMS.    ' Post complete and exact error messages.E   -- H  
 Jack Patteeuw    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:12:17 GMT 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>C, Subject: Re: Problem with a customers system' Message-ID: <3C0010A5.BF096198@fsi.net>    Paul Savage wrote: >  > Hi AllM > Firstly let me tell you I have absolutly no idea about VMS systems, but....  > M > I work for a company that has recently aquired another company who produced4J > a very clever software package on a VMS system. We have now had to start > supporting these systems.F > N > One of these customers has recently had a serious power cut on their system.K > When thay have tried to restart the VMS system they have tried to enter a L > log off password, this didn't work correctly. They then tried to enter theL > log on name and password. The system came back with file not found errors. > K > My question is this, Is there a way of being able to start the VMS system 	 > easily.9 > L > Again I will apologise for maybe not giving a good enough description, and, > also for being a complete novice with VMS. > 
 > Paul Savage  > Software EngineerC  F I would recommend contacting a consulting software person in your areaH as this will likely not be solved via a Usenet newsgroup. Sound too muchB like an application issue, and those can take man-years to resolve1 without hands-on contact with the subject system.4   -- $ David J. DachteraE dba DJE SystemsE http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:25:00 GMT  From: dre123@wi.rr.com# Subject: Re: Problem with pathworksD5 Message-ID: <3c000161.19994069@news-server.wi.rr.com>   D I am not sure why but when I clicked on entire network on my WinodwsE 2000 system the VMS shares would show up.  Now with XP they don't.  I1F can however do a search for the VMS computer name and it shows all the) shares and print ques on the VMS machine.O  : Pathworks, domains and workgroups always confused me.  :-(   Don0  F On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:55:48 -0500, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:   >dre123@wi.rr.com wrote: >5% >> Running VMS 6.1 and Pathworks 5.0D  >> $C >> I am using an old VMS machine to backup my home network and with I >> Windows 2000 everything worked fine.  Now I went to Windows XP and the G >> PC says that I have to use 8.3 file names.  I can see and get at theCI >> long file names on the VMS machine but when I go to save a file on theFC >> VMS machine I get the message saying I need to use 8.3 names.  IcH >> didn't change a thing on the VMS side, so I assume there is somethingH >> on the PC side.  Any ideas?  Also, before I could see the VMS machineG >> in the "entire network" window on the PC.  Now I have to specify theo >> path to get to a share. >> - >> Don >> - >-G >Interesting issue.  I've never seen my VMS systems from the PCs.  I'm CI >currently running Windoz 2000.  Can you be more specific on how you get 3- >the windoz systems to 'see' the VMS systems?  >M >Dave  >l >-- 5 >David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450$5 >Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596A? >DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com87 >T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486e >.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:30:04 GMTc From: dre123@wi.rr.com# Subject: Re: Problem with pathworkso5 Message-ID: <3c000250.20232602@news-server.wi.rr.com>   E I played around with NetBui and TCP/IP filtering until I got the longrF file names to work.  I still have a problem with droping a file into aF folder on the VMS machine.  The file gets renamed to the folder's nameB and the folder becomes unaccessable until I delete the file.  If IE drop a file onto the top level of the share however, everything worksiE fine.  I think this one might be something in VMS/Pathworks not being 
 set right.  D Well, at least I can use long file names and store things on the top( level of share.  Progress is being made.   Don   / On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:23:54 +0100, "Bart Zorn"d! <B.Zorn@TrueBit.nospam.nl> wrote:   5 >David Froble" <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message ' >news:3BFFB4F4.8040407@tsoft-inc.com...d >> dre123@wi.rr.com wrote: >>' >> > Running VMS 6.1 and Pathworks 5.0D] >> >E >> > I am using an old VMS machine to backup my home network and with K >> > Windows 2000 everything worked fine.  Now I went to Windows XP and the I >> > PC says that I have to use 8.3 file names.  I can see and get at thedK >> > long file names on the VMS machine but when I go to save a file on theUE >> > VMS machine I get the message saying I need to use 8.3 names.  I J >> > didn't change a thing on the VMS side, so I assume there is somethingJ >> > on the PC side.  Any ideas?  Also, before I could see the VMS machineI >> > in the "entire network" window on the PC.  Now I have to specify the  >> > path to get to a share. >> > >> > Don >> > >>H >> Interesting issue.  I've never seen my VMS systems from the PCs.  I'mJ >> currently running Windoz 2000.  Can you be more specific on how you get/ >> the windoz systems to 'see' the VMS systems?  >> >> Dave  > J >Things are a LOT easier when you enable NetBeui on both the Pathworks and >the W2K system! > 
 >Bart Zorn >k >.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 14:02:52 -0500y- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>nN Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org, Message-ID: <3BFFEEDC.776C94B6@videotron.ca>   Terry C Shannon wrote: > >wD > > WARNING: 'Mixed Cluster' may not mean Vax+Alpha+itanic... It wasB > > used to mean Alpha+IPF, and when asked, the Q people passed on > > that one...Q > >l > D > That would seem to be a reasonable assumption from a CPQ financialH > standpoint. Perhaps not so reasonable to the ~150K VAX users still out > there, though.  K What would be so difficult in allowing VAX to cluster with an IA64 ? If thetN VMS code on IA64 is to be common with that of Alpha, and alpha supports VMS asM a fellow cluster member, I don't see why it would be such a big deal to allow $ IA64 to support VAX cluster members.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:32:29 GMTI& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org8 Message-ID: <xtTL7.1615$3n6.134522@typhoon1.gnilink.net>  F "Bob Kaplow" <kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message- news:b+4fh7WSuUOP@eisner.encompasserve.org...  >e > >> Yep. David Fenwick. >MI > David was not part of the Alpha chip team, but was the guy who designed  thesJ > 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 "intel.
