1 INFO-VAX	Mon, 15 Jul 2002	Volume 2002 : Issue 386       Contents:- Re: "Clean" CISC (was Re: McKinley Cometh...)  Re: 2 CMS questions + comp.os.vms "whiners" make news on Inquirer / Re: comp.os.vms "whiners" make news on Inquirer / RE: comp.os.vms "whiners" make news on Inquirer  Re: HP Itanium2 benchmarks! Re: Itanium II Another Shoe Drops ! Re: Itanium II Another Shoe Drops  Re: McKinley Cometh... Re: McKinley Cometh... Re: McKinley Cometh...+ Re: McKinley tops SpecFP AND SpecInt charts + Re: McKinley tops SpecFP AND SpecInt charts  Re: MO disks on VMS?A Re: OpenVMS on third-party platforms (was: Re: VMS port delayed!) A Re: OpenVMS on third-party platforms (was: Re: VMS port delayed!)  Re: OpenVMS Polls are back!  Re: RECALL suggestion  RE: RECALL suggestion 6 Terry's change in attitude towards comp.os.vms postersD Tops-10/Tops-20 features not in VMS ?, was: Re: Looking for terminalH Re: Tops-10/Tops-20 features not in VMS ?, was: Re: Looking for terminal trivial UNZIP question= Wal-Mart Says Sales Are Rising for New Alternative to Windows ( Re: Who said Carly doesn't like OpenVMS?( Re: Who said Carly doesn't like OpenVMS?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:26:11 -0400  From: Everhart <ge@gce.com> 6 Subject: Re: "Clean" CISC (was Re: McKinley Cometh...)& Message-ID: <3D3224B3.1020705@gce.com>   Sander Vesik wrote: < > In comp.arch Peter Boyle <pboyle@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > & >>On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, JF Mezei wrote: >> >># >>>One issue about the MVC vs RISC.  >>> M >>>In cobol and other languages, MVC uis extremely useful because you know in , >>>advance how many bytes need to be copied. >>> O >>>But in Unix/C, a routine such as strcpy must really look at individual bytes O >>>to determine where the copy is to stop, so a single assembler instruction to Q >>>move large amounts of data doesn't map terribly well to C in this case and you @ >>>need a loop with a test for 0 in there and move byte by byte. >> >>Absolutely, ;) >>+ >>C null terminated strings are responsible 3 >>for a great many optimisation and security evils.  >  > R > Well, on the positive side, lots of peopel didn't have to rewrite their softwareQ > because somebody had assumed string length could safely be 8 bits or 16 bits or  > possibly even 32 bits 8-)  >  >  >>Peter  >> >  >   C Strings terminated by a terminator character are a residue of paper D tape (have a look at the ASCII control character names sometime), if not of still older technology.  J Fascinating that so many errors are caused by techniques invented for such old systems...   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:04:18 GMT  From: sasadmin <jec@nospam.net>  Subject: Re: 2 CMS questions2 Message-ID: <87adouyp3i.fsf@Alethion.systasis.net>  % "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:   F Others have done a good job describing classes, so I won't repeat that matter.   = > I may have made an error, but it seems the order of the CMS F > libraries is importast.  In my case I have two libraries, and when IC > issue CMS SHOW LIB it lists the libraries, as say A and B in that F > order.  Now if I try to FETCH or RESERVE an element which is in B itD > responds element not found, but if I issue CMS SET LIB B then life
 > is good.  F Yes, the order is important. CMS has the concept of "occlusion." If anD element is in libraries A & B, or in B only, by default CMS will notD report the element in B. In general, I *strongly* recommend avoidingC multiple CMS libraries for the reason you've described. You have to E explicitly tell CMS to work w/ B if it's not the first library in the  logical name CMS$LIB.   < > Finally, it appears that the /GEN qualifier is overloaded,3 > sometimes meaning class, this is most unfotunate.   E The class identifier is an element generation label. For that reason, A the GEN qualifier accepts a number (with relative operators) or a E class name. Classes are analagous to CVS labels and are used the same  way.  C > Is there any other interface to the CMS libs that provides a nore @ > consistent, orthogonal and simpler syntax, preferrably through > emacs?  A Frankly, the worst source code control system is better than CMS. @ Given what seems to be your background, I'd download and install< CVS. Porting to CVS from CMS is trivial, and it's a far moreI robust environment. That also gets you your emacs --> source-code-control 	 linkage.     --   Microsoft Free By 2003   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 19:50:39 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)4 Subject: comp.os.vms "whiners" make news on Inquirer= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0207141850.176e8966@posting.google.com>   . I think this is what Terry is fed up with ...     0 Gartner knocks Alpha, OpenVMS, Compaq NSK again   F IBM a better choice? Jim says beam it up. Nice picture of Carly Inside  ) By Eva Glass: Sunday 14 July 2002, 10:36    D THE NEW HP doesn't have many friends at Gartner. At least that's the< conclusion IT managers might come to if they're faced with aF presentation called "Compaq Alpha  What is the Future?", put together= by Jim Cassell, a group vice president at Dataquest Research. ? The document, which an unnamed HP executive showed us at famous E roadmap hostelry The Porcupine last Friday evening, suggests that all D roadmaps that Compap and HP have put together will be adhered to for the next two years.   F In summary, according to Gartner, by 2005 all server platforms will beD available on Madison IP platforms by 2005, EV7 will come in 2003 andE EV79 in 2004, Alpha will be supported until 2011, HP will merge Tru64 F into HP/UX, there will be no functional enhancement for Open VMS after5 2002 and MIPS will move to Intel-based chips by 2004.   