1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 19 Oct 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 581       Contents: RE: A free VMS implementation? Re: A free VMS implementation? RE: A free VMS implementation?% Anyone using Oracle on VMS,  and OEM? ) RE: Anyone using Oracle on VMS,  and OEM?  Re: Big black helicopters 4 Re: Converting an ODS-2 to an ODS-5 file system disk4 Re: Converting an ODS-2 to an ODS-5 file system disk4 Re: Converting an ODS-2 to an ODS-5 file system disk Re: Copy command...  Re: ES40 12V BULK WARN0 FL - Dibol Programmer Needed, Permanent position; Re: Fortran File Sharing (was: Re: writing to shared files) & Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors& Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors& Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors& Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors& Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors& Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors& Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors& Re: Higher prices for Alpha processors Re: LAT Queues wont start * Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* RE: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger* Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger% New to OpenVMS - Looking for software ) Re: New to OpenVMS - Looking for software ) Re: New to OpenVMS - Looking for software * Re: Quotation for an AlphaServer 300 4/266; Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon! ; Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon! ; Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon! ; Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon! ; Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon! < Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!< Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!< Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!< Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!E Re: VMS server file sharing with W2K clients: NFS and Pathworks grief E Re: VMS server file sharing with W2K clients: NFS and Pathworks grief * Re: VMS7.3,AS7.3 & external authentication VMSD2 , Re: We've burned our boats say Compaq and HP, Re: We've burned our boats say Compaq and HP* Re: Windows Fails To Storm the Data Centre  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:34:26 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> ' Subject: RE: A free VMS implementation? 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEEDDHAA.tom@kednos.com>   A I took PL/1 to be a typo, since there is no language by that name  of which I am aware.   > -----Original Message-----6 > From: Larry Kilgallen [mailto:Kilgallen@SpamCop.net]+ > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 10:41 AM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ) > Subject: RE: A free VMS implementation?  >  > B > In article <NEBBIALHDHJMJINPGMOAMEGHDLAA.dallen@nist.gov>, "Dan " > Allen" <dallen@nist.gov> writes: > > & > > 	Actually Fred said PL/1 not PL/I. > 7 > I suppose the difference between the two is Subset G.  >    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:48:14 +0000 (UTC) , From: tontonTh <tontonTh@po.reynerie.yi.org>' Subject: Re: A free VMS implementation? 8 Message-ID: <slrn9sucfu.ajo.tontonTh@po.reynerie.yi.org>  K In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEEDDHAA.tom@kednos.com>, Tom Linden wrote: C > I took PL/1 to be a typo, since there is no language by that name  > of which I am aware. >   . http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pl%2F1 :)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:52:45 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> ' Subject: RE: A free VMS implementation? 9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIKEEFDHAA.tom@kednos.com>    It is a common error   > -----Original Message-----5 > From: tontonTh [mailto:tontonTh@po.reynerie.yi.org] + > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 12:48 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com ) > Subject: Re: A free VMS implementation?  >  > @ > In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEEDDHAA.tom@kednos.com>, Tom  > Linden wrote: E > > I took PL/1 to be a typo, since there is no language by that name  > > of which I am aware. > >  > 0 > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pl%2F1 :) >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:57:14 -0400 0 From: "Syltrem" <syltrem@videotron.spammenot.ca>. Subject: Anyone using Oracle on VMS,  and OEM?5 Message-ID: <%qGz7.70058$TW.368542@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>   L Since Oracle 8.0.5, and thru upgrades to 816 and 817, I am trying to get the agent to work.7 Agent itself is running ok and connects to my database.   D Almost any job or event I set in OEM fail with some error message or another.  K Has anyone succeeded with this? Can you give example of jobs or events that 
 work for you?   , Currently OpenVMS Alpha 7.2-1,  Oracle 8.1.7 --   Syltrem I http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site - en franais) > To reply to myself directly, remove .spammenot from my address   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:30:57 -0400 + From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@COMPAQ.com> 2 Subject: RE: Anyone using Oracle on VMS,  and OEM?T Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4010D7108@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Syltrem,  + What are the error messages you are seeing?   H Have you run these error messages through Oracles known problem database called Metalink?: http://oracle.com/support/metalink/index.html?content.html     Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Compaq Canada Corp.  Professional Services  Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----5 From: Syltrem [mailto:syltrem@videotron.spammenot.ca]  Sent: October 18, 2001 3:57 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com - Subject: Anyone using Oracle on VMS, and OEM?     H Since Oracle 8.0.5, and thru upgrades to 816 and 817, I am trying to get the  agent to work.7 Agent itself is running ok and connects to my database.   D Almost any job or event I set in OEM fail with some error message or another.  F Has anyone succeeded with this? Can you give example of jobs or events that
 work for you?   , Currently OpenVMS Alpha 7.2-1,  Oracle 8.1.7 --   Syltrem ? http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site - en 	 francais) > To reply to myself directly, remove .spammenot from my address   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:10:21 GMT ( From: "Amy Lewis" <amylewis@pacbell.net>" Subject: Re: Big black helicopters< Message-ID: <hYLz7.7$sT2.3102830@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>  2 <paddy.o'brien@zzz.tg.nsw.gov.au> wrote in message/ news:01K87ZHMSHS2004YPT@tgmail.tg.nsw.gov.au... 4 > The anonymous politics200@hotmail.com again wrote: > F > [And I have snipped, but retain what I believe to be relevant parts] > F > >It's interesting, disheartening and more than a bit alarming that aF > >citizen who expresses a desire for his or her country to govern its% > >own affairs is labeled as a bigot.  >  >    And this is about VMS.... how?     Amy    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:15:25 -0400 ; From: "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com> = Subject: Re: Converting an ODS-2 to an ODS-5 file system disk $ Message-ID: <3bcf1c6c$1@news.si.com>  D >VMS Development is under the impression that existing VAX customers  >prefer stability to innovation.  K And how, pray tell, does implementing ODS-5 in OpenVMS VAX affect that when G it's a selectable option, allowing those who don't want its features to E leave it off, but offering those who could use its features to do so?  --A Brian Tillman                   Internet: tillman_brian at si.com A Smiths Aerospace                          tillman at swdev.si.com = 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS      Addresses modified to prevent < Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991     SPAM.  Replace "at" with "@"8        This opinion doesn't represent that of my company   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 13:29:57 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) = Subject: Re: Converting an ODS-2 to an ODS-5 file system disk 3 Message-ID: <ipfNAGcQeYsX@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <3bcf1c6c$1@news.si.com>, "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com> writes:E >>VMS Development is under the impression that existing VAX customers ! >>prefer stability to innovation.  > M > And how, pray tell, does implementing ODS-5 in OpenVMS VAX affect that when I > it's a selectable option, allowing those who don't want its features to G > leave it off, but offering those who could use its features to do so?   D I suppose they could do it differently on VAX, but on Alpha there isD a single RMS image for both normal and extended file specifications.% That which gets changed, gets broken.    ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 15:07:28 -0500- From: koehler@encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) = Subject: Re: Converting an ODS-2 to an ODS-5 file system disk 3 Message-ID: <9TyAR9xfaBw+@eisner.encompasserve.org>   W In article <3BCED14E.B5ED58BA@compaq.com>, Joshua Cope <joshua.cope@compaq.com> writes:  > Brian Tillman wrote: >>  = >> What is there about ODS-5 that makes it undoable on a VAX?  > C > Mostly RMS. The RMS code streams are different enough between VAX H > and Alpha that it wasn't just a matter of checking it in both places; A > it would have required significant additional development. This E > would have come at the expense of some of the new features we were  A > developing on Alpha at the time (like Galaxy), and the decision , > was made to use those resources elsewhere.  F    At least in part because DEC made the classic mistake of separatingE    the sources.  When you have two copies, you double the maintenance     and enhancement efforts.   H    IIRC Compaq has said they will use a single source shared with Alpha J    for the IA-64 port, which will reduce the tendency to double all other F    efforts.  Hopefully they will do so and future technologies will beD    available on nearly parallel timeframes for those two processors.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:06:03 GMT , From: "Paul Dennis" <comedyox@earthlink.not> Subject: Re: Copy command...C Message-ID: <fULz7.1396$SP.174711@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>   < > "Virginia Flores" virginiaflores@msn.com> wrote in message1 > news:OE1348AoRbU2LRXNbN00001de52@hotmail.com... A > Either the COPY command or the BACKUP command will work equally  > well.   D Only if the target directory tree already exists.  The original post: requested that the target tree be created from the source.  L I honestly haven't tried tree copying with COPY since 5.3 or thereabouts butK back then it would often fail on the directory files with an RMS ISI error.    IIRC,  .pd.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:04:24 -0000 & From: cmadams@HiWAAY.net (Chris Adams) Subject: Re: ES40 12V BULK WARN / Message-ID: <tsude8pue4ci83@corp.supernews.com>   F Once upon a time, Carl Karcher <karcher@thuria.waisman.wisc.edu> said:I >We had a "CPU0 VCORE WARN" recently. Those voltages are regulated on the I >"PCI board" (the PCI motherboard) which is a real dog to remove. I can't I >imagine that the +12 is regulated any other place than the PS. I suppose 3 >it could be the +12 sensor too (wherever that is).   E Probably on the same board.  That is where the fan speed sensors are. F About a year ago, one of our ES40s reported three fans had failed, andE they had to replace the PCI board.  I think that is where all the RMC  functionality is located.  --    Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>< Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services= I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:05:47 -0400 . From: "Chris Baker" <cbaker@interlink-inc.net>9 Subject: FL - Dibol Programmer Needed, Permanent position A Message-ID: <5yGz7.43320$6i7.4573596@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>   L I have a client in Central Florida looking for a Dibol Programmer. This is a9 permanent position. Please contact me for futher details.    --, Contact me to see how you can earn $1,000.00   Thanks for your time,  Chris Baker  Executive Search Consultant % Inter*Link Technology Solutions, Inc. 4 4606 South Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 2-D (New Suite) Daytona Beach, Florida  32129  TOLL FREE 800-713-9207 EXT 204 TEL/386.322.5440 EXT 204 FAX/209.391.7933 IM# cpb meb    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:03:00 GMT 2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)D Subject: Re: Fortran File Sharing (was: Re: writing to shared files)1 Message-ID: <okIz7.659$RL6.6469@news.cpqcorp.net>   o In article <3BCDD87D.71363839@EDV-Berater-Online.de>, Lothar Geyer <Lothar.Geyer@EDV-Berater-Online.de> writes:  :Syltrem schrieb:  :>  9 :> You must do a $FLUSH to have the data written to disk.  : ) :And how to do that in a FORTRAN program?   C   You will have some trouble with this use unless you take over all F   management of the I/O channel.  (A $flush is among the least harmfulF   things you can do behind an application or a library that thinks it $   is managing the channel, however.)  G   RMS is smart enough to keep track of the stuff in the caches without  D   needing an explicit $flush, assuming the application is set up to D   permit sharing.  $flush comes into play when you want to have the H   data further out toward the actual storage media -- given the caching J   throughout the I/O system, $flush just gets the data out of the OpenVMS 	   caches.   C   Central to what you want to do, you will want to specify the RMS  E   FAB$B_SHR option to permit other accessors, or you will want to use 3   the language equivalent available within Fortran.   D   The FAQ section "PROG19. How can I open a file for shared access?"B   will point you to topic (2867) in the Ask The Wizard area, whichE   shows how to open a file for shared access using RMS from C -- this G   example shows the integrated keywords for C, akin to what can be done :   using Fortran language keywords.  Also see topic (2078).  N :> "Lothar Geyer" <Lothar.Geyer@EDV-Berater-Online.de> a crit dans le message3 :> news: 3BCDC4F1.95EF58F3@EDV-Berater-Online.de... J :> > With DCL there is a command SET OUTPUT_RATE. I use this with detachedG :> > processes to look continuously at output from the program running.  :> >H :> > I tried to get the same effect with log files directly written by aC :> > program developped in FORTRAN. However, I was not successful.    E   "Not successful" is ambiguous, and could indicate most any failure. G   Please purge all isolated use of this phrase (and its close relative  F   "doesn't work") from your vocabulary.  Thanks!  With the addition ofD   details, of course, this and similar phrases can be permitted. :-)  ' :> > I used OPEN (USEROPEN=function)...   D   Which means you take full control of the open.  I expect there areB   some Fortran language keywords for file sharing available on theE   open, check the Fortran user documentation.  (In fact, I know there F   are.  I just don't recall the specifics of the Fortran OPEN syntax.)  F :> >                         ... and tried several options in the FAB.  D   You will want to use either native Fortran I/O or you will want toC   use Fortran (or other language calls) to RMS I/O.  (I know that C A   does not necessarily behave well when you try to access the FAB D   and RAB underneath the C library file I/O calls, though C is quiteC   happy to allow you to manage your own FAB and RAB and RMS I/O...)   D :> > Does anyone know which bits have to be set in which FAB fields?  '   The FAB$B_SHR setting, most commonly.   N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 11:46:51 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorsV= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181046.477380b6@posting.google.com>D  e Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<oujqsts92om1ovtkuhj6rdnmh1m3l39uvc@4ax.com>... 7 > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:00:10 -0400, "Fred Kleinsorge" & > <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote: >  >  > > K > >VMS is never going to take over the world.  It had it's chance.  DigitalsI > >blinked (a LONG time ago) and it's over.  But VMS *can* play a role inc > F > And here is where we disagree. I think VMS *can* still take over theH > world. Slowly but surely with HPs backing. The DII-COE stuff is a stepD > in the right direction here *and so is the IA64 port* (but not theE > premature announcement about Alpha). As long as Compaq/HP policy isaE > that VMS can't expand out of its niche that will be self-fulfilling H > and c.o.v. will continue to be full of the type of comments (which I'mC > sure must be painful to read if you work in VMS engineering) fromf@ > those of us unlucky enough not to work in a targeted niche whoG > constantly wonder how much longer they can carry on working with VMS.nH > And there are still a lot of us in that category. In fact it would notB > surprise me if *most* remaining VMS sites don't fit a particular > niche. > L > >specific areas, and specific markets.  You can buy into that or not.  ButN > >aside from a few newsgroups, and pretty much the same handfull of people inJ > >them - the rest of the world doesn't seem to see this as the end of theN > >world.  I have been talking to *real* customers, spending *real* money, whoM > >just want information on timing, and plans, but who firmly plan on stayingeN > >with VMS.  And yes, we have people buying Alpha today, and porting to AlphaN > >today - knowing that down the road Itanium will be the platform.  The pointM > >is that there IS a future.  And it isn't dependent on Compaq being able toe > >sustain an Alpha business.L > >R  J with IIS being declared as a dead webserver by gartner ... vms with apacheM is the superior web platform and should be touted as such ... this is anothervI chance for vms to rule the ecommerce world if someone would pursue it ...f   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 11:40:08 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorsv= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181040.40a6d5cc@posting.google.com>m  n "Fred Kleinsorge" <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message news:<zV0z7.530$RL6.4732@news.cpqcorp.net>...F > Please. please. please.  Do not respond to me.  I made a mistake andH > responded to your assertions.  You want to parse things into nice neatL > little bundles.  I'm a liar or an idiot, or both.  Not a  __ing thing willG > alter that in your universe.  This isn't a court of law, or a Columbo L > episode - and the truth (and opinion) is seldom self consistant.  You wantI > to postulate performance characteristics, time to market and cost - allaJ > fabricated out of pretty much hearsay - good *and* bad.  Spin on.  Enjoy > yourself.e > K > I'll stick to these loose assertions:  Alpha was great.  Loved it.  Had a J > great time.  A decision I had no part in making was that it was not costN > effective to invest in the Alpha ISA long term (at this point I really don'tN > care if the reason is valid or not, or if *you* agre with it), and to switchJ > to the Itanium architecture - for good or ill.  People making a lot moreL > money than I do believe that Itanium will be competetive, and we have EV6xE > and EV7x until it is.  I myself will hedge on the exact date.   The N > performance of the mythical EV8 or EV9 are not interesting, as they will notH > be built.  We will be on an industry standard architecture, offered byD > everyone except (perhaps) SUN.  "Hammer" will never be embraced byM > Microsoft, and will quietly die.  IA32 will be phased out by the end of theOJ > first decade of the 2000's, as both Intel and Microsoft "churn" the userN > base to force PCs to be replaced.  Linux will follow (or lead).  Most of ourM > customers will be happy with the VMS to Itanium transition, which will giveON > them compatetively priced hardware.  A minority will make a decision to moveJ > onto another vendors OS.  We will do everything in our power to make the > transition long, and smooth. > M > It was foolish of me to A) say anything about Itanuim, and worse B) respondc > to anything you write. > M > I promise.  promise.  promise to not respond to you, and to ignore you from, > now on.  It was my mistake.7 > K > Really.  I have figured out how to work the newsgroup filters, I just had6! > been avoiding it in this group.g >  > _Fred  >   > Bill Todd wrote in message ... > >mA > >Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message . > >news:ZJZy7.519$RL6.4554@news.cpqcorp.net...( > >> Please don't put words in my mouth. > >vN > >I didn't:  you stated very clearly that "we will not have a competetive IPFL > >offering (with EV68 or EV7 or EV79) for quite a while", which is hardly a  > >difficult statement to parse. > >r& > >  I expect that had we continued toN > >> develop the EV8 that it would have remained "competetive" with Itanium in& > >> performance, but I doubt it cost. > >RL > >A qualification you failed to make in your statement quoted above (thoughE > >admittedly it applied only to EV7 and EV79).  Of course, given theeG > >relatively low impact individual processor cost has on even a modest L > >mid-range server system (compared with, for example, the system *savings*B > >that needing fewer processors to handle the same load creates),J > >per-processor cost for anything beyond desktop-class systems is not all >  that  > >critical. > >0) > >  The cost to do it apparently did notO > >> justify the investment, > > G > >What is apparent is that Compaq didn't care to continue development, 
 >  despiteI > >Alpha's healthy profits compared with other Compaq endeavors (with therN > >exception of Tandem products).  Compaq's own numbers prove that Alpha was aL > >better investment than PCs - and probably better than 'industry-standard' > >servers.  > > 3 > >> and it only would have gotten worse over time.a > >oF > >Only if Compaq had continued to refuse to promote the architecture:N > >opportunity for major sales growth persisted, despite Compaq's best efforts* > >to stifle it, right up until June 25th. > >e > >>M > >> EV6 was a pretty good leap in technology, and it was hard to do - bustede >  aC > >> lot of software along the way to get it right.  The OoO stuff,  >  speculation,sK > >> using cache state for multiprocessor locking, etc.  EV7 doesn't reallyLH > >> change anything there, instead it focuses on things that are really
 >  outsideK > >> of the processor - like the cost of getting to memory, and how to glueuN > >> together a NUMA system without a costly hierarchical switch.  EV8's focusJ > >> was mostly on how to leverage the resources on a single die which areH > >> normally inefficiently used - which doesn't really help with single	 >  streamc > >> performance.s > >oM > >Would you care to estimate the percentage of Alpha revenue that depends on J > >single-stream use?  My own impression was that servers (where EV8 would >  haverL > >excelled, even in comparison with multi-core-per-die POWER4s, let alone aL > >single-threaded SPECint pig like Itanium) brought in most of the revenue. > > ? > >  The processor speed, and number of units on the ship wouldoK > >> have increased that somewhat - and made it "competetive" with Itanuim.n > >-I > >You stated clearly that Itanium would *not* have been competitive withe >  AlphaJ > >through EV79, so to say that Alpha (especially EV8) would have *merely* >  beenoI > >'competetive' [sic] with Itanium seems disingenuous at the very least.. > >  > >>I > >> But how much faster does it have to be to "win" in the market place?n > > L > >Not all that much, if its owner cared to make any effort whatsoever.  But >  ifpM > >your contention is correct that EV79 would have retained a sufficient lead K > >that IPF wouldn't have been 'competetive', then EV8 would have blown IPFgN > >completely away in any server-style application (and had at least some lead1 > >over POWER4, especially in power consumption).n > >cN > >> Clearly there have been times when we have had well over a 2x performance? > >> lead - but that didn't translate into it eating SUNs lunchr > >iM > >To eat someone's lunch, you first have to be hungry.  Compaq instead acted J > >as if it was fat and happy (which, given that it in fact was not, seems > >massively incompetent). > >l > > - who have aL > >> pathetic turd-on-a-chip called Sparc.  Yes, it made us the standard forM > >> people who were willing to pay *any* price for the highest performance -  >  sohI > >> the genome people love it, some animation shops love it, some of the.L > >> military love it, and some of the supercomputer people love it. The VMS( > >> people love it BECAUSE IT RUNS VMS. > >@N > >The Tru64 people, who generate revenues 3/4 as high as VMS's despite a muchN > >shorter history and were growing at a significantly faster rate, apparentlyJ > >love it to a large degree because of the hardware.  And so do the AlphaL > >Linux folks, who could run Linux on just about anything.  So generalizingK > >about why the VMS people love it seems a bit risky (especially given theeL > >unequivocal sentiments so many of them have expressed in comp.os.vms over > >the past 4 months). > >v > >>I > >> We have a lot of experience building relatively large servers out ofp	 >  Alpha.eD > >> EV7 will provide really fast systems from 2 processors up to 64K > >> (architecturally 256, and realistically 128 could be built).  EV7, and  >  EV79sI > >> will remain competetive with everything - including the Power4.  Buts