 > inside".  G Since Fenwick's name is now being mentioned in public I have heard from H enough Compaq sources for it to be super credible that what prompted theJ whole review of the viability of Alpha was Fenwick's work on the follow-onE to the Wildfire.  Something that keeps getting lost in these internet I discussions is that systems, and not chips, is what customers buy.  It istA the end result system, such as Wildfire, that really delivers theaH performance.  It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that theA Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficient K performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is also developing.   # I know enough of Fenwick to know...i  4 1) He had the data and folks outside of Compaq don't  L 2) He looked at this from the standpoint of the end product system delivered1 to the customer and not just esoteric chip issues0  H 3) There was no reason to expect he would fall on his sword and kill his7 project i.e. there was nothing anti-Alpha about the guye  L ...remember folks that is NOT chip to chip but server to server for the sameF dollars - PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN - IT IS SERVER TO SERVER FOR THE SAME  DOLLARS THAT CUSTOMER LOOK AT...   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:18:46 GMTe& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org8 Message-ID: <W8UL7.1624$3n6.134716@typhoon1.gnilink.net>  F "Bob Kaplow" <kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message- news:b+4fh7WSuUOP@eisner.encompasserve.org...  >  > >> Yep. David Fenwick. >lI > David was not part of the Alpha chip team, but was the guy who designedo 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 "inteld
 > inside".  G Since Fenwick's name is now being mentioned in public I have heard from H enough Compaq sources for it to be super credible that what prompted theJ whole review of the viability of Alpha was Fenwick's work on the follow-onE to the Wildfire.  Something that keeps getting lost in these internet I discussions is that systems, and not chips, is what customers buy.  It iscA the end result system, such as Wildfire, that really delivers thehH performance.  It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that theA Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficient0K performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is also developing.t  # I know enough of Fenwick to know...p  4 1) He had the data and folks outside of Compaq don't  L 2) He looked at this from the standpoint of the end product system delivered1 to the customer and not just esoteric chip issueso  H 3) There was no reason to expect he would fall on his sword and kill his7 project i.e. there was nothing anti-Alpha about the guy1  L ...remember folks that is NOT chip to chip but server to server for the sameF dollars - PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN - IT IS SERVER TO SERVER FOR THE SAME  DOLLARS THAT CUSTOMER LOOK AT...   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:37:57 -0500t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org, Message-ID: <3C002143.881093DF@videotron.ca>   Jeff Killeen wrote:oJ > performance.  It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that theC > Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficientmM > performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is also developing.   J Taken by itself, this looks convincing. However, what is not being said isN whether this comparison was made of a competing Alpha versus a competing IntelK IA64, or whether they looked at what Intel MIGHT do with IA64 if all of theeD Alpha intellectual property were given away and implemented in IA64.  H Secondly, while VMS may be relegated to only customers who run WildfiresK (large shops), Alpha could have been much more than Wildfires and you wouldiX have to also compare performance of a DS10/DS20 with the bloated IA64 server equivalent.  L Thirdly, it took a while before the alpha architecture was mature enough forE the engineers to add all of the goodies that make wildfire and beyonddN possible. Do you seriously believe that Intel will succeed in implementing all4 of that right from the start into its bloated IA64 ?  K It is one thing to say that in the future, the performance gap will narrow.sN But it is another to gove up now because you fear that sometime in the future,J Intel might narrow the gap. I guess that is why they never wanted Alpha toJ compete againsdt the 8086, knowing it would narrow the gap when it maturedM from a 16 bit controller to a 32 bit chip used on system that stole customersd from the more expensive Alpha.  A It will also take a long while before HP-UX and NT could run on ar? wildfire-like system and take advantage of their possibilities.e  J And frankly, I just don't see what the big fuss is about Wildfires. If youN split your wildfire into multiple instances of VMS each with its local memory,M doesn't the wildfire simply become an economic decision because it costs lessdN to run many instances packaged into a single wildfire as opposed to running on different separate boxes ?  L What percentage of wildfire owners actually use all that shared memory stuffM which Andrew so happily pointed out was much slower than anticipated ? And ifkK the bottleneck in a wildfire isn't the CPU but memory and disk access, then L why not stick an 8086 in there and achieve the same performance ? That seemsI to be the argument given by that Fenwick fellow. If an inferior chip willtL provide the same performance in a wildfire, perhaps it is the whole wildfire& concept that needs to be re-evaluated.  N Another aspect: what if VMS is able to make the fullest use of a Wildfire withL multiple instances each accessing their own local memory and limiting accessL to "far away" memory, but HP-UX won't be able to do that. If VMS is expectedJ to go away, then you are stuck with a big white elephant called a wildfireK that cannot be used to its fullest extent because there is no OS capable ofpH using it to its fullest extent. At that point, having a super duper chip
 becomes moot.o   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:12:26 -05001( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org, Message-ID: <3C001B4A.9080109@tsoft-inc.com>   JF Mezei wrote:h   > Terry C Shannon wrote: > C >>>WARNING: 'Mixed Cluster' may not mean Vax+Alpha+itanic... It wasoA >>>used to mean Alpha+IPF, and when asked, the Q people passed onr >>>that one... >>>e >>>hD >>That would seem to be a reasonable assumption from a CPQ financialH >>standpoint. Perhaps not so reasonable to the ~150K VAX users still out >>there, though. >> > M > What would be so difficult in allowing VAX to cluster with an IA64 ? If the-P > VMS code on IA64 is to be common with that of Alpha, and alpha supports VMS asO > a fellow cluster member, I don't see why it would be such a big deal to allow & > IA64 to support VAX cluster members. >   G WEll now, they wouldn't want you to see any comparison between VAX and eI IA-64 now, would they?  What if the 5 years + old VAX didn't look so bad  F compared to the IA-64, or, gasp!, actually did better?  Nope, buy all  new servers.   Dave   -- i4 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 23:34:47 +0000s% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org* Message-ID: <3C002E97.DFAAB93B@virgin.net>   Terry C Shannon wrote:   >oD > > WARNING: 'Mixed Cluster' may not mean Vax+Alpha+itanic... It wasB > > used to mean Alpha+IPF, and when asked, the Q people passed on > > that one...h > >a >.D > That would seem to be a reasonable assumption from a CPQ financialH > standpoint. Perhaps not so reasonable to the ~150K VAX users still out > there, though. >d  M Doug Williams when pressed on this point in London said that nothing would beaM done to intentionally break VAX/IA64 clusters. It just wouldn't be supported.eN If resources could be found to test then some configs might be certified - but no promises.   >iH > > From the people at the sessions, there will be virtually *NO* VMS inA > > WA soon... And one of the survivers would really like to knowk4 > > how to get their E10K plugged into their HSJ40s! > = > Ah. The Cosmic Ray and Zinc Whisker problem must be solved!y   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:11:22 GMT & From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <KGWL7.1142$zf.106479@typhoon2.gnilink.net>-  F "Bob Kaplow" <kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message- news:b+4fh7WSuUOP@eisner.encompasserve.org...  >u > >> Yep. David Fenwick. >3I > David was not part of the Alpha chip team, but was the guy who designedo theeJ > 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 "intel 