A That should lead IT managers to consider whether Alpha boxes have E adequate capacities or functions to last after 2005, and whether they  should migrate.   C Jim's chart, called Commercial ISV support profiles, gives his view  pretty clearly.   B Looking a bit like the Italian flag, this divides ISV support into three sectors.  , Safe for virtually all mainstream deployment- HP/UX, IBM AIX, Solaris SPARC, Windows server    Safe for many target segments / OS/400, z/OS, Windows Datacenter, Red Hat Linux   9 Limited verticals, niche segments and installed base only E Caldero/SCO Unixware, Tru64 Unix, OpenVMS, Solaris Intel, Compaq NSK,  Linux on 390  ? Compaq NSK is a limited vertical and Open VMS the same. Sheesh!   E Oddly, IBM's eServer vision seems to be the right path to pursue. Its C industrial strength, scaleable, has a high availability design, and : its storage and multi-site clustering facilities are good.  B IBM Mainframe systems have better aviailability, greater security,B lower hardware and software costs, stronger Linux support and more ease of use features.   D While Unix systems are getting larger, there's low end pressure from- Windows and Linux and a higher software cost.   C And guess what. Jim says it's easier to recover one system than 300 + systems when disaster recovery is required.   = So IBM's better than New Age P, whichever way you look at it.   F Said Charlie Matco, DEC-watcher extraordinaire: "C Fiorina visited the? OpenVMS and Tru64 folks one day last month. All and sundry were ? impressed with Carly, and Carly was impressed with goings-on in F ZKOland. Once she got the message on OpenVMS and Tru64, she was pretty impressed as well.  A "There have of course been some modest job cuts on the Tru64 side ? (what with the impending consolidation onto HP-UX, but no major # bloodletting) but VMS remains safe.   F "In fact, Mark Gorham has received incremental budget, the IPF port is@ ahead of schedule, and three new marketing initiatives have been@ launched (the "no-boot roadshow in the USA, the two-week OpenVMS? Immersion course, and the soon-to-be unveiled OpenVMS Technical > Journal). What's more, marketing is being emphasised: note the) coverage on VMS 7.3-1 in the trade press.   F "So fie and a pox on the naysayers, especially the clueless whiners in
 comp.os.vms."   % Sheesh! That's a bit strong Charlie!    F Below is a picture of Carleton Fiorina -- who sent us a post card from4 Europe, can you believe that? -- in Open VMS mode...   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 03:16:05 GMT 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> 8 Subject: Re: comp.os.vms "whiners" make news on Inquirer' Message-ID: <3D3242C9.CB2B4084@fsi.net>    Bob Ceculski wrote: C > (quoting an Inquirer article which itself quotes Terry as saying)  > [snip]H > "So fie and a pox on the naysayers, especially the clueless whiners in > comp.os.vms."   G Well, legend has it that in the Sun newsgroups(s), an outcry as well as F a flurry of direct correspondence yielded a shift in Sun's position onB Solaris/Intel. Apparently Sun holds its user community in somewhat7 higher regard than do the former Q, now denizens of HP.   4 I guess we know now where we stand in HP's eyes, eh?   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:02:28 -0400 ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> 8 Subject: RE: comp.os.vms "whiners" make news on InquirerT Message-ID: <BE56C50EA024184DAF48F0B9A47F5CF4023D92E2@kaoexc01.americas.cpqcorp.net>  G >>> a flurry of direct correspondence yielded a shift in Sun's position  on Solaris/Intel.<<   E Or it could be someone woke up to the idea that its better for a UNIX F company to have their users run some form of UNIX (Solaris, Linux etc) on an x86 than Windows ..    :-)    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Hewlett-Packard Canada! Consulting & Integration Services  Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: Kerry.Main@hp.com     -----Original Message-----9 From: David J. Dachtera [mailto:djesys.nospam@fsi.net]=20  Sent: July 14, 2002 11:16 PM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 8 Subject: Re: comp.os.vms "whiners" make news on Inquirer     Bob Ceculski wrote: F > (quoting an Inquirer article which itself quotes Terry as saying)=20G > [snip] "So fie and a pox on the naysayers, especially the clueless=20  > whiners in comp.os.vms."  G Well, legend has it that in the Sun newsgroups(s), an outcry as well as F a flurry of direct correspondence yielded a shift in Sun's position onB Solaris/Intel. Apparently Sun holds its user community in somewhat7 higher regard than do the former Q, now denizens of HP.   4 I guess we know now where we stand in HP's eyes, eh?   --=20  David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  H Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 20:48:54 -0600+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) # Subject: Re: HP Itanium2 benchmarks 3 Message-ID: <BXwFiHgY86nc@eisner.encompasserve.org>   c In article <3D304121.1C8AF571@hda.hydro.com>, Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> writes:  > Greg Lindahl wrote:  >>  6 >> In article <usBIFBu3tckV@eisner.encompasserve.org>,1 >> Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote: Q >> >In article <3d2f2a5f$1@news.meer.net>, lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) writes: H >> >> I was reading the HP Itanium2 performance whitepaper and noticed a# >> >> couple of interesting points:  >> >> L >> >> In the lmbench section, page 7, they state "The zx1 hardware pre-fetchK >> >> plays a significant role in achieving this score". If this were true, $ >> >> then they broke the benchmark. >> >G >> >But for anybody whose real program benefits, that is not a problem.  >>  E >> I am all for speeding up real programs. This benchmark is a memory F >> latency benchmark: it just happens to have been miswritten to use aH >> constant negative stride. It would be wrong to report a better resultH >> because a processor has the ability to prefetch that; the right thing1 >> is to report that the benchmark is now broken.  > 7 > If this is true, then the benchmark is indeed broken:  > @ > It was written to measure the actual load-to-use latency of an, > unpredictable pointer-chasing loop, right? > I > Well, if hw prefetch detects a constant stride and starts to stream the 8 > data, then obviously we need a less predictable setup. > I > One obvious idea would be to require the pointer array to be a power of H > two in size, and then use all of it, except the zero'eth entry, with a7 > simple LFSR random number generator to initialize it.  > G > I know I have saved away a table of suitable maximum-length generator  > polynomials. >   & 	So how soon will we see tmbench?  ;-)   				Rob    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 19:23:50 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)* Subject: Re: Itanium II Another Shoe Drops= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0207141823.17fbe27f@posting.google.com>   a JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3D304F34.7E3C4C8E@videotron.ca>...  > Bob Ceculski wrote: S > > > Consider that IA64 will get most of the HP-UX and NSK customers. It will also * > > > get part of Tru64 and VMS customers. > > 5 > > part of VMS customers?  Try all of VMS customers!  > N > At this point in time, it is way too early to tell what will happen with the > VMS marketplace.   > M > Lets assume for a moment that HP intends to scale VMS down over the next 10 I > years. If this becomes apparent before VMS on IA64 becomes commercially P > viable, then it is more likely that the remaining VMS customers will just stayP > on their Alpha systems as long as possible and have migration plans to anotherO > vendor over the medium/long term. The Alpha murder last year probably sparked  > quite a few such plans.  > N > Also consider the VAX installed base. With HP having said absolutely nothingP > about VMS on VAX, and whether new versions will appear on VAX,  it is possibleO > that HP intends to stop VMS on VAX ASAP so that it can start the 5 year timer P > for support. Many of those customers would then be forced with a migration andI > they may choose to go to a system whose future is not constantly be in    C that would be total stupidity as hp knows they must keep around vax C support until itanium is ready ... that is where they hope they end E up, on itanoum vms!  The move you describe above would be suicide and 
 plain stupid!    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:38:38 -0700 " From: GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com>* Subject: Re: Itanium II Another Shoe Drops' Message-ID: <3D325FDE.BB3BEF6@mist.com>    Bob Ceculski wrote:  > c > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<3D304F34.7E3C4C8E@videotron.ca>...  > > Bob Ceculski wrote: U > > > > Consider that IA64 will get most of the HP-UX and NSK customers. It will also , > > > > get part of Tru64 and VMS customers. > > > 7 > > > part of VMS customers?  Try all of VMS customers!  > > P > > At this point in time, it is way too early to tell what will happen with the > > VMS marketplace. > > O > > Lets assume for a moment that HP intends to scale VMS down over the next 10 K > > years. If this becomes apparent before VMS on IA64 becomes commercially R > > viable, then it is more likely that the remaining VMS customers will just stayR > > on their Alpha systems as long as possible and have migration plans to anotherQ > > vendor over the medium/long term. The Alpha murder last year probably sparked  > > quite a few such plans.  > > P > > Also consider the VAX installed base. With HP having said absolutely nothingR > > about VMS on VAX, and whether new versions will appear on VAX,  it is possibleQ > > that HP intends to stop VMS on VAX ASAP so that it can start the 5 year timer R > > for support. Many of those customers would then be forced with a migration andJ > > they may choose to go to a system whose future is not constantly be in > E > that would be total stupidity as hp knows they must keep around vax E > support until itanium is ready ... that is where they hope they end G > up, on itanoum vms!  The move you describe above would be suicide and  > plain stupid!   8 Don't forget that HP still has to honor the military VMS contracts out there.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:19:11 GMTu* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: McKinley Cometh... A Message-ID: <31lY8.86011$iB1.4833665@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>o  ; "Niels Jrgen Kruse" <nj_kruse@get2net.dk> wrote in messagei( news:UtgY8.77$HU4.982@news.get2net.dk...J > I artiklen <z62X8.127805$vq.6494696@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com> , "Bill' > Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> skrev:c >lH > > Ah, but that's comparing off-chip cache to off-chip cache - and at aK > > particularly interesting pair of granularities, since IIRC no SPEC test H > > currently requires more than about 200 MB to run in (and quite a few wouldnG > > run completely in 128 MB).  POWER4 has about 1.5 MB of on-chip (L2)r cache,H > > which is smaller than most if not all of the SPEC tests, so external cacher > > is still a major win.s > >oH > > I recognize that as long as cache is well over an order of magnitude fasterJ > > than main memory then cache speed tends to be less critical than cache missE > > rate.  