 >  ItaniumM > >> *will* catch up within a performance delta that is immaterial to all but ( > >> zealots, and eventually surpass it. > >uK > >That remains to be seen, even *with* the influx of the Alpha engineering G > >talent and *without* continued Alpha development; had Compaq insteadeN > >continued with EV8 and kept its engineers, your statement would on the faceM > >of it be laughable.  Alpha had a credible performance road map through EV8MN > >that suggested *increasing* absolute performance leads over Itanic (leavingM > >aside even greater efficiencies in power consumption, especially with EV8,iJ > >system performance, as a result of EV7's on-chip glue for MP and memoryK > >access, and system cost, as a result of requiring fewer processors to do  >  the > >same work). > > ) > >  We can all take wild guesses at what K > >> that timeframe is.  And we can all speculate about when and how fast ae >  EV8 > >> and EV9 would have been.e > >>J > >> But I contend that most people, aside from the zealots, do not really >  carecJ > >> about the processor ISA.  They care about the price/performance - and >  that L > >> only a handfull of people are way out on the leading edge of wanting to >  pay > >> for absolute performance. > >-L > >And, as explained above, price/performance is where Alpha would have mostI > >eclipsed Itanic, save for in the low-end server market (where IA32 and K > >Hammer price/performance will trounce Itanic).  This would have remainedhF > >true even if Intel charged $0 for each processor:  the system-level  > >efficiencies are what matter. > > 3 > >  What they do care about is competetive pricing K > >> with competetive performance in the industry.  And that their softwareu > >> investment is protected.r > >>M > >> We are porting to Itanium.  We will do our best to make it as painless aiJ > >> transition as possible.  People who need raw performance, and need it	 >  before>G > >> say 2004/2005, can safely buy EV6x and EV7x based systems with thepI > >> appropriate price/performance.  When Itanium comes along, it will at- >  firstN > >> be for early adopters - and won't be as fast as existing Alpha platforms.K > >> But it WILL be able to run Windows as well as VMS, something we can nog > >> longer say about Alpha. > >r3 > >Right:  Compaq fixed that situation a while ago.l > >i1 > >  People can make apples-to-apples comparisonsnN > >> between vendors offerings - since pretty much everyone except SUN will be > >> selling Itanium systems.n > >rH > >I think you've been taking lessons from Mikey:  of *course* we should7 > >protect customers from all that confusing diversity.i > >D6 > >  And at some point - and I am not smart enough (orK > >> paid enough) to know *exactly* when, Itanium family systems will be as  >  big,-3 > >> bigger, fast, and faster than Alpha platforms.: > > M > >Naturally, since Alpha systems will no longer be being enhanced.  If AlphaFE > >development had continued, the situation you describe would almostR >  certainly > >never have occurred.e > >DN > >Unless Intel manages to cow IBM as it did Compaq, Itanic will never own theI > >mid-range-and-up server market, since POWER4 will offer at least equal L > >per-processor performance, at least double the per-die performance (givenH > >its dual full processor cores per die), more than double the per-WattG > >performance (a single two-core POWER4 die consumes less power than anK > >single-processor McKinley die is projected to, and also contains on-chipnJ > >glue for MP and memory access that AFAIK Merced, McKinley, Madison, andN > >Deerfield do not and hence must power external chips to provide), and *far*J > >better system performance (due to that on-chip glue plus the very tightJ > >coupling possible between two threads running in the same die) and thusN > >cost-effectiveness.  If the Alpha team can bring such features to Itanic atN > >all, it won't be before 2005 (for such peripheral on-chip glue) or 2006 (atN > >the earliest, for things like OOO and SMT that would help Itanic be less ofF > >a server pig - though it will still retain significant unproductiveN > >overheads compared with POWER4 unless they scrap EPIC pretty much entirely,F > >at which point the question will be just how effectively the ItanicN > >instruction set can be mapped to an EV8-like architecture, sort of like theL > >x86 instruction set is mapped to an underlying RISC-like implementation -
 > >blech). > > K > >And unless Intel manages to drive AMD out of business, Itanic will nevera >  ownH > >the low end either, because a great deal of it can be handled by IA32N > >processors and Hammer looks far more attractive than Itanic for the balance  > >that requires 64-bit support. > >iL > >So if Itanic succeeds at all, it won't be for technical reasons.  And I'mL > >guessing that there's at least a fair chance that Itanic will *never* pay* > >for its own development (unlike Alpha). > >c > >>M > >> I think with enough money, Alpha could have been performance competetive L > >> with Intel and IBM.  But it would have taken a lot of money to stay out >  in I > >> front of both, and the delta between performance might not have beenI >  largeK > >> enough for someone to pick Alpha over Itanium - especially in the UNIX  > >> space.e > > I > >As noted above, Hammer and IA32 look like much tougher competition for  >  AlphaL > >in the low end than Itanic does.  And POWER4 is certainly the competition >  in N > >the high end:  I think EV7 might have had difficulty competing with POWER4,J > >but that EV8 would have had slight advantages over it - and even takingH > >second-place to POWER4 in that lucrative a market would have returned3 > >profits to Compaq far beyond any it's ever seen.v > >lI > >  I think not having control over the fab makes it tough to compete on/ > >> raw performance.i > > L > >IBM supposedly fabs for others as aggressively as it does for itself, nowI > >(with its 'anything for a buck' attitude) more than ever.  While I can_K > >understand why having someone else (especially a competitor) responsible. >  forK > >fabbing Alphas could make Alpha's owner nervous, IBM more than anyone is L > >sensitive to anti-trust regulation - and of course there's always Samsung >  to- > >help keep them honest.f > >eL > >Except for your unusually forthright statement about Itanic's inferiorityM > >that I quoted initially above, you seem to be reverting to your defense of.N > >Compaq's to-all-appearances completely indefensible position on this topic.J > >If you insist on doing so, could you at least try to present some *new*+ > >information supporting your contentions?m > >u	 > >- billl > >@ > >o > >   F we will not move from alpha vms to itanic vms if the following is true ...z    1 but the itanium can not replace the alpha at all: D - what is with the hardware failure detection mechanism of the alphaE cpu? a defective memory never crashes a machine - itanium will do so.     F itanic vms better be as reliable as alpha vms or forget it ... we will not ) run on a blue screen platform like nt ...u   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 14:30:42 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)p/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorsc3 Message-ID: <8RIVNrGRCQs7@eisner.encompasserve.org>l  ` In article <d7791aa1.0110181040.40a6d5cc@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)  6 quoted THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE LINES and then wrote:  H > we will not move from alpha vms to itanic vms if the following is true > ...u >  > 3 > but the itanium can not replace the alpha at all:rF > - what is with the hardware failure detection mechanism of the alphaG > cpu? a defective memory never crashes a machine - itanium will do so.s >  > H > itanic vms better be as reliable as alpha vms or forget it ... we will > not + > run on a blue screen platform like nt ...f   PLEASE trim your posts.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:48:46 GMTd3 From: Tim Llewellyn <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk>*/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorsi/ Message-ID: <3BCF318F.A7A5A625@cableinet.co.uk>    Bob Ceculski wrote:  > g > Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<oujqsts92om1ovtkuhj6rdnmh1m3l39uvc@4ax.com>...h9 > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:00:10 -0400, "Fred Kleinsorge"i( > > <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote: > >s > >n > > >hM > > >VMS is never going to take over the world.  It had it's chance.  Digital.K > > >blinked (a LONG time ago) and it's over.  But VMS *can* play a role in. [snip] > L > with IIS being declared as a dead webserver by gartner ... vms with apacheO > is the superior web platform and should be touted as such ... this is another K > chance for vms to rule the ecommerce world if someone would pursue it ...e  G well, I and many here would suggest some 1/2 decent marketting might beF a good place to start, g   regardsd -- m Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk  0  C Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of n! my employers or service provider.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:58:52 -0400t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>N/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorse, Message-ID: <3BCF3479.C9F89D65@videotron.ca>   Bob Ceculski wrote:rL > with IIS being declared as a dead webserver by gartner ... vms with apacheO > is the superior web platform and should be touted as such ... this is anothermK > chance for vms to rule the ecommerce world if someone would pursue it ...k  I No. With Gartner saying bad things about Microsoft's IIS, now , more thaneN ever, is the time for Compaq and HP to protect their benefactor by pushing ISS and hiding the better products.(   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:55:22 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorso> Message-ID: <_kHz7.131663$vq.29517912@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  @ "Tim Llewellyn" <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message) news:3BCF0D9C.91041B72@cableinet.co.uk...t >m >i > "Terry C. Shannon" wrote:s > > 9 > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagea= > > news:NF1z7.513798$Lw3.31489676@news2.aus1.giganews.com.... > > >eD > > > Fred Kleinsorge <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote in message1 > > > news:pd1z7.533$RL6.4757@news.cpqcorp.net...aG > > > > Seems to me that both you and Bill are wasted - *you* should be  CEO's.	 > > > HowlK > > > > is it that your raw pearls of wisdom have gone unnoticed?  At leasti youe@ > > > > should be the head of Strategy for a Fortune 50 company. > > > I > > > Actually, at least some of those pearls were noticed but discarded,O sincewG > > > they were presented to Capellas (and then redirected to Marcello). about 17 > > > months ago.t > >sF > > Indeed they were. In addition to Michael Capellas, Bill Heil was a	 recipient ! > > of the aforementioned pearls.r >oB > I guess the problem was they were free pearls. Is it too late to > retrospectivelyv > bill Compaq for them?  >  > :-)u >i > (thats a smiley btw)  J Smiles aside, you have a valid point... chances are good that CPQ (or mostI any firm) woulda paid more attention to advice that it actually paid for!g   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:57:43 GMT 4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorsF> Message-ID: <bnHz7.131667$vq.29519103@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  5 "Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message 7 news:d7791aa1.0110181046.477380b6@posting.google.com...8  H > > And here is where we disagree. I think VMS *can* still take over theJ > > world. Slowly but surely with HPs backing. The DII-COE stuff is a stepF > > in the right direction here *and so is the IA64 port* (but not theG > > premature announcement about Alpha). As long as Compaq/HP policy issG > > that VMS can't expand out of its niche that will be self-fulfilling,J > > and c.o.v. will continue to be full of the type of comments (which I'mE > > sure must be painful to read if you work in VMS engineering) fromeB > > those of us unlucky enough not to work in a targeted niche whoI > > constantly wonder how much longer they can carry on working with VMS. J > > And there are still a lot of us in that category. In fact it would notD > > surprise me if *most* remaining VMS sites don't fit a particular