 > inside".  G Since Fenwick's name is now being mentioned in public I have heard fromMH enough Compaq sources for it to be super credible that what prompted theJ whole review of the viability of Alpha was Fenwick's work on the follow-onE to the Wildfire.  Something that keeps getting lost in these internetyI discussions is that systems, and not chips, is what customers buy.  It iseA the end result system, such as Wildfire, that really delivers theaH performance.  It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that theA Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficientoK performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is also developing.e  # I know enough of Fenwick to know...s  4 1) He had the data and folks outside of Compaq don't  L 2) He looked at this from the standpoint of the end product system delivered1 to the customer and not just esoteric chip issuesb  H 3) There was no reason to expect he would fall on his sword and kill his7 project i.e. there was nothing anti-Alpha about the guyl  L ...remember folks that is NOT chip to chip but server to server for the sameF dollars - PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN - IT IS SERVER TO SERVER FOR THE SAME  DOLLARS THAT CUSTOMER LOOK AT...   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:11:41 GMTa& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <1HWL7.1143$zf.106479@typhoon2.gnilink.net>f  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messageo; news:nEQL7.100249$2w.5929827@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...1  L > Funny how invisible David appears to have become since his name started toJ > be specifically associated with this, though.  You'd think he'd be right outnJ > in front defending the details of the decision, given his apparent level ofL > involvement - if indeed he came right out and said Alpha couldn't continueB > to compete effectively rather than something far more subject to > interpretation.d  ' Dave was highly visible at CETS-2001...:   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:41:52 GMTf* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org@ Message-ID: <k7XL7.54536$uB.9422317@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in message 1 news:1HWL7.1143$zf.106479@typhoon2.gnilink.net...n >e7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messageu= > news:nEQL7.100249$2w.5929827@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...s >eK > > Funny how invisible David appears to have become since his name startede toL > > be specifically associated with this, though.  You'd think he'd be right > outeL > > in front defending the details of the decision, given his apparent level > ofE > > involvement - if indeed he came right out and said Alpha couldn'tg continueD > > to compete effectively rather than something far more subject to > > interpretation.u > ) > Dave was highly visible at CETS-2001...   J So exactly what did he go on the record as saying in this regard?  And how	 publicly?    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:43:30 GMTE* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.orgA Message-ID: <S8XL7.85804$qx2.5290221@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>   1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in messaget2 news:xtTL7.1615$3n6.134522@typhoon1.gnilink.net...   ....  I > Since Fenwick's name is now being mentioned in public I have heard fromlJ > enough Compaq sources for it to be super credible that what prompted theL > whole review of the viability of Alpha was Fenwick's work on the follow-onG > to the Wildfire.  Something that keeps getting lost in these internetlK > discussions is that systems, and not chips, is what customers buy.  It istC > the end result system, such as Wildfire, that really delivers the  > performance.  H Excellence in system design can certainly make an average processor lookJ good - witness SGI.  But of course it can make an excellent processor lookH far better - and can only make a sub-standard processor like Itanic look marginally acceptable.  <   It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that theC > Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficientsA > performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is alson developing.r   Wrongo.e  L There's no mention yet by Intel of any Itanic product that can hold a candleI to EV7 in a large server, because of EV7's on-chip glue to enhance memoryhD access and multi-processor configurations.  And even Compaq is stillI contending that EV7 will be a winner that will easily hold the fort untilhI the (optimistic) 2004 -5 date (bet on 2005 - and then only because of the?K massive infusion of talent Compaq gave up) when Compaq (but not to the bestoL of my knowledge Intel) has said that the first Itanic with Alpha engineering' influence should wallow into the ocean.   H So if any such decision was reached, it *definitely* didn't apply to theL Wildfire follow-on (Marvel, with EV7s for its first engines), or to anythingG else before the second half of this decade (the earliest one could haveoE expected such on-chip glue from Intel *without* the Alpha engineering K infusion).  And since EV8 would have presented pretty much the same face to2E the outside world that EV7 did (i.e., its enhancements were primarily:L internal - e.g., SMT), there's every reason to believe that its improvementsK would have merged transparently right into the same high-performance systemNK architecture that EV7 pioneered (and that Itanic couldn't have even startedAD to take advantage of for at least a year or two after EV8 appeared).   > % > I know enough of Fenwick to know...a >m6 > 1) He had the data and folks outside of Compaq don't  H But the Alpha engineering team certainly did, and without exception they1 have said that Compaq's assertions were bullshit.    >?D > 2) He looked at this from the standpoint of the end product system	 delivered 3 > to the customer and not just esoteric chip issueso  I While the design of the wagon they pull is also important, the difference-J between a Clydesdale and a profusely-sweating pig as motive power does not exactly qualify as 'esoteric'.   >cJ > 3) There was no reason to expect he would fall on his sword and kill his9 > project i.e. there was nothing anti-Alpha about the guyB >KI > ...remember folks that is NOT chip to chip but server to server for theh sameH > dollars - PLEASE READ THAT AGAIN - IT IS SERVER TO SERVER FOR THE SAME" > DOLLARS THAT CUSTOMER LOOK AT...  = And so far Alpha is 'way out in front in both performance anddL cost-performance metrics.  That will continue with EV7 unless Compaq decidesG to soak its captive Alpha customers even more than it does already (saycL moo).  That would have continued again with EV8, especially given that IntelI would have had to compete against rather than take advantage of the Alphah team's expertise.a  H The only area where the cost difference between an Alpha processor and aH smoking brick of death would make any noticeable difference (even if youG ignore Alpha's significant per-processor performance advantage) is in arI low-end 64-bit platform where no special high-performance multi-processor I system glue is required and commodity components can be used.  Of course,oK Alpha hasn't made any money in that market segment for a long time if ever,sH and Itanic will have to compete there with sub-$1K SPARC boxes, its IA32K brethren, and (one hopes) Hammer (all of which should have noticeably lowernG per-processor costs than Itanic and *at least* equivalent performance).e  K So there is still no reason whatsoever to believe that Alpha would have hadwK any problem for the foreseesable future in attracting customers away from a K cruise on the Itanic on the basis of both performance and cost-performance. I I suppose there remains a possibility that Fenwick knows something no oneLH else does - but as long as he keeps it to himself (which makes it ratherG difficult to evaluate, let alone question) I suspect that opinions herej won't change much.   - bill  C (I didn't bother responding in all three places you posted the samen@ material - please take this one as covering the others as well.)   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:54:44 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: <ojXL7.1691$3n6.138441@typhoon1.gnilink.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagem; news:S8XL7.85804$qx2.5290221@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... ? > >  It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that thedE > > Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficientmC > > performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is alson