But miss rate (at least for truly random data that greatlyC exceedsnK > > the cache size) goes down pretty slowly with size increases - at best a-G > > square-root relationship and ISTR it's even worse - so for at leastu *some*L > > values of size and speed a much faster on-chip cache can work as well as aMH > > slower off-chip one, and 6 MB is a sufficient fraction of 32 MB that while H > > it might be *somewhat* slower overall the amount may not be all that > > significant. >eJ > The POWER4 L3 is not an order of magnitude faster than main memory, more@ > like the latency figures given for on-chip memory controllers.  H POWER4 was dragged into this discussion only peripherally:  my 'order ofK magnitude' comment was directed at the relative desirability of Madison's 6h> MB on-chip L3 cache vs. PA-RISC's 32 MB MCM-resident L2 cache.  F If the latter's access latency is indeed only about twice as fast as aG main-memory access as you seem to suggest above (since that seems to be.L about the advantage that Alpha EV7's on-chip controller will enjoy; Hammer'sH may enjoy even a bit less IIRC, and I don't know how USIII's compares inF this area), then I suspect that the former (Madison) approach would beH preferable even at less than 1/5th the size.  But I find it difficult toJ believe that HP would have put that amount of cost/packaging effort into aL cache that was only twice as fast as main memory, so I suspect that at leastI in the case of PA-RISC its off-chip L2 is likely considerably faster thanc that..  	  The mainnI > benefit I see is in the cache tags, which help reduce coherency trafficm > between MCM's.  I Interesting observation, which would seem to help explain why such a slow<* cache might still be attractive to POWER4.   - bill   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:35:34 +0000 (UTC)t7 From: Douglas Siebert <dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net>o Subject: Re: McKinley Cometh... + Message-ID: <agsqr5$fsk$1@sword.avalon.net>o  , "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:  G >If the latter's access latency is indeed only about twice as fast as a H >main-memory access as you seem to suggest above (since that seems to beM >about the advantage that Alpha EV7's on-chip controller will enjoy; Hammer'sCI >may enjoy even a bit less IIRC, and I don't know how USIII's compares intG >this area), then I suspect that the former (Madison) approach would beoI >preferable even at less than 1/5th the size.  But I find it difficult togK >believe that HP would have put that amount of cost/packaging effort into adM >cache that was only twice as fast as main memory, so I suspect that at leastiJ >in the case of PA-RISC its off-chip L2 is likely considerably faster than >that.    J I thought it was supposed to be something like 40 cycles latency.  I thinkH it uses so-called "1T SRAM" so it is essentially low latency DRAM ratherI than true SRAM, so is likely not as fast as you might expect.  Even if itrE wasn't much faster than main memory there'd still be the considerableyI benefit of reducing bus traffic.  It could also provide a much wider pathgJ to the CPU for higher bandwidth transfers for items in the L2 cache (i.e.,/ lowering the total time to fill L1 cache lines)   G Given that IBM is the one making these, I wonder if the PA-8900 will beiJ similar except with an on-chip L2 made using IBM's nice EDRAM?  That oughtI to cut the latency in half, though the size might have to drop to 16MB torJ fit.  Del, if you are reading this, how densely can you guys pack in those EDRAM cells these days?n   -- iH Douglas Siebert                          dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net  J A good friend will help you move, a true friend will help you move a body.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:08:50 GMTC* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> Subject: Re: McKinley Cometh... B Message-ID: <mooY8.200120$vq.10669695@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  D "Douglas Siebert" <dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net> wrote in message% news:agsqr5$fsk$1@sword.avalon.net... . > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >hI > >If the latter's access latency is indeed only about twice as fast as a J > >main-memory access as you seem to suggest above (since that seems to beF > >about the advantage that Alpha EV7's on-chip controller will enjoy; Hammer'sK > >may enjoy even a bit less IIRC, and I don't know how USIII's compares ineI > >this area), then I suspect that the former (Madison) approach would befK > >preferable even at less than 1/5th the size.  But I find it difficult to3K > >believe that HP would have put that amount of cost/packaging effort into  aoI > >cache that was only twice as fast as main memory, so I suspect that atd leastiL > >in the case of PA-RISC its off-chip L2 is likely considerably faster than > >that. >A >aL > I thought it was supposed to be something like 40 cycles latency.  I thinkJ > it uses so-called "1T SRAM" so it is essentially low latency DRAM rather? > than true SRAM, so is likely not as fast as you might expect.I  K Well, that's what last year's MPF presentation for Mako (8800) says (thanksyL to whoever provided that pointer in another context:  I found that this is aJ presentation I downloaded last January but is one of the many papers I hadJ yet to have gotten around to reading).  Since it seems to be used the sameD way the 8700's cache is, it may well be identical (and since Mako isI supposed to run at 1 GHz, 40 cycles = 40 ns., a bit over half what an EV7 6 main-memory access is supposed to take - 75 ns. IIRC).  J So (to get back to the root of the discussion of whether Madison's 6 MB ofL on-chip cache could compete in high-end environments as well as PA-RISC's 32 MB of off-chip cache):  F I don't know what PA-RISC's current main-memory access latency is, butJ according to an interesting paper which that same poster (mentioned above)F referred to McKinley's best-case main-memory access latency is 112 ns.J (using HP's zx1 chipset, a component aimed at optimizing 1- to 4-processorH Itanic2 configurations; if you want to handle more than 16 GB of memory,J latency rises to 137 ns.).  