 > > niche. > >eI > > >specific areas, and specific markets.  You can buy into that or not.  ButtF > > >aside from a few newsgroups, and pretty much the same handfull of	 people in L > > >them - the rest of the world doesn't seem to see this as the end of theL > > >world.  I have been talking to *real* customers, spending *real* money, whojG > > >just want information on timing, and plans, but who firmly plan on, staying J > > >with VMS.  And yes, we have people buying Alpha today, and porting to Alpha J > > >today - knowing that down the road Itanium will be the platform.  The point L > > >is that there IS a future.  And it isn't dependent on Compaq being able to > > >sustain an Alpha business.  > > >g >nL > with IIS being declared as a dead webserver by gartner ... vms with apacheG > is the superior web platform and should be touted as such ... this is  anothereK > chance for vms to rule the ecommerce world if someone would pursue it ...m  I Based on recent revelations in Spit Brook (said revelations involving thelJ IPF port and ramifications thereof) I wouldn't be surprised to see the VMS4 addressable market increase when the IPF port ships.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:01:24 GMTM4 From: "Terry C. Shannon" <terryshannon@mediaone.net>/ Subject: Re: Higher prices for Alpha processorsi> Message-ID: <EqHz7.131673$vq.29521348@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>  @ "Tim Llewellyn" <tim.llewellyn@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message) news:3BCF318F.A7A5A625@cableinet.co.uk...i >o >o > Bob Ceculski wrote:h > >m4 > > Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net> wrote in message4 news:<oujqsts92om1ovtkuhj6rdnmh1m3l39uvc@4ax.com>...; > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:00:10 -0400, "Fred Kleinsorge"t* > > > <kleinsorge@star.zko.dec.com> wrote: > > >b > > >  > > > >tF > > > >VMS is never going to take over the world.  It had it's chance. DigitalBJ > > > >blinked (a LONG time ago) and it's over.  But VMS *can* play a role in > [snip] > >hG > > with IIS being declared as a dead webserver by gartner ... vms with  apacheI > > is the superior web platform and should be touted as such ... this is  anotherhI > > chance for vms to rule the ecommerce world if someone would pursue iti ...  >vI > well, I and many here would suggest some 1/2 decent marketting might bey > a good place to start, >c  L Yup. Never underestimate the power of marketing. It certainly works for Sun,5 Intel, AOL, and a few other companies I could name...S   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:05:29 GMT ( From: "Amy Lewis" <amylewis@pacbell.net>" Subject: Re: LAT Queues wont start< Message-ID: <JTLz7.5$jG2.2451597@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>   > >eL > > I am experiencing a problem with my LAT queues. They seemed to have gone intoI > > a stopped state and I am unable to restart them. I can restart normal  batchhJ > > queues and IP print queues, but any queues that are using LAT will not start.I > > I have other vaxes which have the same setup and those LAT queues are>
 unaffected > > and work fine. > > C > > Printer queue CORPORATE_SECRETARIES_1$PRINT, stopped, autostart  inactive, on) > > NEWDEV::LTA501:, mounted form DEFAULTs > >i9 > > NEWDEV(PA)$ start/queue CORPORATE_SECRETARIES_1$PRINTe1 > > %SYSTEM-W-NOSUCHDEV, no such device availableL > >f8 > > Even stopping and reseting the queues has no effect. > >i0 > > Does anyone know what might be causing this?    K Ummm... are you mapping the LAT terminal port to a terminal server port? DopK you have that done correctly? It sounds like what happens when I reboot andaL somehow the port never gets created under LAT. Do a sho term LTA501 and makeJ sure it's there first, and if in a cluster make sure it's happening on theJ node the printer is spooled from. Then you have to check to make sure thatK LAT commands happen that map the port to the place you want the data to go. A If this isn't the problem... well gosh, I'm not sure what to say.   	 Amy Lewis    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:30:30 -0400o- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>n3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergere, Message-ID: <3BCF2DD5.3BC0A363@videotron.ca>   Alan Greig wrote:eG > All true but the advice from the Aberdeen Group is not that HP should H > immediately kill VMS. It is that HP should terminate the port to IA64.E > That way VMS could continue on active development for, say, anotherr$ > five years or more but Alpha only.  J I agree with that. I think that the port to IA64 is a waste of money in anF environment where HP have stated that they will focus only on industryL standard stuff. It would make sense only in a context where there would be aC serious commitment to VMS for marketing and widening of its market.c  L One way out of this would be for HP to disown VMS but not sell it and let itJ stand on its own or sink and in exchange for this set of bad news, give it9 some independance to operate/market from its own budgets.e  E By stopping the port, it would free up some funds to market and trulyyN re-expand VMS and if that works out, then VMS could choose to port to whatever architecture it wants.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:28:16 +0100n% From: Alan Greig <a.greig@virgin.net>e3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergert* Message-ID: <3BCF2D50.E86FBE51@virgin.net>   Tim Llewellyn wrote:  I > Only VMS contract in Bristol so far this month is porting a Fortran appe
 > to hpux. >W  R Used to be a lot of VMS in Bristol too. I did some work for the RAC when they wereQ in the Spectrum building (think that was its name) about ten years ago. The RAC'sWH membership systems and break-down response systems were all once on VMS.  I We might just have some contract work coming up soon in various VMS areas R including Fortran strangely enough.  Depends on the outcome of some discussions at> an upcoming corporate IT meeting we're hosting in a few weeks.   > Nice work, Alan. >> > -- > Tim.Llewellyn@cableinet.co.uks >sD > Standard disclaimer applies. My views in no way represent those of# > my employers or service provider.g   --
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:42:21 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>r3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger + Message-ID: <3BCF309B.76E3615@videotron.ca>g   Rob Young wrote:I >         They (Compaq + HP) are in a classic catch-22.  If they pull theuH >         plug on the port VMS->Itanium it will be a rush for the exits.  B Would it be any worse than now ? Someone who's got a big Alpha VMSM infrastructure with at least 5 more years of Alpha being state of the art and,6 10 years of Alpha available, why rush now to migrate ?  M You'd be better off sticking with VMS for a few more years. One reason not topK jump ship right away is the uncertaintly about what will happen to the unix I market and the unknown entity of Itanium. Wait a few years and it will beCJ clearer, at which point you can start to make long term porting decisions.  G >         From experience they know the landing zone won't be Compaq/HPu >         platforms/hardware.v  L Correct.  But that is going to happen anyways unless the owner of VMS startsK to take VMS seriously instead of continuing to send messages that they willn& focus only on industry standard stuff.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:30:20 GMTI* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergeriC Message-ID: <g5Gz7.792804$NK1.71847201@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>e  6 Rob Young <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:+TQdsPkNw0V2@eisner.encompasserve.org...-E > In article <gcststknmcbc1q4be5cgubo6q8g3g0i72s@4ax.com>, Alan Greig  <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:   ...s  I > > I know it doesn't make sense but I argue that almost no decision madeOI > > by DEC/Compaq in the last ten years makes sense - that;s why they gotl > > into so much trouble.n >d > Blanket statement.  Not true.h >WC > Digital divested themselves of disk drives to Quantum in a timelyh
 > fashion.  F Unfortunately, in the process they insisted on ridding themselves of a4 significantly more attractive tape business as well.  E Quantum was smarter:  they then dumped the disks, and kept the tapes.b  )   There are tons of other good decisions.d  K If you consider the above to have been a good decision (rather than at bestc; a mixed blessing), then perhaps I can see why you think so.    >a0 > Madness. The Aberdeen Group point out that VMSG > > is profitable and then calculate that HP will lose the user-base insJ > > time anyway so they might as well get the bad news out of the way now. >aD > Dumb advice.  No one can afford to take that kind of hit inside ofC > an 18 month timeframe.  If the intention is to kill VMS off, they E > better kill it off over a 10 year timeframe.  IBM posted surprising.F > growth in Z series (mainframes) so maybe even some clueless analystsF > might understand there is a market for non-NT based Enterprise OSes.G > Might be hard figurin' for them but they will eventually stumble upone > some facts and get a clue.  J Unfortunately, Compaq (cHomPaq, should the merger fiasco take place) is noL IBM.  Come back to this point only when you can point to similar 'surprisingJ growth' in VMS:  as long as it's seen as a stagnating legacy system by itsJ owners (in marked contrast to IBM's perspective on its z-Series platforms)L expect it to continue to wither just as it has for so long - and hence to beI ripe for the chopping block given that said owners perceive its demise as  inevitable anyway.   >t@ > So again... stopping port to IA64 for VMS makes no sense as itB > will absolutely arrest VMS sales and force a rapid exit to other > platforms.  H You act as if such is not already occurring.  Perhaps Aberdeen is better	 informed.u  <   Digital learned a sore lesson from the Ultrix->MIPS->Alpha	 > fiasco.   H Unfortunately (if indeed that is true) the lesson seems not to have been+ assimilated by Compaq when it ingested DEC.   :   A ditching of VMS->IA64 will make that fiasco look tame.  K I suspect that the ditching of Alpha *already* makes that fiasco look tame.nJ Don't I remember that quarterly revenues are said to be down $1 billion orK more from estimates (estimates which had already been lowered significantlypD after the disappointing results in Q2)?  I wonder whether it will beG possible to isolate the Alpha numbers when the quarterly report becomesm	 public...-  F > There would be dozens of very large IT departments that would refuse9 > to deal with HP/Compaq if VMS->IA64 goes in the toilet.   # And you think there aren't already?i  
   AberdeenA > is clueless on that one.  The kid that penned that portion must  > be pretty ingrown.  I Since according to Fred there won't be an IPF platform that's competitiverH with Alpha (let alone *superior* in performance, which will clearly takeG even longer) for at least the next 3 years (though some point in EV79'smJ lifetime), and assuming that cHomPaq really *will* continue to produce andB enhance Alphas during that period, axing the IPF port is hardly asL infeasible as you suggest:  customers will still have plenty of time to makeK the other arrangements that many of them will make anyway regardless of ther port.    >wH > > Recall that one of the justifications Compaq used for dropping AlphaI > > was they couldn't keep up with the cost - yet even the Aberdeen Group E > > say that the alpha division (together with NSK) is Compaq's *mostf > > profitable* division.  > >h > ? > Not sure how that ties into to an VMS->IA64 migration debate.eB > What are you getting at?  (i.e. I am inquiring ... not mocking).  G The relevance may be that a customer would be really foolish to migrate-F simply for the pleasure of continuing to do business with a manifestlyL incompetent vendor, rather than to seek someone more reliable:  any bunch ofK boobs that could get rid of Alpha could equally easily decide to get rid of K VMS to someone even less pleasant to deal with than Compaq is (or just killt