 > developing.  >t	 > Wrongo..  D Given the choice between believing a self-admitted bitter ex-DigitalK employee and a the chief designer of the TurboLaser and the Wildfire I willsH take the word of Mr. Fenwick.  Rather than pointless debate I will trustH readers to make up their own mind as to who is a more credible source...   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:56:21 GMTe& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <VkXL7.1154$zf.107841@typhoon2.gnilink.net>t  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messageo: news:k7XL7.54536$uB.9422317@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...L > So exactly what did he go on the record as saying in this regard?  And how > publicly?-  L I believe he confirmed the closing gap at the Monday Q&A panel.  I know thisG was going to be covered in his session on 9/11/2001 which was obviouslyS canceled...    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:00:45 GMT & From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <1pXL7.1155$zf.108171@typhoon2.gnilink.net>-  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagee; news:S8XL7.85804$qx2.5290221@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...nJ > But the Alpha engineering team certainly did, and without exception they3 > have said that Compaq's assertions were bullshit.v  0 Really - where has that been said on the record?   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:09:24 GMTh* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org< Message-ID: <8xXL7.32383$YD.2870459@news2.aus1.giganews.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in message 2 news:ojXL7.1691$3n6.138441@typhoon1.gnilink.net...7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messaged= > news:S8XL7.85804$qx2.5290221@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...0A > > >  It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that theaG > > > Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficient E > > > performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is alsoy > > developing.e > >a > > Wrongo.s >eF > Given the choice between believing a self-admitted bitter ex-DigitalH > employee and a the chief designer of the TurboLaser and the Wildfire I willJ > take the word of Mr. Fenwick.  Rather than pointless debate I will trustJ > readers to make up their own mind as to who is a more credible source...  I Then again, we have only Jeff's word on what the estimable Mr. Fenwick ismJ supposed to have said, whereas I've cited the posts in comp.arch where oneF of the Alpha designers (Brannon Batson) went on the record publicly inK stating that Compaq was full of shit (and have other private communicationstF to back it up, if Jeff would like some hearsay comparable to his own).  K People who regurgitate with minimal understanding technical material fed to K them by others run the risk of looking like fools.  People like Jeff who donK so repeatedly despite correction likely *are* fools.  But he's right in onei8 area:  people will indeed come to their own conclusions.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:11:06 GMTs& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <KyXL7.1162$zf.108545@typhoon2.gnilink.net>   1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in messageh1 news:VkXL7.1154$zf.107841@typhoon2.gnilink.net...f >o7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagee< > news:k7XL7.54536$uB.9422317@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...J > > So exactly what did he go on the record as saying in this regard?  And howl
 > > publicly?l >rI > I believe he confirmed the closing gap at the Monday Q&A panel.  I known thisI > was going to be covered in his session on 9/11/2001 which was obviouslye
 > canceled...y  F His slides from the 9/11/2001 sessions are on line at www.cets2001.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:12:51 GMTn& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <nAXL7.1165$zf.108565@typhoon2.gnilink.net>b  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message 6 news:8xXL7.32383$YD.2870459@news2.aus1.giganews.com... > 3 > "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in message 4 > news:ojXL7.1691$3n6.138441@typhoon1.gnilink.net...9 > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagem? > > news:S8XL7.85804$qx2.5290221@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...nC > > > >  It was Fenwick's team that came to the conclusion that themI > > > > Alpha based follow-on to the Wildfire wouldn't offer a sufficientuG > > > > performance advantage over the IA64 servers that Compaq is also  > > > developing.s > > >h
 > > > Wrongo.h > > H > > Given the choice between believing a self-admitted bitter ex-DigitalJ > > employee and a the chief designer of the TurboLaser and the Wildfire I > willL > > take the word of Mr. Fenwick.  Rather than pointless debate I will trustL > > readers to make up their own mind as to who is a more credible source... > K > Then again, we have only Jeff's word on what the estimable Mr. Fenwick isu  G I believe anyone who was at the Monday session can confirm this and hise> slides from his Tuesday session are online at www.CETS2001.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:16:26 GMT:* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org@ Message-ID: <KDXL7.54539$uB.9442008@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in messageK1 news:1pXL7.1155$zf.108171@typhoon2.gnilink.net.... >A7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messageN= > news:S8XL7.85804$qx2.5290221@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... L > > But the Alpha engineering team certainly did, and without exception they5 > > have said that Compaq's assertions were bullshit.s >t2 > Really - where has that been said on the record?  J Brannon Batson had no hesitation in saying so in comp.arch and comp.os.vmsK (you can search for his posts last summer as easily as I can).  I also haveeH private reports of equivalent statements by other senior Alpha engineersI accusing Compaq of dishonest 'weasel words', plus a statement by a senior-I Alpha manager that the reasons for the cancellation were not technical ineH nature:  since those were not offered publicly I suppose you can dismissG them as easily as I do your reports of Fenwick's assertions, though the L reasons Compaq employees might have been a bit reticent in this regard are aI lot more obvious than any reasons for equivalent reticence on the part ofM9 the engineers who supposedly support Compaq's statements.e   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 01:15:31 GMT1& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <TCXL7.1170$zf.108712@typhoon2.gnilink.net>i  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagea6 news:8xXL7.32383$YD.2870459@news2.aus1.giganews.com...K > Then again, we have only Jeff's word on what the estimable Mr. Fenwick iswL > supposed to have said, whereas I've cited the posts in comp.arch where oneH > of the Alpha designers (Brannon Batson) went on the record publicly in> > stating that Compaq was full of shit (and have other private communications > to back it up,  ; One bitter employee feeding a bitter ex-Digital employee....   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:33:26 -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: <3C005864.45A208E2@videotron.ca>   Jeff Killeen wrote: F > Given the choice between believing a self-admitted bitter ex-DigitalM > employee and a the chief designer of the TurboLaser and the Wildfire I willn  > take the word of Mr. Fenwick.   K Mr Killeen, while the above argument does hold validity, you must also takefK into consideration the possibility that Mr Fenwick has no choice by provideoM spin to support his employer's decision. Most Compaq employees have to do theoL same, especially during presentation to customers where it becomes sometimesI very apparent that the presenters are not saying what they truly believe.   G Since these wildfire boxes don't materialise overnight, I would be very K curious to see what this same Mr Fenwick was saying about IA64 last year. IaN wouldn't be surprised to have heard him blast IA64 as an inferior architecture: that would have a lot of difficulty catching up to Alpha.   K A year or two ago, I saw a presentation from John Loether who praised AlphalI and blasted the then vapourware IA64 and gave plenty of argumenst against2N IA64. I had also seen presentation by other (Digital) employees at the time ofJ the merger with Compaq indicating that the baggage of IA64 would not allowJ Intel to keep up with Alpha because of its bloat and would result in lower% yields, raising the cost of the IA64.v  N In early september, I saw a presentation from Mr Loether again, and I couldn'tL wait to see how he would spin the alpha disaster. He still had his integrityN and managed to skirt the IA64 disaster and did not tout that IA64 would be theM next best thing since sliced bread. He is probably thinking of retiring so he@$ has nothing to lose by being honest.  