Since 112 ns. is less than 3 times the latencyL to PA-RISC's off-chip L2 cache, at least for smallish Madison configurationsL its 6 MB of (IIRC) 12-cycle (8 to 9 ns.) on-chip L3 cache might well provideL comparable performance to Mako's 0.75 MB instruction/0.75 MB data on-chip L1F plus 32 MB of 40 ns. off-chip L2, and even at 137 ns. (with > 16 GB of1 memory) things shouldn't change too dramatically.a  G If you want more than 4 processors, you move to a different chipset and F likely more latency:  the paper notes the latency of the Unisys ES7000L 32-processor IA32 configuration as being about 300 ns., but IIRC other largeL systems do somewhat better (i.e., they may have chosen a sub-optimal exampleH to make the zx1 look more impressive).  So the PA-RISC L2 could start toG confer some noticeable benefit as main-memory access latency rises, but K Madison should still not look all that bad in comparison unless they rise atD *lot*, since IIRC McKinley's 3 MB of on-chip L3 cache (and thereforeI presumably Madison's 6 MB of on-chip L3) has 12-cycle access latency:  12cE ns. today at 1 GHz, probably only 8 - 9 ns. by the time Madison rolls- around.-     Even if itG > wasn't much faster than main memory there'd still be the considerable." > benefit of reducing bus traffic.  K I understand why that would be the case for POWER4 with its shared off-chip 6 L3, but not for PA-RISC with its unshared off-chip L2.  )   It could also provide a much wider pathiL > to the CPU for higher bandwidth transfers for items in the L2 cache (i.e.,1 > lowering the total time to fill L1 cache lines)   I I suppose that's true for any data that's accessed in bulk more than onceiI and is larger than Madison's 6 MB of cache can accommodate.  Whether such L activity is common seems questionable (I know I make some effort not to redo& such expensive operations frequently).   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 19:31:48 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)4 Subject: Re: McKinley tops SpecFP AND SpecInt charts< Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0207141831.6d178ce@posting.google.com>   winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote in message news:<00A10E07.608C0F84@SSRL04.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>...n > In article <uEWX8.3147$WsS.1537@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > >p8 > >"Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message: > >news:d7791aa1.0207130441.6df5ba6d@posting.google.com... > >>J > >> I think you are underestimating Carly ... she is a former MIT studentJ > >> which many ex-DEC techs were, and she understands the DEC superiorityK > >> and Ken Olson philosophy, unlike Capellas/Palmer bean counters ... she- > >> may just suprise you! > >mN > >Bob, in the end you may well be correct. However you cannot make a sweepingM > >statement that simply because somebody went to MIT has the same philosophy:N > >of others who also went to MIT, nor that she understands 'DEC superiority'.1 > >That kind of statement simply hold no water.  y > G > And even further, a lot of HP/Agilent people don't think Ms. Fiorina lM > understands _HP's_ considerable tradition of technical superiority or care eJ > for employees - and that was moving into a company that still existed.   > L > It's possible that she'll get and take good advice and the results of thisJ > merger will be surprisingly good, but we can't predict that based on herO > having met Ken Olsen once.  I expect Bob Palmer met Ken Olsen more than once.r > 	 > -- Alant >   C but Palmer was bought and paid for from the start ... Carly I thinktB actually understands the superiority of VMS ... what she does with! it from here is another story ...m   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:37:25 -0700k" From: GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com>4 Subject: Re: McKinley tops SpecFP AND SpecInt charts( Message-ID: <3D325F95.8FF4EE8E@mist.com>   Bob Ceculski wrote:t >  > winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote in message news:<00A10E07.608C0F84@SSRL04.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>...p > > In article <uEWX8.3147$WsS.1537@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > > >r: > > >"Bob Ceculski" <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message< > > >news:d7791aa1.0207130441.6df5ba6d@posting.google.com... > > >>L > > >> I think you are underestimating Carly ... she is a former MIT studentL > > >> which many ex-DEC techs were, and she understands the DEC superiorityM > > >> and Ken Olson philosophy, unlike Capellas/Palmer bean counters ... she  > > >> may just suprise you! > > >iP > > >Bob, in the end you may well be correct. However you cannot make a sweepingO > > >statement that simply because somebody went to MIT has the same philosophy P > > >of others who also went to MIT, nor that she understands 'DEC superiority'.1 > > >That kind of statement simply hold no water.  > > H > > And even further, a lot of HP/Agilent people don't think Ms. FiorinaN > > understands _HP's_ considerable tradition of technical superiority or careJ > > for employees - and that was moving into a company that still existed. > > N > > It's possible that she'll get and take good advice and the results of thisL > > merger will be surprisingly good, but we can't predict that based on herQ > > having met Ken Olsen once.  I expect Bob Palmer met Ken Olsen more than once.  > >m > > -- Alana > >o > E > but Palmer was bought and paid for from the start ... Carly I thinkmD > actually understands the superiority of VMS ... what she does with# > it from here is another story ...