 it outright).9   >a > >>J > > Remember what Carly said when asked why she was so sure the deal wouldG > > go through: "Because we've burnt our boats". Incredible, absolutelynG > > incredible. Maybe Bill Gates subjects all his important visitors to C > > some high doses of gamma radiation to the head when they visit.  > >  >h. > It will go through because it has to.  Okay.  J I think shareholders get to decide whether it has to, and some significantI ones are clearly unconvinced.  There seems to be a growing sentiment that J while this deal may be better for HP than it is for Compaq it doesn't lookH good for either (i.e., that both would have a better chance without it -I leaving aside the likelihood that if it fails both CEOs will probably getn4 the axe, which itself would be a major improvement).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:50:47 -0400t- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>N3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergere, Message-ID: <3BCF3295.7F71FEFD@videotron.ca>   Alan Greig wrote: H > But nobody will stand up at a shareholders meeting and say "Given thatH > current management has proved its total incompetence why are you still > here?"    K Remember when Pfeiffer was ousted ? They couldn't pay anyone enough to take D the job, so they had to give it to some accountant in the mail room.  J I wonder if Ben Rosen already knew that Compaq was sinking and was tellingN potential new CEOs that part of their job was to kill the company off and haveK it merged with another one. (That would explain why nobody was interested).d   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 15:23:54 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)a3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergerc3 Message-ID: <CT9YgznaZJRt@eisner.encompasserve.org>n  p In article <g5Gz7.792804$NK1.71847201@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > 8 > Rob Young <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:+TQdsPkNw0V2@eisner.encompasserve.org...rF >> In article <gcststknmcbc1q4be5cgubo6q8g3g0i72s@4ax.com>, Alan Greig > <a.greig@virgin.net> writes: >  > ...o > J >> > I know it doesn't make sense but I argue that almost no decision madeJ >> > by DEC/Compaq in the last ten years makes sense - that;s why they got >> > into so much trouble. >>  >> Blanket statement.  Not true. >>D >> Digital divested themselves of disk drives to Quantum in a timely >> fashion.  > H > Unfortunately, in the process they insisted on ridding themselves of a6 > significantly more attractive tape business as well. >   H 	Digital shed DLT.  DLT is dead.  Compaq is pushing SuperDLT and LTO is 6 	light-years ahead and taking over all over the place:   http://www.lto-technology.com/    G > Quantum was smarter:  they then dumped the disks, and kept the tapes.  >   E 	So disk drives became a loser early on for Quantum.  DLT tape drives > 	have a limited life, growth trailing off drastically over the< 	next few years.  Quantum is in LTO too , but no where near % 	dominating that segment nor hope to.   + >   There are tons of other good decisions.R > M > If you consider the above to have been a good decision (rather than at besto= > a mixed blessing), then perhaps I can see why you think so.e >   " 	Good decsion.  Fruit yet to bear.   >>1 >> Madness. The Aberdeen Group point out that VMSdH >> > is profitable and then calculate that HP will lose the user-base inK >> > time anyway so they might as well get the bad news out of the way now.h >>E >> Dumb advice.  No one can afford to take that kind of hit inside oftD >> an 18 month timeframe.  If the intention is to kill VMS off, theyF >> better kill it off over a 10 year timeframe.  IBM posted surprisingG >> growth in Z series (mainframes) so maybe even some clueless analystslG >> might understand there is a market for non-NT based Enterprise OSes.nH >> Might be hard figurin' for them but they will eventually stumble upon >> some facts and get a clue.  > L > Unfortunately, Compaq (cHomPaq, should the merger fiasco take place) is noN > IBM.  Come back to this point only when you can point to similar 'surprisingL > growth' in VMS:  as long as it's seen as a stagnating legacy system by itsL > owners (in marked contrast to IBM's perspective on its z-Series platforms)N > expect it to continue to wither just as it has for so long - and hence to beK > ripe for the chopping block given that said owners perceive its demise asp > inevitable anyway. >   D 	One perspective.  But my point wasn't to draw a parallel to zSeries> 	but to add NT isn't everything.  Aberdeen would push the idea= 	of shedding OSes because supporting multiple OSes is hard ornB 	not wise.  That is a silly idea by counter-example (IBM zSeries).   >>A >> So again... stopping port to IA64 for VMS makes no sense as itsC >> will absolutely arrest VMS sales and force a rapid exit to othera
 >> platforms.  > J > You act as if such is not already occurring.  Perhaps Aberdeen is better > informed.. >   ; 	Yes perhaps.  But we won't know for a few months how badlyi? 	VMS shrunk this year.  If in the low single digits, that wouldS> 	be consistent with many industry trends and not alarming.  IfG 	like EMC revenues shrinking 47% year-to-year (comparing 3rd quarters),tF 	that would be alarming.  Sun, HP, Compaq being in similar situations.1 	IBM and Dell being bright spots in the industry.C  > >   Digital learned a sore lesson from the Ultrix->MIPS->Alpha
 >> fiasco. > J > Unfortunately (if indeed that is true) the lesson seems not to have been- > assimilated by Compaq when it ingested DEC.r > < >   A ditching of VMS->IA64 will make that fiasco look tame. > M > I suspect that the ditching of Alpha *already* makes that fiasco look tame.eL > Don't I remember that quarterly revenues are said to be down $1 billion orM > more from estimates (estimates which had already been lowered significantlytF > after the disappointing results in Q2)?  I wonder whether it will beI > possible to isolate the Alpha numbers when the quarterly report becomesd > public...B >   B 	Even if you could, who cares?  EMC lost $1.1 billion year to year- 	in revenue and alls they do is sell storage.p  G >> There would be dozens of very large IT departments that would refuses: >> to deal with HP/Compaq if VMS->IA64 goes in the toilet. > % > And you think there aren't already?  >    	Where?  Who?  Numbers?g   >   AberdeenB >> is clueless on that one.  The kid that penned that portion must >> be pretty ingrown.r > K > Since according to Fred there won't be an IPF platform that's competitive J > with Alpha (let alone *superior* in performance, which will clearly takeI > even longer) for at least the next 3 years (though some point in EV79'sQL > lifetime), and assuming that cHomPaq really *will* continue to produce andD > enhance Alphas during that period, axing the IPF port is hardly asN > infeasible as you suggest:  customers will still have plenty of time to makeM > the other arrangements that many of them will make anyway regardless of the  > port.  >   = 	Future performance is always fun.  But EV7 and family shouldp? 	keep Alpha near the top for the next 2-3 years.  Who knows, by 7 	then Intel may actually have IPF cranking.  We'll see.    				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:45:24 -0400P+ From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>e3 Subject: RE: More official info on Compaq/HP merger T Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4010D7109@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>   Bill,   B >>> I think shareholders get to decide whether it has to, and someF significant ones are clearly unconvinced.  There seems to be a growingB sentiment that while this deal may be better for HP than it is forD Compaq it doesn't look good for either (i.e., that both would have aH better chance without it - leaving aside the likelihood that if it failsB both CEOs will probably get the axe, which itself would be a major improvement).<<<  C re: growing sentiment .. it really depends on who you talk to. SomerB analysts and users are starting to rethink their original negative statements on the merger.   
 Reference:B http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO64652,00.html: "Users, analysts more positive regarding HP/Compaq merger"  F "(October 10, 2001) LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. -- Reaction to the proposed@ merger between Hewlett-Packard Co. and Compaq Computer Corp. has> slightly improved five weeks after the deal was announced...."  E "We had a strong negative rating on this merger when it was announcedyE and now have ... moved past neutral, and we're probably 2 inches intoI% positive territory," McGuckin said. "    Time will tell ..o   Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantu Compaq Canada Corp.t Professional Servicesm Voice: 613-592-4660o Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----/ From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]r Sent: October 18, 2001 3:30 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Como3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergerg      6 Rob Young <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:+TQdsPkNw0V2@eisner.encompasserve.org...sE > In article <gcststknmcbc1q4be5cgubo6q8g3g0i72s@4ax.com>, Alan Greige <a.greig@virgin.net> writes:   ..  D > > I know it doesn't make sense but I argue that almost no decision madeE > > by DEC/Compaq in the last ten years makes sense - that;s why theyc got: > > into so much trouble.a >P > Blanket statement.  Not true.8 >EC > Digital divested themselves of disk drives to Quantum in a timelyt
 > fashion.  F Unfortunately, in the process they insisted on ridding themselves of a4 significantly more attractive tape business as well.  E Quantum was smarter:  they then dumped the disks, and kept the tapes.a  )   There are tons of other good decisions.e  F If you consider the above to have been a good decision (rather than at best; a mixed blessing), then perhaps I can see why you think so.a   >a0 > Madness. The Aberdeen Group point out that VMSG > > is profitable and then calculate that HP will lose the user-base in.E > > time anyway so they might as well get the bad news out of the way  now. >dD > Dumb advice.  No one can afford to take that kind of hit inside ofC > an 18 month timeframe.  If the intention is to kill VMS off, they-E > better kill it off over a 10 year timeframe.  IBM posted surprisingeF > growth in Z series (mainframes) so maybe even some clueless analystsF > might understand there is a market for non-NT based Enterprise OSes.G > Might be hard figurin' for them but they will eventually stumble upon  > some facts and get a clue.  G Unfortunately, Compaq (cHomPaq, should the merger fiasco take place) ish no@ IBM.  Come back to this point only when you can point to similar 'surprisingrF growth' in VMS:  as long as it's seen as a stagnating legacy system by its ? owners (in marked contrast to IBM's perspective on its z-Seriese
 platforms)F expect it to continue to wither just as it has for so long - and hence to behF ripe for the chopping block given that said owners perceive its demise as inevitable anyway.   >e@ > So again... stopping port to IA64 for VMS makes no sense as itB > will absolutely arrest VMS sales and force a rapid exit to other > platforms.  H You act as if such is not already occurring.  Perhaps Aberdeen is better	 informed.e  <   Digital learned a sore lesson from the Ultrix->MIPS->Alpha	 > fiasco.e  H Unfortunately (if indeed that is true) the lesson seems not to have been+ assimilated by Compaq when it ingested DEC.1  :   A ditching of VMS->IA64 will make that fiasco look tame.  E I suspect that the ditching of Alpha *already* makes that fiasco look2 tame..G Don't I remember that quarterly revenues are said to be down $1 billione or= more from estimates (estimates which had already been lowered.