I Someone mentioned the "get over it" comment from a compaq employee.  This5N applies to compaq employees even more than to customers: if they don't toe theL party line, when the time comes to reduce the headcount due to the HP buyingN Compaq, guess who will lose their jobs first ? As customers we must understandL the difficult position Compaq employees are in. But that position also meansM that we understand that these guys may be forced to say many things that theyw do not believe.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:50:10 GMT 5 From: "Joann Difrancesco" <joanndifrancesco@home.com>vN Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org> Message-ID: <C%YL7.114505$pb4.69874334@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message-; news:nEQL7.100249$2w.5929827@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...  >tF > Bob Kaplow <kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message/ > news:b+4fh7WSuUOP@eisner.encompasserve.org...m@ > > In article <87y9kwyah1.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi! > <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes: 5 > > > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:b > > >p, > > >> On 13 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote:F > > >> >BTW, does anyone know the name of 'the engineer' who said that6 > > >> >Alpha would lose it performance advantage yet? > > >e > > >> Yep. David Fenwick. > > >nE > > > This was the name I got on Thursday at the local version of the B > > > IPF update. If anyone has an e-mail address, I would like toA > > > extend him the chance to stop his name being taken in vain.t > >i5 > > firstname.lastname@compaq.com usually works well.  > >aK > > David was not part of the Alpha chip team, but was the guy who designedl > thevL > > Turbolaser (8400) and Wildfire (GS320) platforms. As a user of both, I'mF > > most impressed with his teams work. I can't believe he'd rather be "intel > > inside". >kJ > Unless the alternative were to be out of a job (because Compaq was going toI > kill Alpha come hell or high water and the only question was whether ith3 > would kill its server design team along with it).n >oI > This is consistent with an early 'clarification' that the 'concerns' ina thisI > area came from the server group rather than the Alpha design group.  ItaF > really doesn't take too much imagination to frame a question such as "GivenJ > the eventual creation on IA64 of EV7-like on-chip glue to enhance memory andvG > MP performance, will the performance disparity between Alpha and IA64 L > shrink?" that can be answered in the affirmative by someone more concernedF > with how to put together a decent server at a reasonable price usingL > available components than about specific performance time-tables, customer) > migration grief, and corporate profits.w >oL > Funny how invisible David appears to have become since his name started toJ > be specifically associated with this, though.  You'd think he'd be right outrJ > in front defending the details of the decision, given his apparent level ofL > involvement - if indeed he came right out and said Alpha couldn't continueB > to compete effectively rather than something far more subject to > interpretation.s  J Mr. Fenwick is a senior system architect, not a marketing droid, hence his9 absence from this forum shouldn't be all that surprising.n   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:52:20 -0500s- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org, Message-ID: <3C005CCF.42B5A835@videotron.ca>   Bill Todd wrote:K > Then again, we have only Jeff's word on what the estimable Mr. Fenwick islL > supposed to have said, whereas I've cited the posts in comp.arch where oneH > of the Alpha designers (Brannon Batson) went on the record publicly in& > stating that Compaq was full of shit    M Batson would have been talking about the chip while Fenwick would have spokennK about one specific type of system (wildfire). So technically, if a chip wasaN ill suited for a wildfire type of system, then its use in a wildfire might notI result in great performance even thought as a standalone chip, benchmarksr would put that chip well ahead.e  4 but in terms of credibility, which is more credible:  K Alpha, which, with EV7, will be at its second iteration of wildfire supportrK with specific architectural work to improve its performance in such systemsH. and initial theeting problems long ago solved.   OR  M the newborn IA64 which is barely capable as a standalone server , with Compaq N having found problems on simple systems. Do you really believe that they'll beH able to scale that bloated architecture to support wildfires and performN better than Alpha on those systems within a couple of years when that chip has" yet to beat its 8086 predecessor ?    L The murder of Alpha has nothing to do with performance, it has everything toI do with the might of the Intel monopoly which as companies such as Compaqu4 believe that nothing can survive the IA64 tidalwave.  N Compaq lost credibility on June 25, and that includes any employee who used toL brag about Alpha and now says that Alpha wasn't going to be able to keep up.N Employees should just say that it was a business decision taken in Houston andN that as Compaq employees, they must work to support that decision and leave itF at that. Employees who try to justify Compaq's decision with technical  arguments just lose credibility.  I Even if the employee is right, he will lose credibility because customersa! won't believe what he is saying. a  K Let IA64 prove itself as a basic computer architecture before you commit torT stating that it would be capable of beating Alpha in complex wildfire style systems.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:52:20 GMTg5 From: "Joann Difrancesco" <joanndifrancesco@home.com>sN Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org> Message-ID: <E1ZL7.114513$pb4.69876919@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in messages1 news:1HWL7.1143$zf.106479@typhoon2.gnilink.net...h >t7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message = > news:nEQL7.100249$2w.5929827@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...I >oK > > Funny how invisible David appears to have become since his name started4 toL > > be specifically associated with this, though.  You'd think he'd be right > outeL > > in front defending the details of the decision, given his apparent level > ofE > > involvement - if indeed he came right out and said Alpha couldn'th continueD > > to compete effectively rather than something far more subject to > > interpretation.  >r) > Dave was highly visible at CETS-2001...e  G Which is where I heard him make the observations on EV8 that led to theiC controversy surrounding Terry Shannon's synposis of the Compaq "IPFoJ Decision" white paper. Dave was pretty clear about the hurdles that Compaq2 would have faced had it maintained the EV8 effort.  
 Just my $0.02    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:44:55 GMTe3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>"N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org/ Message-ID: <3C001377.CE70BA53@cableinet.co.uk>7   JF Mezei wrote:k >  > Terry C Shannon wrote: > > >cF > > > WARNING: 'Mixed Cluster' may not mean Vax+Alpha+itanic... It wasD > > > used to mean Alpha+IPF, and when asked, the Q people passed on > > > that one...h > > >u > >yF > > That would seem to be a reasonable assumption from a CPQ financialJ > > standpoint. Perhaps not so reasonable to the ~150K VAX users still out > > there, though. > M > What would be so difficult in allowing VAX to cluster with an IA64 ? If the P > VMS code on IA64 is to be common with that of Alpha, and alpha supports VMS asO > a fellow cluster member, I don't see why it would be such a big deal to allowk& > IA64 to support VAX cluster members.  D presumably the testing effort scales non-linearly with the number of	 different.B hardware platforms (I'm talking particlar hardware config, 750, GS series, ES series,B DS series, MicroVAXen of all types etc, not just VAX-Alpha-Itanim) requiring cluster H qualification. Say its the number of supported hardware variants squared (initial guess).D Leave out all those old VAXen, you spend less time and money on Q/A.  G Agreed, technically there should be no obstacle. Also, one would assume8 VMS q/as  is pretty well automated by now.    < -- I Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  s  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of @! my employers or service provider.