-  6 True... I'm afraid tho, just like the HP printer line,: they'll start putting lipstick, gloss and glitter on their products like avon does.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:23:12 -0400f From: Everhart <ge@gce.com>r Subject: Re: MO disks on VMS?E& Message-ID: <3D322400.5000402@gce.com>   Stanley F. Quayle wrote:3 > On 2 Jul 2002, at 12:12, Stanley F. Quayle wrote:I > > >>I need to read some 230 MB magneto-optical disks.  I have a @ >>VAXstation 4000-60 and a DPWS 500au available, and a range of * >>operating systems from VMS 5.5-2 to 7.3. >  > G > I found out that the Fujitsu DYNAMO 640SZI SCSI drive works on Alpha aG > with VMS 7.3.  Many thanks to those that responded, especially Glenn sG > Everhart, who provided an old DECUS utility to decode the Perceptics m > WORMS-11 disk format.n > H > I was able to read 128 MB, 230 MB, and 540 MB disks.  I was also able F > to init, mount, and read/write/erase files on a 540 MB disk.  These ( > disk formats are 512 bytes per sector. > F > Attempts to init a 640 MB disk fail with "Medium is offline".  That G > density requires 2048 bytes per sector.  Later, I may try the 640 MB  E > disks with CHARON-VAX -- the drive comes with a driver for Windows s > 2000.n >  > Thanks again to everyone...5 >  > --Stan Quayleu# > President, Quayle Consulting Inc.t >  > ----------I > Stanley F. Quayle, P.E.   N8SQ   +1 614-868-1363   Fax: +1 614 868-1671o3 > 8572 North Spring Ct. NW, Pickerington, OH  43147h? > Preferred address:  stan@stanq.com       http://www.stanq.comy >    Stan -? use the idezrpc.zip hack I sent you for the non-512-byte-sectori6 disks. It can handle them and make them look like 512. Glenn Everhart   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:25:58 GMTl1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>DJ Subject: Re: OpenVMS on third-party platforms (was: Re: VMS port delayed!)' Message-ID: <3D31E2AB.2D4C2BDD@fsi.net>    John Smith wrote:: > 8 > "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> wrote in message% > news:l6I9JvtXDJP2@elias.decus.ch...oI > > In article <cvWX8.3140$WsS.881@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, ' > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:  > >u > > <mucho snippo> > > >s8 > > > FYI:  JF and I are definitely not the same person. > > >  > >wM > > But John, you are getting boring and sounding like a stuck record. Pleasee > stepA > > back a little, review your recent posts, and come back later.b > >sN > > Flame me if you like, but I used to read your posts with interest, and now > findL > > I am simply bored. IMHO your time would be better spent writing quality,& > > objective, articles for the press. > N > Not a flame, but isn't HP's lack of marketing of VMS getting a little boring > too?  F Well, HP seems to be more open to the idea of marketing VMS than the QC ever were. The Q's lack of VMS marketing was not boring, rather theX opposite: infuriating.  . > I hear you...will try to tone it down a bit.  F Me, too. The doctor says I gotta try get my weight down and keep a lid
 on my temper..   -- f David J. Dachterau dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 19:38:20 -0700( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)J Subject: Re: OpenVMS on third-party platforms (was: Re: VMS port delayed!)= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0207141838.667b7197@posting.google.com>t  ` "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> wrote in message news:<3D31E2AB.2D4C2BDD@fsi.net>... > John Smith wrote:0 > > : > > "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> wrote in message' > > news:l6I9JvtXDJP2@elias.decus.ch... K > > > In article <cvWX8.3140$WsS.881@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,"( >  "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > > >g > > > <mucho snippo> > > > >.: > > > > FYI:  JF and I are definitely not the same person. > > > >, > > > O > > > But John, you are getting boring and sounding like a stuck record. Pleasei >  stepoC > > > back a little, review your recent posts, and come back later.u > > >sP > > > Flame me if you like, but I used to read your posts with interest, and now >  findiN > > > I am simply bored. IMHO your time would be better spent writing quality,( > > > objective, articles for the press. > > P > > Not a flame, but isn't HP's lack of marketing of VMS getting a little boring > > too? > H > Well, HP seems to be more open to the idea of marketing VMS than the QE > ever were. The Q's lack of VMS marketing was not boring, rather thec > opposite: infuriating. > 0 > > I hear you...will try to tone it down a bit. > H > Me, too. The doctor says I gotta try get my weight down and keep a lid > on my temper.q  + some good Polish cooking will do just that!    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:24:42 GMT-* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>$ Subject: Re: OpenVMS Polls are back!B Message-ID: <u_lY8.198746$vq.10532310@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>  ; "Dennis Grevenstein" <dennis@pcde.inka.de> wrote in message & news:3D30F9C9.67551D49@pcde.inka.de... > Peter da Silva wrote:o > >oL > > Is that sentence syntactically sound? I didn't think IA64 and affordableB > > were allowed in the same sentence without a negation operator. >n> > SPARC's aren't cheap either, but low end Sun's sell for lessC > than just the OpenVMS operating system license for a workstation.h  H Well, there's 'expensive and then there's 'inexpensive' and then there's 'commodity-level pricing'...  