 significantlyeD after the disappointing results in Q2)?  I wonder whether it will beG possible to isolate the Alpha numbers when the quarterly report becomese	 public...t  F > There would be dozens of very large IT departments that would refuse9 > to deal with HP/Compaq if VMS->IA64 goes in the toilet.n  # And you think there aren't already?a  
   AberdeenA > is clueless on that one.  The kid that penned that portion mustt > be pretty ingrown.  = Since according to Fred there won't be an IPF platform that'st competitivebH with Alpha (let alone *superior* in performance, which will clearly takeG even longer) for at least the next 3 years (though some point in EV79'scF lifetime), and assuming that cHomPaq really *will* continue to produce and B enhance Alphas during that period, axing the IPF port is hardly asG infeasible as you suggest:  customers will still have plenty of time tou makeG the other arrangements that many of them will make anyway regardless of  theh port.e   >tH > > Recall that one of the justifications Compaq used for dropping AlphaC > > was they couldn't keep up with the cost - yet even the Aberdeenl GroupfE > > say that the alpha division (together with NSK) is Compaq's *mostr > > profitable* division.i > >a >r? > Not sure how that ties into to an VMS->IA64 migration debate.eB > What are you getting at?  (i.e. I am inquiring ... not mocking).  G The relevance may be that a customer would be really foolish to migratetF simply for the pleasure of continuing to do business with a manifestlyC incompetent vendor, rather than to seek someone more reliable:  any  bunch ofH boobs that could get rid of Alpha could equally easily decide to get rid ofF VMS to someone even less pleasant to deal with than Compaq is (or just kill
 it outright).t   >o > >iD > > Remember what Carly said when asked why she was so sure the deal wouldpG > > go through: "Because we've burnt our boats". Incredible, absolutelyaG > > incredible. Maybe Bill Gates subjects all his important visitors totC > > some high doses of gamma radiation to the head when they visit.  > >t >m. > It will go through because it has to.  Okay.  > I think shareholders get to decide whether it has to, and some significantrD ones are clearly unconvinced.  There seems to be a growing sentiment thatE while this deal may be better for HP than it is for Compaq it doesn'tn lookH good for either (i.e., that both would have a better chance without it -E leaving aside the likelihood that if it fails both CEOs will probablye geto4 the axe, which itself would be a major improvement).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:11:34 -0700n' From: David Mathog <mathog@caltech.edu>t3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergers* Message-ID: <3BCF4586.FCD5897@caltech.edu>   Alan Greig wrote:c   > H > Remember what Carly said when asked why she was so sure the deal wouldE > go through: "Because we've burnt our boats". Incredible, absolutelyhE > incredible. Maybe Bill Gates subjects all his important visitors tohA > some high doses of gamma radiation to the head when they visit.   J Nah, that would either burn them or give them cancer down the road, and it would be really hard toiJ get the dose right to kill enough brain cells to make them stupid.  On the other hand, a good dose of lead'F (or many smaller doses) might do the trick.   Lead causes both lowered  intelligence and dementia - bothL of which are apparent here.  Lead acetate is both soluble and sweet tasting, so maybe it's best not to ' drink the coffee when visiting Redmond!    Regards,   David Mathog mathog@caltech.edu   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 18:39:36 -0400r- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>h3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergert, Message-ID: <3BCF5A19.7C79E161@videotron.ca>   Rob Young wrote:P >         Digital shed DLT.  DLT is dead.  Compaq is pushing SuperDLT and LTO is? >         light-years ahead and taking over all over the place:. >   > http://www.lto-technology.com/  N Is it just another improvement over the TK50, or is it a totally new cartridgeK format ? DLT still had the "Digital" signature on it because it was so much 
 like a TK50 !    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:05:46 -0400l- From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>e3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergert, Message-ID: <3BCF6039.716546CE@videotron.ca>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:E > re: growing sentiment .. it really depends on who you talk to. SomeeD > analysts and users are starting to rethink their original negative > statements on the merger.t  M Had HP announed it was buying Compaq to cannabalise its assets, keep the goodsM stuff and get rid of a weak competitor in a shrinking PC market, I would havehN been far more positive about it. It would have been more honest for one thing.@ And secondly, it would have put HP in a position of power/force.  L As it stands, the way they announced it, it makes it look like two weaklingsC leaning against each other,. not knowing what to do or where to go.    ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 19:41:45 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181841.5a62e278@posting.google.com>e  L its existing customer relationships and service capabilities to make the newN > company the preferred platform vendor for OpenVMS customers who want to jump > to  > a more contemporary platform."  I if a more contemporary platform means IIS, code red, nimda, blue screens,wL etc., than no thanks, i'll just stay on my legacy vms platform thank you ...J you know whats sad is these bozos (aberdeen & compaq hp) don't realize yetL that windows  will always be a client and never a high end back end and thatL after over 20 years, vms is still a more secure, more reliable (i personallyK have been on vms for over 15 years without an os crash), better clustering,hK better thin client (multiple users & apps), and better web server (apache &2J purveyor) than any other os on the market ... nothing else yet comes closeF (just had 3 days 2000 advanced server training & blue screened 3x) ...L and because of the windows architecture that will never change (unless intelF uses alpha and puts its logo on it) which it seems from other posts isF unlikely ... ibm or apple could lock up the high end market if they orE someone would buy vms from the pc stupid crowd ... were are you guys?q* buy openvms and you can rule the high end!   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:44:00 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>/3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP merger , Message-ID: <3BCFA180.889BDE41@videotron.ca>   Bob Ceculski wrote:tK > if a more contemporary platform means IIS, code red, nimda, blue screens,yN > etc., than no thanks, i'll just stay on my legacy vms platform thank you ...  K I suggest you use netcraft to check out what the big companies are using asgM their web site front end. Definite cause for concern. Yet, places like NASDAQa? don't seem to make the news about their web sites being hacked.c  L With serious system management, NASDAQ seem to be able to run their web site: on Gate's dangerous bloatware without any public problems.  M So one can point to NASDAQ as a success story of Microcost bloatware. And onelM can point at Alitalia as an example of a web site on Microsoft bloatware thatn  was easily hacked some time ago.  G Perhaps the problem isn't so much the software itself but the fact thatbK corporations who choose microsoft bloatware because it is cheaper will alsotM hire inexperienced system managers and this yields to the poor service recorda+ for companies based on Microsoft bloatware.t   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:46:04 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> 3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergerm, Message-ID: <3BCFA1FC.D1549868@videotron.ca>   Bob Ceculski wrote:aH > unlikely ... ibm or apple could lock up the high end market if they orG > someone would buy vms from the pc stupid crowd ... were are you guys? , > buy openvms and you can rule the high end!  I The stupic PC crows isn't that stupid. They know that if they sell VMS torE someone who wants to leverage its potential, VMS will become a potentlM competitor to Microsoft's products, so it its not to Compaq/HP's advantage tooJ sell VMS as a whole to some competitor, just as Compaq didn't want to sellB Alpha to someone who was going to continue the alpha architecture.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 04:09:59 GMT(* From: cjt & trefoil <cheljuba@prodigy.net>3 Subject: Re: More official info on Compaq/HP mergert+ Message-ID: <3BCFA7BF.8FC4C5DE@prodigy.net>    JF Mezei wrote:c >  > Rob Young wrote: <snip>I > >         From experience they know the landing zone won't be Compaq/HP  > >         platforms/hardware.r > N > Correct.  But that is going to happen anyways unless the owner of VMS startsM > to take VMS seriously instead of continuing to send messages that they willi( > focus only on industry standard stuff.  K That phrase, "industry standard," is a euphemism for "proprietary Wintel," sL I assume?  Does it matter whether it's X86 or IA64?  Is something "standard" just because Intel says it is?  J Whoever coined the term (which IMHO totally misrepresents the truth) was a marketing genius.w   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:39:39 -0700 * From: "Rodolfo Segleau" <segleaur@wwc.com>. Subject: New to OpenVMS - Looking for software+ Message-ID: <web-835604@mx1.relaypoint.net>y  7 I've been on this list for a short while. I'm usually au: Linux/Tru64 user looking to learn OpenVMS (I guess some of8 you would say I've seen the light?). I've always learned: OSes through implementations of some sort and I have ended6 up with an AlphaServer 800 (really a 3305, but I can't9 imagine running NT on it), so in short I'm looking for and: IMAP server implementation that's affordable (read: free).< Granted I haven't gone through all of the freeware CD, but I3 didn't see one that I recognized right off the bad.r9 www.imap.org doesn't report a product (free or otherwise)  that can run IMAP.  ; I want to tranfser the control of my domain to this box andf2 tie in email also to this server. Any suggestions?   Cheers,    Rodolfob   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 18:57:57 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)2 Subject: Re: New to OpenVMS - Looking for software= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181757.2c6f8393@posting.google.com>e  ] "Rodolfo Segleau" <segleaur@wwc.com> wrote in message news:<web-835604@mx1.relaypoint.net>...n9 > I've been on this list for a short while. I'm usually a < > Linux/Tru64 user looking to learn OpenVMS (I guess some of: > you would say I've seen the light?). I've always learned< > OSes through implementations of some sort and I have ended8 > up with an AlphaServer 800 (really a 3305, but I can't; > imagine running NT on it), so in short I'm looking for anl< > IMAP server implementation that's affordable (read: free).> > Granted I haven't gone through all of the freeware CD, but I5 > didn't see one that I recognized right off the bad.,; > www.imap.org doesn't report a product (free or otherwise): > that can run IMAP. h= > I want to tranfser the control of my domain to this box ando4 > tie in email also to this server. Any suggestions? > 