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 23:22:13 -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: <3C0071D9.A3CD578@videotron.ca>v   Tim Llewellyn wrote:F > presumably the testing effort scales non-linearly with the number of > differentl > hardware platforms g    G But if the same VMS code on Alpha has been tested to support VAX in theIA cluster, how come the IA64 compilation of the same code would nott automatically support it ?  K Think about those shops that have mixed clusters of VAX and Alpha now. TheyeN proably have apps on the VAX that cannot economically be migrated to Alpha. SoK when Alpha goes away and they bring in a IA64 thing, they will want to haveeL that VAX cluster with that IA64 thing for the same reasons they had that vax cluster with the alpha.r  J Now, if none of the customers identified by Compaq has "key" VMS customersJ have mixed clusters right now, then it can be expected that mixed clustersJ with VAX isn't a priority since Compaq is only keeping VMS alive to retain# those few identified key customers.l   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 04:30:58 GMTp& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org8 Message-ID: <6u_L7.1747$3n6.144765@typhoon1.gnilink.net>  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3C005864.45A208E2@videotron.ca... > Jeff Killeen wrote:kH > > Given the choice between believing a self-admitted bitter ex-DigitalJ > > employee and a the chief designer of the TurboLaser and the Wildfire I will! > > take the word of Mr. Fenwick.5 >uH > Mr Killeen, while the above argument does hold validity, you must also takeE > into consideration the possibility that Mr Fenwick has no choice byi providen* > spin to support his employer's decision.  E JF my understanding is he initiated the idea i.e. he wasn't doing the  bidding of his masters...c   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 04:48:37 GMTs& From: "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org7 Message-ID: <FK_L7.1266$zf.118149@typhoon2.gnilink.net>s  : "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message& news:3C005CCF.42B5A835@videotron.ca...  K > The murder of Alpha has nothing to do with performance, it has everythingg toK > do with the might of the Intel monopoly which as companies such as Compaqo6 > believe that nothing can survive the IA64 tidalwave.  K Allow me to suggest another line of thinking.  I believe BOTH HP and Compaq2J basically have come to the same conclusion from different directions - theJ marketplace no longer values leading edge hardware.  That in fact hardwareJ is rapidly becoming something the market only values at commodity pricing.E This perception is counter to the soul of both Compaq and Digital but K something the market is proving out.  For those of you who aren't long timelK Compaq customers Compaq became what it did be being the first in many cases L to bring leading edge technology to PC's.  Compaq's business model was basedI on the customer will pay a premium price for systems that push technologysJ edge.  Dell's overtaking of Compaq's PC business was very much a result ofD Compaq's business model becoming invalid in the marketplace.  The PCE marketplace switched from valuing premium technology to valuing price.L because the commodity technology was perceived as being good enough.  If youK are Compaq once that happens to you on desktops and low end servers you layFL awake at night wondering when Linux and Windows XX will eat your mid to high end premium servers.  I The 6/25/2001 wasn't about Intel controlling Compaq.  It was about CompaqeJ coming to believe the marketplace will no longer pay a premium for premiumG hardware because the marketplace thinks that commodity hardware is goodnK enough.  Remember Compaq isn't run by a hardware or software engineer thesenI days - it is run by a former customer.  Once one sees the decision in thehE context that premium hardware is not valued by the marketplace all of K Compaq's decisions make sense.  Now one may disagree with basic premise buts3 within the context of the premise it makes sense...    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 06:23:43 GMTp* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.org< Message-ID: <P70M7.35241$YD.3016334@news2.aus1.giganews.com>  1 "Jeff Killeen" <Jeff@IDM-IO.com> wrote in message 1 news:TCXL7.1170$zf.108712@typhoon2.gnilink.net...s >i7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagen8 > news:8xXL7.32383$YD.2870459@news2.aus1.giganews.com...J > > Then again, we have only Jeff's word on what the estimable Mr. Fenwick isJ > > supposed to have said, whereas I've cited the posts in comp.arch where one J > > of the Alpha designers (Brannon Batson) went on the record publicly in@ > > stating that Compaq was full of shit (and have other private > communications > > to back it up, >f= > One bitter employee feeding a bitter ex-Digital employee...s  J Y'know, Jeffie, yapping like a rabid Chihuahua doesn't seem to have servedK your cause very well these past five months.  If you want evidence of that,i> just analyze the responses of the participants in this thread.  J If there were any technical basis for your opinions I'd just write you offL as too incompetent to present them.  But under the circumstances it seems asK likely that personal attacks are simply the only response available to you.i   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 06:31:27 GMT3* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>N Subject: Re: Special IPF-Inside Issue of Shannon Knows Compaq at www.tru64.orgA Message-ID: <3f0M7.105913$2w.6435586@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>f  @ "Joann Difrancesco" <joanndifrancesco@home.com> wrote in message8 news:C%YL7.114505$pb4.69874334@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com... >t7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagef= > news:nEQL7.100249$2w.5929827@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...d > >dH > > Bob Kaplow <kaplow_r@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message1 > > news:b+4fh7WSuUOP@eisner.encompasserve.org...mB > > > In article <87y9kwyah1.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi# > > <prep@prep.synonet.com> writes:r7 > > > > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> writes:e > > > > . > > > >> On 13 Nov 2001, Paul Repacholi wrote:H > > > >> >BTW, does anyone know the name of 'the engineer' who said that8 > > > >> >Alpha would lose it performance advantage yet? > > > >a > > > >> Yep. David Fenwick. > > > >iG > > > > This was the name I got on Thursday at the local version of theuD > > > > IPF update. If anyone has an e-mail address, I would like toC > > > > extend him the chance to stop his name being taken in vain.  > > >d7 > > > firstname.lastname@compaq.com usually works well.  > > >aD > > > David was not part of the Alpha chip team, but was the guy who designed > > thetJ > > > Turbolaser (8400) and Wildfire (GS320) platforms. As a user of both, I'moH > > > most impressed with his teams work. I can't believe he'd rather be > "intel > > > inside". > >nL > > Unless the alternative were to be out of a job (because Compaq was going > toK > > kill Alpha come hell or high water and the only question was whether itr5 > > would kill its server design team along with it).n > >cK > > This is consistent with an early 'clarification' that the 'concerns' ins > thisK > > area came from the server group rather than the Alpha design group.  ItyH > > really doesn't take too much imagination to frame a question such as > "GivenL > > the eventual creation on IA64 of EV7-like on-chip glue to enhance memory > and I > > MP performance, will the performance disparity between Alpha and IA64aD > > shrink?" that can be answered in the affirmative by someone more	 concerned H > > with how to put together a decent server at a reasonable price usingE > > available components than about specific performance time-tables,2 customer+ > > migration grief, and corporate profits.a > >rK > > Funny how invisible David appears to have become since his name startedm toL > > be specifically associated with this, though.  You'd think he'd be right > outBL > > in front defending the details of the decision, given his apparent level > ofE > > involvement - if indeed he came right out and said Alpha couldn'tp continueD > > to compete effectively rather than something far more subject to > > interpretation.< >9L > Mr. Fenwick is a senior system architect, not a marketing droid, hence his; > absence from this forum shouldn't be all that surprising.   H It has been the near-complete absence of any official Compaq response inI *any* forum to substantive questions about the facts behind the June 25th F decision that has been surprising (or not, depending on one's existingE impressions of Compaq 'responsiveness').  