 > Cheers,  > 	 > Rodolfow  D yes, tcpware tcp/ip stack for vms offers a terrific imap4 server ...C and the alphaserver 800 makes a perfect mail or web server and is anF very flexible and reliable piece of hardware ... unfortunately tcpwareF is not free but is not that expensive either, and is the best ip stack# for vms hands down ... more info ati   www.process.comr  C disclaimer: i am not in any way affiliated with process software ore=             ericom software which i have been accused of in a F             previous post but use this product and wish to guide otherB             vms users to superior products so they may receive theE             full benefits of their vms platform ... my recomendationshC             are based on my experience with these and other similaraA             products and are based on my own personal testing ...hE             caution:  others on this board may accuse you of spammingeE             if you wish to further the experience of using a superioreG             os (openvms) ... these most likely are fustrated nt or unixg3             users posing as vms users ... thank youy   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:17:45 -0400H( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>2 Subject: Re: New to OpenVMS - Looking for software, Message-ID: <3BCFA969.5080604@tsoft-inc.com>   Bob Ceculski wrote:t  _ > "Rodolfo Segleau" <segleaur@wwc.com> wrote in message news:<web-835604@mx1.relaypoint.net>...s > 9 >>I've been on this list for a short while. I'm usually at< >>Linux/Tru64 user looking to learn OpenVMS (I guess some of: >>you would say I've seen the light?). I've always learned< >>OSes through implementations of some sort and I have ended8 >>up with an AlphaServer 800 (really a 3305, but I can't; >>imagine running NT on it), so in short I'm looking for anm< >>IMAP server implementation that's affordable (read: free).> >>Granted I haven't gone through all of the freeware CD, but I5 >>didn't see one that I recognized right off the bad.g; >>www.imap.org doesn't report a product (free or otherwise)n >>that can run IMAP. s= >>I want to tranfser the control of my domain to this box anda4 >>tie in email also to this server. Any suggestions? >>
 >>Cheers,  >>	 >>RodolfoI >> > F > yes, tcpware tcp/ip stack for vms offers a terrific imap4 server ...E > and the alphaserver 800 makes a perfect mail or web server and is alH > very flexible and reliable piece of hardware ... unfortunately tcpwareH > is not free but is not that expensive either, and is the best ip stack% > for vms hands down ... more info ata >  > www.process.comt  H Note that if you're doing this on your own, ie; non-commercial, Process E Software participates in the VMS hobbyist program, and you can get a s" free hobbyist license for TCPware.   Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:39:35 -0500dC From: "Craig A. Berry" <craig.berry@nospam.SignalTreeSolutions.com>f3 Subject: Re: Quotation for an AlphaServer 300 4/266lI Message-ID: <craig.berry-95B106.23393518102001@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>d  E In article <9qkmo8$1c4$1@kadath.deep.it>, Cthulhu <noone@nowhere.it> s wrote:  H > How much do you think I can offer for an AlphaServer 300, model 4/266, > 64 MB RAM, 2 x 1GB HDD?rJ > No monitor, maybe keyboard and mouse (maybe - does it have PS/2 ports?). > H > Is it able to run OpenVMS + DECwindow in some working way with only 648 > MB RAM, or is it at least exapndable with common DIMM?  C Such a system typically brings 200-400 USD on eBay, though you can nE easily check out what similar systems have gone for recently and not eG take my word for it. Make sure there is a functioning SCSI CD-ROM that a  supports 512k block transfers.    G You can run recent versions of OpenVMS in 64 MB RAM, but just barely.  iH Memory required is 72-pin parity RAM (SIMMs not DIMMs), 60 or 70 ns, in  matching sets of 4.  t  E There are PS/2 mouse and keyboard ports; most anything will work but l@ I'd recommend shopping around for a used LK450 or LK461 for the + keyboard, and you'll want a 3-button mouse.e  , The manual for the system is available here:  = <http://www.compaq.com/alphaserver/archive/300/300ug_ab.html>   & The latest firmware is available here:  B <http://ftp.digital.com/pub/DEC/Alpha/firmware/readmes/as300.html>  E If you want a wee bit more disk space, I just put a Seagate ST15150N sD (4.3 GB) in one of these machines and it works just fine; I got the F drive at auction for about $25 (note: this particular drive will only B fit in the upper slot, not the skinnier lower slot).  Most 50-pin F narrow drives should work, but SCSI being more of a mystical teaching  than a technology, YMMV.   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 14:33:02 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) D Subject: Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon!3 Message-ID: <DaSuyTzUa6d1@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  h In article <d7791aa1.0110181055.40cd3acd@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:o > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>...e  B and goes on to post the rest of the (uppercase) advertisement from his previous post.  I > this is the windows front end for vms apps we have been waiting for ...s  D Since you have been waiting for it, and you apparently knew about it; in your previous post, why are you spamming the newsgroup ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:58:51 -0700h* From: "Jack Peacock" <peacock@simconv.com>D Subject: Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon!= Message-ID: <3yGz7.6792$DY1.361564@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>   5 "Andy Stoffel" <acs@fcgnetworks.net> wrote in messagem: news:hiDz7.52763$%B.4364996@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > B > Was that the last terminal from DEC that didn't have lowercase ? >?H As I recall there was a VT52 with a 12 line display and upper case only.E Stripping out the extra display RAM chips and character generator ROMcK dropped the price to where the university I was attending opted to get someoL to supplement ASR33s.  Upper case was in line with the ASR33 but the 12 lineL display made it difficult to use.  I would hope an HTML VT emulator could do better.     Jack Peacocki   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 18:43:43 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)D Subject: Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181743.58362838@posting.google.com>i  h Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<DaSuyTzUa6d1@eisner.encompasserve.org>...j > In article <d7791aa1.0110181055.40cd3acd@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:q > > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>...e > D > and goes on to post the rest of the (uppercase) advertisement from > his previous post. > K > > this is the windows front end for vms apps we have been waiting for ...o > F > Since you have been waiting for it, and you apparently knew about it= > in your previous post, why are you spamming the newsgroup ?,  E i didn't know about it until this week and confirmed the vms port ...uC i am informing those interested in a front end windows solution for4C vms ... if you are not interested in a powerful easy to use vt html D session solution then don't read this ... other vms users may be ...E i thought thats what this forum was for ... information ... there areeH vms users i assume like myself that have been looking for a product suchF as this to bring cell based apps easily and inexpensively to a windowsD front end without having to write com wrappers or vb front ends withF some type of rms server access product (synergys xfserver) ... and whoH have no xwindows support (we use synergy dibol & they have none yet) ...C this product will allow you to centralize users over an internal ordE external ip lan using secure html or telnet ... again this is for vmslI users looking to bring to life traditional cell based apps ... this opensiF up new doors for apps that previously had to be ran from a vt terminalH emulator (i.e. reflections) but now can have html functionality added to7 their apps ... if you don't need it then don't read it!r   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 20:55:27 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)iD Subject: Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon!3 Message-ID: <aMjt5EJTMu7y@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  h In article <d7791aa1.0110181743.58362838@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:j > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<DaSuyTzUa6d1@eisner.encompasserve.org>...k >> In article <d7791aa1.0110181055.40cd3acd@posting.google.com>, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:pr >> > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>... >>  E >> and goes on to post the rest of the (uppercase) advertisement from  >> his previous post.  >> lL >> > this is the windows front end for vms apps we have been waiting for ... >>  G >> Since you have been waiting for it, and you apparently knew about its> >> in your previous post, why are you spamming the newsgroup ? > G > i didn't know about it until this week and confirmed the vms port ...aE > i am informing those interested in a front end windows solution foriE > vms ... if you are not interested in a powerful easy to use vt html,  C I am not interested in anything that is spammed to the newsgroup byk; the author quoting his entire post without any new content.-   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 19:15:19 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)D Subject: Re: VMS cell based sessions w/HTML on browsers coming soon!= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181815.133047fb@posting.google.com>   r "Andy Stoffel" <acs@fcgnetworks.net> wrote in message news:<hiDz7.52763$%B.4364996@bin1.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...< > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message/ > news:5ILoCcc5EahQ@eisner.encompasserve.org...eA > > In article <d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>,m- >  bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) writes:o1 > > > ERICOM, THE COMPANY THAT SUPPORTS POWERTERMn0 > > > FOR PATHWORKS IS NOW PORTING THE FOLLOWING > > > PRODUCTS >  > [snip] > 7 > > But how many people want a VT05 terminal emulator ?n > B > Was that the last terminal from DEC that didn't have lowercase ? >  > -Andy-  G its not a vt emulator and i always work in caps and forget to turn them C off on my pc on occasion ... true vt users work in caps ... i guessc' that eliminates you from that group ...e   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 11:55:00 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)E Subject: Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!s= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181055.40cd3acd@posting.google.com>f  m bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>...eB > ERICOM, THE COMPANY THAT SUPPORTS POWERTERM FOR PATHWORKS IS NOW
 > PORTING THE0G > FOLLOWING PRODUCTS THAT WILL ALLOW TRADITIONAL VMS VT CELL BASED APPSi > TO BE E > RUN AS A SESSION IN A WINDOWS BROWSER PLUS WILL BE ABLE TO ADD HTMLoH > FUNCTIONALITY IN A SIDE OR TOP BAR ... AND IT SUPPORTS BOTH 80 AND 132 > COLUMNB > DISPLAYS ... ALSO THE HTTP VT SESSION WILL BE ABLE TO BE SECURED
 > EITHER WITHkE > SSHV2 OR HTTPS (SSL) ... ALSO WILL HAVE PEEK & SPY CAPABILITIES ANDi	 > BROWSERg@ > MANAGEMENT TO SET UP USER AND SESSION SECURITY ... WOW, WHAT A
 > PRODUCT!G > THIS WILL GIVE VMS A WHOLE NEW LIFE AS THE SALES REP SAID THEY HAVE A  > LOT OF< > INTEREST BUILDING ... CALL TRACEY CILIBERTI (888) 769-7876 > W/QUESTIONS! >  > http://www.ericom.com/ptj.aspl > * > http://www.ericom.com/host_publisher.asp  G this is the windows front end for vms apps we have been waiting for ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:04:37 -0600t( From: emanuel stiebler <emu@ecubics.com>E Subject: Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!r+ Message-ID: <3BCF27C5.FCB17A6A@ecubics.com>s   Bob Ceculski wrote:s > o > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>...-D > > ERICOM, THE COMPANY THAT SUPPORTS POWERTERM FOR PATHWORKS IS NOW > > PORTING THE.I > > FOLLOWING PRODUCTS THAT WILL ALLOW TRADITIONAL VMS VT CELL BASED APPSm	 > > TO BEDG > > RUN AS A SESSION IN A WINDOWS BROWSER PLUS WILL BE ABLE TO ADD HTML.J > > FUNCTIONALITY IN A SIDE OR TOP BAR ... AND IT SUPPORTS BOTH 80 AND 132
 > > COLUMND > > DISPLAYS ... ALSO THE HTTP VT SESSION WILL BE ABLE TO BE SECURED > > EITHER WITHnG > > SSHV2 OR HTTPS (SSL) ... ALSO WILL HAVE PEEK & SPY CAPABILITIES ANDV > > BROWSERnB > > MANAGEMENT TO SET UP USER AND SESSION SECURITY ... WOW, WHAT A > > PRODUCT!I > > THIS WILL GIVE VMS A WHOLE NEW LIFE AS THE SALES REP SAID THEY HAVE A 