And people at his level are K commonly found participating in forums like comp.arch on such subjects - ateH least when they're comfortable putting their personal reputations on the1 line rather than merely their corporate personae.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 20:59:27 GMTv  From: cjt <cheljuba@prodigy.net>J Subject: Re: StongARM-Outside (was Re: Of Bogusity and Benchmarketeering )+ Message-ID: <3C000A2B.D75A89A9@prodigy.net>t   Bob Kaplow wrote:  > x > In article <SdsL7.111151$pb4.66712766@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Joann Difrancesco" <joanndifrancesco@home.com> writes:P > > While Compaq's iPAQ Pocket PC is StrongARM-based, it's a bit late for CompaqM > > to get into the StrongARM manufacturing business. Not only doesn't CompaqaO > > have a fab in which to produce the microprocessor, the firm doesn't have ana > > architectural license. > >iN > > Digital Equipment Corporation had both, they sold both to Intel as part of > > the Fab-6/Alpha deal.  > L > Most likely at Compaq's (EPs) request in order to sell the last merger ... > : >         26-October, 2001: A day that will live in infamy= >         Support Freedom: http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/   4 I thought it was part of the patent suit settlement.   ------------------------------   Date: 25 Nov 2001 05:09:04 GMT) From: leslie@clio.rice.edu (Jerry Leslie)n- Subject: Tech Wasteland: HWP/CPQ Profitless ?n' Message-ID: <9tpudg$l4q$1@joe.rice.edu>   I There's an interesting artice on Fortune's site about the Tech Wasteland,f9 caused by the commoditization of the computer industry...l  I    http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=204671t  H   "To understand the implications of commoditization, all you have to doH    is look at what happened in the computer industry in the 1990s as theI    Wintel PC architecture proliferated into every corner of the business.iD    Today, for all practical purposes the PC business is the computerG    industry. What we used to call mainframes now are enterprise serversSH    based, roughly, on hydra-like versions of Wintel PC designs. Even theD    proprietary holdouts that make powerful Unix servers are buildingH    boxes that are, when you strip away marketing rhetoric and brand-nameH    bigotry, strikingly similar to each other and to Wintel machines. The;    Unix offerings from Sun, HP, and IBM all contain similariG    microprocessors (or perhaps a bunch of them laced together), similarnB    architectures, and variations of the same operating system. TheE    choices of IT managers in corporate America have been reduced to a I    handful of systems that are at heart very similar, and are thus easier I    to manage and integrate into systems that actually work. In short, the @    computer industry embraced the PC model--and its economies of5    scale--as the unifying principle of all computing.b    .    .    .B    Hence the pending HP-Compaq merger. CEOs Carly Fiorina and MikeE    Capellas promise that the combined companies will get economies ofoE    scale and the critical mass to profitably provide sophisticated ITtE    services. But the only real reason to make this deal is that their.D    mainstay hardware business is now, and forever will be, virtuallyH    profitless--thanks to Intel and Microsoft. If they do combine, HP andI    Compaq will be the poster child of an industry that has become, in theeG    words of Advanced Micro Devices Chairman Jerry Sanders, "an unstableh;    molecule"--one rendered even wobblier by the recession."c      4 --Jerry Leslie     (my opinions are strictly my own)   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:46:33 GMTiG From: Simon Clubley <simon_clubley@remove_me.altavista.co.uk-Earth.UFP>aQ Subject: Re: Terminal emulation quality, was: Re: Installing CC060 on VMS VAX 6.1e6 Message-ID: <tOSL7.36050$xS6.60022@www.newsranger.com>  . On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:10:27 +0000, in article; <3BFE2093.E06D15B@uk.thalesgroup.com>, Paul Williams wrote:o >i >Simon Clubley wrote:  >> l> >> Running vttest on the various emulators available is a veryE >> revealing experience; even xterm itself is not a 100% VT emulator.e >AE >Is this just the support for double width, double height characters?   K [The following is based on the xterm in Redhat Linux 6.2 and vttest versiont& 20000208, also running on Redhat 6.2.]  * This is one of the issues. The others are:   * No DRCS supportj  G [* Not an emulation issue, but an xterm issue: You cannot just grab thenC scroll bar and move it up and down, you have to click in the scroll9
 bar area.]  H * Numeric keypad not mapped correctly. To be fair, you can get remap theD keyboard to fix this, but it does not work correctly out of the box.H I should also point out that you _do_ have to remap a DECterm to work inF a Linux PC keyboard environment, but DECterm works out of the box on a VAX/Alpha station.  H I mention this one, because I consider a VT emulator to be more than theL ability to interpret escape sequences correctly, but the overall environmentJ that the emulator presents. This is why I include things like the keyboard9 mapping when deciding if something is a full VT emulator.f  K This is probably more important if you use EVE/EDT (which I do) than if you 
 use emacs.  L I have some minor issues, but the above are the main ones. The minor issues:  J * I haven't found a way to turn F1 into a Hold Screen key (Ie: pressing itM toggles between pausing and resuming output and generating Xon/Xoff as well).s  M * xterm is a vt220 emulator. I sometimes make use of the host writable status K line and from what I can see, this only became available in the VT320. I amrI relying on not been able to find it in the VT220 reference manual to comeFL to that conclusion, as I have only used host writable status lines in recent years.   * Text will not blink.  L * xterm does not pass all of the tests. For example, test 1 does not displayF a double border at the top of the screen. However, this has not causedM problems with any real application, and the other emulators I have tested are  not 100% perfect either.   >bD >> At times, I have wondered just how long it would take me to write' >> a GPLed 100% accurate VT emulator...  > H >I imagine the return on the investment would be low. Although there areH >some mistakes in xterm's parser tables, I don't know of any that affectH >real applications. How many applications do not run correctly on xterm?  K Of the VMS programs that I have run on xterm, all have displayed correctly..K Normally however, I use xterm to connect to the VMS system and then displayfG a DECterm back to Linux as DECterm gives me a more VT like environment.S  H [And to be fair once again, DECterm does not support DRCS either. At theI moment, DRCS support is not a big issue, but there are some things that Io( would like to use it for in the future.]  L At work, I use Kea and thinking about it, I suppose that what I would really, like to see is something Kea like for Linux.  F I should also point out that Kea is not 100% perfect either. I can getI version 5.00d to hang solid by trying out the "Test Protected Areas" testMI in menu 11.1 of vttest. In case it makes any difference, I am running Kea 	 on Win98.-  I None of the above should take away from the fact that xterm is by far theiB best of the freely available emulators that I have tried on Linux.   Simon.   -- o@ Simon Clubley, simon_clubley@remove_me.altavista.co.uk-Earth.UFPK In the task of removing Microsoft from the marketplace, I have discovered anE truly remarkable plan, but this signature is too small to contain it.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:21:55 GMTs From: droptest@thedigirati.com  Subject: Test. Please disregard.D Message-ID: <nrSL7.3534$Qw2.15759@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net>  Y This is a test. Please do not reply to any of the following spam fodder e-mail addresses:m  6 jpfcaoru@wshsy.net muqoi@otibqwymt.org bhhc@nbumaa.org7 kbzhylydpgm@uvdkpbwfnpp.org namedropper@thedigirati.comrL xrx@irbf.org pyltui@pjsjd.org pwertysz@ixxk.com vvyplj@khmdq.com kxk@ubn.net7 cyzqayfpnkb@lvaodszikjx.net harvesttest@thedigirati.comoG wnft@tvrjktpa.org dgjsbq@ciduoc.com ztnbijhdw@kgehv.com avsn@dvbpqk.orgbJ piwlyssl@tzagjldrtkd.net droptest@thedigirati.com esxfithu@nrpbqvvqjox.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:42:22 GMT-3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>1 Subject: Re: tk70 blinking loude. Message-ID: <3BFFF76F.78F8E29@cableinet.co.uk>  	 CR wrote:f > / > WILLIAM WEBB <WWEBB1@email.usps.gov> wrote in6' > news:0033000042490600000002L002*@MHS:> > 2 > > Seriously- is there a pattern to the blinking?