 > > LOT OF> > > INTEREST BUILDING ... CALL TRACEY CILIBERTI (888) 769-7876 > > W/QUESTIONS! > >o! > > http://www.ericom.com/ptj.asp- > >-, > > http://www.ericom.com/host_publisher.asp > I > this is the windows front end for vms apps we have been waiting for ...    Downloadable activeX ? ...  . Why don't you just use X on your windows box ?   cheers   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 12:11:33 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)E Subject: Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!o= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181111.5b397055@posting.google.com>   m bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>... B > ERICOM, THE COMPANY THAT SUPPORTS POWERTERM FOR PATHWORKS IS NOW
 > PORTING THEuG > FOLLOWING PRODUCTS THAT WILL ALLOW TRADITIONAL VMS VT CELL BASED APPSu > TO BEeE > RUN AS A SESSION IN A WINDOWS BROWSER PLUS WILL BE ABLE TO ADD HTMLpH > FUNCTIONALITY IN A SIDE OR TOP BAR ... AND IT SUPPORTS BOTH 80 AND 132 > COLUMNB > DISPLAYS ... ALSO THE HTTP VT SESSION WILL BE ABLE TO BE SECURED
 > EITHER WITHuE > SSHV2 OR HTTPS (SSL) ... ALSO WILL HAVE PEEK & SPY CAPABILITIES ANDx	 > BROWSERt@ > MANAGEMENT TO SET UP USER AND SESSION SECURITY ... WOW, WHAT A
 > PRODUCT!G > THIS WILL GIVE VMS A WHOLE NEW LIFE AS THE SALES REP SAID THEY HAVE A  > LOT OF< > INTEREST BUILDING ... CALL TRACEY CILIBERTI (888) 769-7876 > W/QUESTIONS! >  > http://www.ericom.com/ptj.aspl > * > http://www.ericom.com/host_publisher.asp  G this is neat ... you will be able to place html side bar buttons and/ordF graphics and click on those to send url requests to your vms webserverF and call other apps ... that means our menu systems can be html buttonH driven which in turn call other vms executables thru url requests to theG webserver ... in other words you can blend html features with your celll" based session screen in a browser!   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 18:25:42 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)E Subject: Re: VMS CELL BASED SESSIONS W/HTML ON BROWSERS COMMING SOON!o= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181725.1e8d7bb0@posting.google.com>e  [ emanuel stiebler <emu@ecubics.com> wrote in message news:<3BCF27C5.FCB17A6A@ecubics.com>.... > Bob Ceculski wrote:n > > q > > bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote in message news:<d7791aa1.0110180701.4a1b3757@posting.google.com>...aF > > > ERICOM, THE COMPANY THAT SUPPORTS POWERTERM FOR PATHWORKS IS NOW > > > PORTING THEnK > > > FOLLOWING PRODUCTS THAT WILL ALLOW TRADITIONAL VMS VT CELL BASED APPSm > > > TO BE I > > > RUN AS A SESSION IN A WINDOWS BROWSER PLUS WILL BE ABLE TO ADD HTMLaL > > > FUNCTIONALITY IN A SIDE OR TOP BAR ... AND IT SUPPORTS BOTH 80 AND 132 > > > COLUMNF > > > DISPLAYS ... ALSO THE HTTP VT SESSION WILL BE ABLE TO BE SECURED > > > EITHER WITHrI > > > SSHV2 OR HTTPS (SSL) ... ALSO WILL HAVE PEEK & SPY CAPABILITIES ANDe
 > > > BROWSERdD > > > MANAGEMENT TO SET UP USER AND SESSION SECURITY ... WOW, WHAT A > > > PRODUCT!K > > > THIS WILL GIVE VMS A WHOLE NEW LIFE AS THE SALES REP SAID THEY HAVE A  > > > LOT OF@ > > > INTEREST BUILDING ... CALL TRACEY CILIBERTI (888) 769-7876 > > > W/QUESTIONS! > > >e# > > > http://www.ericom.com/ptj.aspa > > >p. > > > http://www.ericom.com/host_publisher.asp > > K > > this is the windows front end for vms apps we have been waiting for ...o >  > Downloadable activeX ? ... > 0 > Why don't you just use X on your windows box ?  P the vms implementation will be a thin client java script ... active x is for theH windows version ... these solutions work now but only with a windows boxH in between ... the vms port will allow the web platform to be on vms ...   >  > cheers   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:28:42 -0400 ( From: Hamlyn Mootoo <univms@bigfoot.com>N Subject: Re: VMS server file sharing with W2K clients: NFS and Pathworks grief+ Message-ID: <3BCF73BA.AF8EDE29@bigfoot.com>u  G Make sure you are bringing up the PC-NFS server process on VMS (I thinkmD it's option 7 on the TCP/IP Server Components Config menu), and makeD sure you configure it correctly. I have used the Hummingbird productH before with VMS, but not your specific versions of VMS and Hummingbird.  I should work though.N   HM   Ben Armstrong wrote: >  > Hi,s > C > We're looking for file sharing solutions in an evolving VMS + W2Kd
 > network. > @ > We have implemented for some time Pathworks V5.0F ECO 2 with aI > Compaq-supplied patch that enables it to work with earlier W2K systems.>F > However, Service Pack 2 or higher for W2K (which presumably means XPI > too) breaks authentication. This is a known problem and the recommendedo. > fix is apparently to upgrade to Pathworks 7. > J > Well, licensing for Pathworks 7 would be rather costly, so we're lookingG > for a reliable low-cost solution to offer file shares from VMS to W2K( > clients.  Any suggestions? > G > We initially thought perhaps we could use NFS and tried VMS 7.2-1 andnF > TCP/IP 5.1 ECO 2 with all the latest patches as our NFS server.  But6 > we've had nothing but grief trying to get it to fly. > F > For the client side, we're using Windows Services for UNIX 2.0 whichF > includes Microsoft NFS Gateway.  We have been unable to even connectC > using that product and TCP/IP Services 5.1.  We have also tried anI > variety of other NFS clients on W2K all with similar results, includingf+ > Hummingbird (tried both NFSv2 and NFSv3).f > J > Just as a point of reference, we tried a Linux client to ensure that theF > VMS NFS server was functional, and found that it could connect as anD > anonymous NFSv2 user without any trouble.  (Ideally, we would likeG > username mappings, but are starting out simple, testing with just then > anonymous user.) > E > Compaq tells us that they use Hummingbird NFS clients with the same J > versions of VMS and TCP/IP as we are trying without any trouble and haveG > concluded that it "must be a Windows problem" and have referred us to.H > Microsoft.  My Windows technical people here tell me that getting helpE > out of Microsoft isn't going to be easy or cheap.  My hunch is thatr7 > they'll end up pointing their fingers back at Compaq.Q > I > So where do we go from here?  Has anyone implemented a VMS server + W2K8H > client file sharing solution successfully that doesn't require forkingI > out hefty license fees for a Pathworks upgrade?  Are there alternatives  > we have overlooked?r >  > Ben Armstrong F > p.s. Yes, I know there is a Samba for VMS.  But I understand that itA >      has its own authentication issues with W2K.  Not that thiswI >      entirely rules it out for our purposes, but we're concerned, givenbE >      how much effort we've put into NFS so far with no success yet,BE >      about switching ships mid-channel, how much time it will take,oI >      and compounded with that, how much functionality we'd have to give D >      up (that last one a moot point if it turns out to be the only >      viable solution ;)  > --I >       Ben Armstrong                -.       Medianet Development Group,IG >       BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca         `-.    Dymaxion Research LimiteddJ >       <URL: http://www.dymaxion.ca/>    `-  Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 20:21:30 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)N Subject: Re: VMS server file sharing with W2K clients: NFS and Pathworks grief= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0110181921.76f39ce1@posting.google.com>i  a Jack Patteeuw <jjpatteeuw@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:<3BCF1216.E9FAB854@peoplepc.com>...  > Ben Armstrong wrote: > >  > > Hi,n > > E > > We're looking for file sharing solutions in an evolving VMS + W2Ka > > network. > N > Try Samba (www.samba.org)  There is a port for VMS (may be back a rev or 2). > M > We are currently using Samba On Tru64 and Win2k systems can connect with noaP > problem (or additional apps installed on the Win2K boxes).  Actually Win2k and7 > NT seem to work better than Win98 in our environment.K > ) > Other here are also using Samba on VMS.s  J have you considered another ip stack (tcpware or multinet) if you want nfsH we have had success with tcpware nfs and windows me ... don't know aboutL 2000 advanced(thats a laugh) server ... ask process software for details ...   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 13:27:10 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 3 Subject: Re: VMS7.3,AS7.3 & external authentication 3 Message-ID: <KcHIfFO0MFkH@eisner.encompasserve.org>b  T In article <3bcf0f79$1@pull.gecm.com>, "Tim Jackson" <tim.jackson@amsjv.com> writes:< > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message/ > news:ib1wO2Mp8jg7@eisner.encompasserve.org...h7 >> In article <3bcd2ee0$1@pull.gecm.com>, "Tim Jackson"c! > <tim.jackson@amsjv.com> writes:c >>G >> > It seems very suspicious to me that upto 15 works and greater thanYE >> > doesn't, as a count of 15 fits into an unsigned byte and greater. > than >> > needs at least a word.7 >>! >> Buy one of the newer machines,o6 >> where a count of 127 fits into an unsigned byte :-) > I > It's not a newer machine I need, but a newer brain!!  I was thinking ofn > a nibble(?) half a byte.  B Well, in the case of brains, I have noticed that some of the older4 ones work better than some of the newer ones.  YMMV.   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 05:04:25 GMTA+ From: "Barry Streets" <berrys2552@home.com>l Subject: VMSD2? Message-ID: <tvOz7.36536$gT6.20190832@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>   K I'm trying to understand why someone would set sysgen parameter VMSD2 to 8,@E when the default is 0. The system is a 4000-705A running VMS 7.1, RDBHH 7.0-21, ACMS 4.1, TDMS1.9A. The end users are complaining of poor system6 response time. and I can't find anything really amiss.  
 Barry Streetss The Echo Group   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:12:10 -0400d; From: "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com>w5 Subject: Re: We've burned our boats say Compaq and HP $ Message-ID: <3bcf1ba9$1@news.si.com>  A >It was an initiative to render Windows NT "industrial strength."h  J Thanks for explaining "SCULPTOR" but to whome does "well-dressed gentleman of Italian heritage" refer?a --A Brian Tillman                   Internet: tillman_brian at si.combA Smiths Aerospace                          tillman at swdev.si.com = 3290 Patterson Ave. SE, MS      Addresses modified to preventl< Grand Rapids, MI 49512-1991     SPAM.  Replace "at" with "@"8        This opinion doesn't represent that of my company   ------------------------------    Date: 18 Oct 2001 13:21:47 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)E5 Subject: Re: We've burned our boats say Compaq and HP 3 Message-ID: <iaPp8D6hZb$f@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <3bcf1ba9$1@news.si.com>, "Brian Tillman" <tillman_brian@notnoone.notnohow.com> writes:B >>It was an initiative to render Windows NT "industrial strength." > L > Thanks for explaining "SCULPTOR" but to whome does "well-dressed gentleman > of Italian heritage" refer?E   			>>   EP    <<   				Rob    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:40:40 -0000N- From: wspencer@ap.nospam.org (Warren Spencer) 3 Subject: Re: Windows Fails To Storm the Data CentreI7 Message-ID: <913EA1586warrenspencer1977@207.126.101.97>t  0 prep@prep.synonet.com (Paul Repacholi) wrote in " <87wv1u9jtd.fsf@prep.synonet.com>:  - >Arne Vajhj <arne.vajhoej@gtech.com> writes:s > E >M$ reliability is constant, it is always the least that 'the market' F >will put up with. Excess quality is removed in release versions so as' >to ensure the flow of service revinue.  >sF >So it does not matter a damm if NT *can* be useful, the only questionG >is will billyboy *let* it... Untill that changes, then you are hanging D >by a thread and are totally at M$'s mercy. BTW, remember to get all >the promises in writing...0 >   K I applaud Microsoft's Quality Control group - they've done a superb job of w& ensuring quality doesn't get out hand.   ws   --     Warren Spencer' Senior Software Engineer (not a writer)i The Associated Press  L ** My employer does not necessarily agree with my statements - neither do I  **   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.581 ************************