 > > WWWebb > J > Well, all LEDs are blinking with a constant high frequence, if you could6 > say so to something not working in the GHz Area. ;-)  2 the high speed blinking means the drive is broken.   regardsd   >  > -- > Carlos > write to cratnulldotnet    -- r Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  t  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of i! my employers or service provider.e   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:08:16 GMTs1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>nB Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes' Message-ID: <3C000FB4.3F71E78B@fsi.net>    Terry C Shannon wrote: > ' > On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Bill Todd wrote:  >  > >S< > > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in messageA > > news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111231933060.8950-100000@world.std.com...e > P > > > We've been collecting the suggestions for the third survey and will likely2 > > > have something ready to go early next month. > >nL > > 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 finaln$ > > version for gathering responses? > >d >  > >nL > Absolutely!  The fact that you decided to give the current instantiation aJ > pass indicates that others might have done the same thing. The better we8 > can make the survey, the better results it'll produce. > < > Thanks much for the feedback, it is sincerely appreciated. > J > Whether or not we can make a difference at CPQ, the company does tend to" > pay attention to survey results.  4 Then why not ask the ultimate "tinder box" question:  > Should OpenVMS be back-ported to IA32 (replacing or augmenting
 OpenVMS-VAX)?    o Yesc o No
 o Not sure o Don't care    See this URL for a prior survey:9 http://apps2.vantagenet.com/apolls/count.asp?id=918123520g   -- y David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemso http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/a   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 02:48:05 GMTt5 From: "Joann Difrancesco" <joanndifrancesco@home.com> B Subject: Re: Tru64.org IPF Consolidation Survey Still Taking Votes> Message-ID: <FZYL7.114500$pb4.69871112@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>  < "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message! news:3C000FB4.3F71E78B@fsi.net...r > Terry C Shannon wrote: > >o) > > On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Bill Todd wrote:p > >m > > >r> > > > Terry C Shannon <shannon@world.std.com> wrote in messageC > > > news:Pine.SGI.4.30.0111231933060.8950-100000@world.std.com...c > >tK > > > > We've been collecting the suggestions for the third survey and will  likely4 > > > > have something ready to go early next month. > > >.I > > > When I looked at the new survey a while ago, I decided to give it at passJ > > > because several significant questions were not reasonably answerable given<F > > > the way they were worded (a problem I also had with the original survey,tI > > > though IIRC not to as great an extent).  Would you consider posting8 yourG > > > next survey questions for suggested rewording *before* creating aJ finalo& > > > version for gathering responses? > > >u > >d > > >eL > > Absolutely!  The fact that you decided to give the current instantiation asL > > pass indicates that others might have done the same thing. The better we: > > can make the survey, the better results it'll produce. > > > > > Thanks much for the feedback, it is sincerely appreciated. > > L > > Whether or not we can make a difference at CPQ, the company does tend to$ > > pay attention to survey results. >p6 > Then why not ask the ultimate "tinder box" question: >y@ > Should OpenVMS be back-ported to IA32 (replacing or augmenting > OpenVMS-VAX)?  >i > o Yesr > o No > o Not sure > o Don't care >i" > See this URL for a prior survey:; > http://apps2.vantagenet.com/apolls/count.asp?id=918123520s >e  D Good tinder box question to which one can take one of two positions;   1) It can't be donee  *     - Lack of four processor modes on IA32L     - IA32 will be (ultimately) replaced by IA64 and other 64b architectures   2) Oh yes it *CAN* be done       - DEC's EMERALD Projectw(     - The VMS kernel on Mach experiment.   Good question nevertheless!n   JoAnn DiFrancesco C Sequel Data Systems (AlphaServer and StorageWorks sales specialist) 3 Former DIGITAL Sales Rep (VAX, then a bit of Alpha)e   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:29:17 -0500d- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>.0 Subject: Why Compaq is so in pushing Wintel crap, Message-ID: <3C003B54.79BACD90@videotron.ca>  N While swearing at bad drivers during a bike ride, I came to realise why CompaqM seems so intent on pushing its unprofitable wintel crap at the expense of its   profitable alpha based products.  N Many companies are measured not in profits but in growth.  And if Compaq basesL its "success" metrics on growth, then it makes sense that they would want to+ cannabalise Alpha in favour of wintel crap.w  N If Compaq were to focus on its true enterprise business, there would be littleL growth. Just steady business. Wall Street wouldn't like this, and before youL know it, Dell would be considered twice as big as Compaq, even though Compaq& would generate more profits than Dell.  J But if Compaq focuses on wintel and provides stimulus to entice enterpriseK customers to drop alpha-based products and move to wintel, they will sell abL ton of wintel servers to replace a single VMS server and that will help them grow much more.   H Remember that Compaq is a young company that saw the PC go from 0 to itsE current status. Digital on the other hand got serious with "business"dM computers in the 1980s when the market was already established and never grew A at a speed-of-light pace.  Same with IBM. Slow but steady growth.o  L Perhaps Compaq doesn't  yet realise that the PC business has hit its ceilingI and nwo, what is left is the replacement business and that will be fairlyiN steady without any serious growth potential. The fact that the industry is nowG looking at eliminating the weaker players in the pc business (HP buyingtH Compaq, and probably someone else buying gateway) is such an indication.  C Amazon.COM figured that they would become profitable though growth.tN Essentially they think that at one point, their fixed costs will be low enoughK on a per-order basis that each order will become profitable. And they thinkr they may get there.o  M So perhaps Compaq thinks the same way. If it can grow its PC business, at one G point it may become profitable sicne the fixed costs will be lower on aiN per-unit basis. Hence, a strategy for growth would be selected as the solution to solve Compaq's problems.   M The problem is that I do not believe that the PC business will grow much more M now. Certaintly not in the business environment where companies have deployedpN the "PC on every desk" paradigm and are only replacing them when necessary. No' more Y2K spending spree on the horizon.h  L I think that it is time that the Capellas accounant wake up and realise thatN he won't be able to solve the company,s problems through growth. He should fixI the structural problems to make its PC division profitable at the currentiM levels. Or better yet, do like IBM: focus on the profitable segments, and seei the PC business as a hobby.p   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.655 ************************