F You can indeed purchase a SPARC workstation for as little as about $1KF (that's definitely 'inexpensive', almost verging upon 'commodity-levelI pricing'), whereas the best price you can get an Itanic2 processor at (ifeH you're willing to buy 1000 of them) seems to be over $1.3K ('expensive',H especially given that it's the runt of the litter:  if you want the fastF version, it's about $4.2K per unit in thousand-unit batches).  The VMSD license you mentioned (ISTR something like $1200) unfortunately alsoJ qualifies as 'expensive', since even though it's far less than VMS used toK cost it must compete with systems like Linux, *BSD, and Solaris that can bef obtained free of charge.  B Sun has in the past moved its higher-end SPARCs down into low-costJ workstations/server (seems to add an 'i' suffix - e.g., USIIIi is about toI arrive to replace USIIi in that space), and presumably can still at leastgH break even on the processors themselves.  Since IIRC a USIII die is wellH under half the size of (and consumes less than half as much power as) anH Itanic die and doesn't have billions of dollars in already-sunk costs itL needs to try to start repaying, it's hardly realistic to expect Itanic to be/ able to compete with it on purely a cost basis.a  B Hammer's pricing will be strictly commodity-level (though high-endH commodity-level initially).  It will debut in the Madison (not McKinley)F process generation and thus be only about 1/4 McKinley's die size, and6 should be well under 1/2 McKinley's power consumption.   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 20:00:17 -0700. From: spamsink2001@yahoo.com (Alan E. Feldman) Subject: Re: RECALL suggestion= Message-ID: <b096a4ee.0207141900.4e569f1f@posting.google.com>d  s SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM (Alan E. Feldman) wrote in message news:<343f30ae.0207121543.3e05e801@posting.google.com>...cg > goathunter@goatley.com (Hunter Goatley) wrote in message news:<3d2efd18.12164101@news.process.com>... 1 > > Just to add my own "Me, too" message here....t > > H > > My SD program (loosely based on an old Alan Zirkle SD program) keepsD > > a stack of directories visited, as well as allowing all sorts of
 > > shortcutsf > > , > >   SD ^      Go up one subdirectory level [...]m > > O > > The ability to shortcut directory names makes life a *lot* easier.  InsteadA > > of:l > > / > > $ SD .MULTINET_PLUS.MULTINET.KERNEL.DRIVERSs > > 
 > > I can do:g > >  > > $ SD .MUL.MUL.K.Df    1 Actually, I also like this name completion idea.    : If my first post about this SD program (see below) was too self-indulgent, I apologize.     F > As far as what makes life easier, it varies from person to person. IF > hate shifting, esp. to just get one character in the middle of many,D > like when typing !@#$%^&*()_+ characters. I find typing alphabetic7 > characters easier than @#$%^&* characters so I prefere >  >    "UP" over "SD ^", e >  [...]s   Disclaimer: JMHO Alan E. Feldman6 afeldman gfigroup com>   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:59:20 -0700e# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>  Subject: RE: RECALL suggestion9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJICEMMFFAA.tom@kednos.com>d  I When looking at previous commands ( ^B or ^)  a new line is generate eache time.e  K This is plainly wrong.  It should be done on the current line, as bash doeso it.w  ? with ENTER being the arbiter of what goes on the history stack.t   >-----Original Message----- 6 >From: Alan E. Feldman [mailto:spamsink2001@yahoo.com]$ >Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 8:00 PM >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >Subject: Re: RECALL suggestion  >l >e: >SPAMSINK2001@YAHOO.COM (Alan E. Feldman) wrote in message: >news:<343f30ae.0207121543.3e05e801@posting.google.com>...; >> goathunter@goatley.com (Hunter Goatley) wrote in message - >news:<3d2efd18.12164101@news.process.com>...h2 >> > Just to add my own "Me, too" message here.... >> >I >> > My SD program (loosely based on an old Alan Zirkle SD program) keepsiE >> > a stack of directories visited, as well as allowing all sorts ofy >> > shortcuts >> >- >> >   SD ^      Go up one subdirectory levelP >[...] >> >? >> > The ability to shortcut directory names makes life a *lot*i >easier.  Instead  >> > of: >> >0 >> > $ SD .MULTINET_PLUS.MULTINET.KERNEL.DRIVERS >> > >> > I can do: >> > >> > $ SD .MUL.MUL.K.D >o > 1 >Actually, I also like this name completion idea.a >h; >If my first post about this SD program (see below) was toos >self-indulgent, I apologize.c >e > G >> As far as what makes life easier, it varies from person to person. IaG >> hate shifting, esp. to just get one character in the middle of many,eE >> like when typing !@#$%^&*()_+ characters. I find typing alphabeticm8 >> characters easier than @#$%^&* characters so I prefer >> >>    "UP" over "SD ^",r >> >[...] >  >Disclaimer: JMHOb >Alan E. Feldman >afeldman gfigroup com >h >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.c; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).iA >Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/2002s >  ---c& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.372 / Virus Database: 207 - Release Date: 6/20/2002   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 14:30:32 -0600B From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley)? Subject: Terry's change in attitude towards comp.os.vms postersc3 Message-ID: <oVpBFaKvI6ff@eisner.encompasserve.org>   K Terry, what has prompted this sudden change in attitude towards comp.os.vms 	 posters ?   L I would also like to politely point out that calling a group of professionalL people (who, by the content of their postings, obviously have a large set ofN skills and abilities) "clueless" is an excellent way to _really_ annoy them...   Simon.   -- hB Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       + Microsoft: The Lada of the computing world.r   ------------------------------    Date: 14 Jul 2002 14:19:41 -0600B From: clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley)M Subject: Tops-10/Tops-20 features not in VMS ?, was: Re: Looking for terminalr3 Message-ID: <zD8Nln76VvMv@eisner.encompasserve.org>c  f In article <3D2F218A.16D51BF3@firstdbasource.com>, Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com> writes:  / [Cross posted to alt.sys.pdp10 and comp.os.vms]h   > I > One of abuses I had heard of was a "sys admin" (term used very lightly)aE > that would go into "assist" mode with a user they were watching and J > "auto correct" misspelled words. They did not know that VMS was powerfulD > enough to correct their typing -- Although Tops10/20 did have thatI > feature. "Did you mean: xyz command (Y/N)" How difficult would it be tonC > put it into VMS - that would really make those **ix guys jealous.r >   F How accurate was that Tops-10/Tops-20 feature and how useful was it in actual use ?  J [As anyone who has worked with Gnat (the Ada compiler) will tell you, GnatI tries to work out what spelling you really meant, but it's the first time-" that I have heard of it in a CLI.]  H What other features did Tops-10 or Tops-20 have that VMS still doesn't ?  I I really must get round to building up either a Tops-10 or Tops-20 systemoC under one of the emulators and see what other features they have...n   Simon.   -- eB Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP       + Microsoft: The Lada of the computing world.i   ------------------------------    Date: 15 Jul 2002 00:22:51 -0400- From: Rich Alderson <alderson+news@panix.com>nQ Subject: Re: Tops-10/Tops-20 features not in VMS ?, was: Re: Looking for terminalt. Message-ID: <mdd1ya5sjqc.fsf@panix5.panix.com>  D clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) writes:  C > In article <3D2F218A.16D51BF3@firstdbasource.com>, Michael AustinP& > <maustin@firstdbasource.com> writes:  1 > [Cross posted to alt.sys.pdp10 and comp.os.vms]l  O >> One of abuses I had heard of was a "sys admin" (term used very lightly) thatsG >> would go into "assist" mode with a user they were watching and "autotO >> correct" misspelled words. They did not know that VMS was powerful enough topM >> correct their typing -- Although Tops10/20 did have that feature. "Did youtO >> mean: xyz command (Y/N)" How difficult would it be to put it into VMS - thatr2 >> would really make those **ix guys jealous.  > >  H > How accurate was that Tops-10/Tops-20 feature and how useful was it in > actual use ?   It's not accurate at all.s  M What Tops-20 *did* have was command completion, filename completion, and helpaO within the command via the ? key, this latter much more robust than VMS help in M that the help message was immediately followed by a new command line with the M previously typed in material up to the question mark.  This was made possiblefO by the COMND% JSYS, which gave the EXEC and all user programs that used it (and . very few did not) a consistent user interface.  N Tops-10 provided a set of libraries for producing user interfaces, but did notK provide a consistent user interface for the OS and user programs.  (Now theT Tops-10 folks will jump on me.)A   -- pN Rich Alderson                                          alderson+news@panix.comL   "You get what anybody gets.  You get a lifetime."  --Death, of the Endless   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 06:35:26 +0100 (BST)cF From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Tadimeti=20Keshav?= <keshav_tadimeti@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: trivial UNZIP questionk@ Message-ID: <20020715053526.40005.qmail@web21009.mail.yahoo.com>   Hello,1 SO I am trying to unzip the downloaded RDB file. C   I downloaded the unzip file:,           1.unzip.alpha_exe from process.com4           2.unzip-alpha_v5.exe from openVMS freeware site  # Q: all I have to do is run the EXE?   ' I downloaded to Windows and FTP to VMS.a  & Now, as per the C_freeware_readme.txt:. ----------------------------------------------1 Use the appropriate UNZIP executable to unzip thes source archives.  1     $ unzip :== $dka400:[info-zip]unzip.alpha_exe %     $ unzip dka400:[info-zip]unzip542n. ----------------------------------------------1 SInce in VMS we do a run/nodebug for image files,o I did a  unzip :== run/nodebug -n( dka100:[user.info-zip]unzip-alpha_v5.exe     I do $unzip RDB706_ALPHA.ZIP;    THe error I get is:e  5 %DCL-W-MAXPARM, too many parameters - reenter commands with fewer parameterse  \RDB706_ALPHA\a    3 CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT'S GOING WRONG NOW??B   Thanks & regards Keshav  6 P.S: I wouldn't want to trouble U all with a trivial Q1 as this, but I guess the LISTSERV doesn't supporth searching through archives.t  2 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?+ Everything you'll ever need on one web pagel- from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts  http://uk.my.yahoo.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:29:16 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>0F Subject: Wal-Mart Says Sales Are Rising for New Alternative to WindowsF Message-ID: <gikY8.6499$WsS.1246@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  L http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tpL =ad_topright_topfin&T=markets_bfgcgi_content99.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_< position1_topfin&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=APTGBuxXfV2FsLU1h   07/14 09:50o= Wal-Mart Says Sales Are Rising for New Alternative to Windowsa By Peter J. BrennanM    G Bentonville, Arkansas, July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., thedL world's largest retailer, said sales are rising for personal computers usingG Lindows, a new operating system trying to encroach on Microsoft Corp.'sl Windows.  G Wal-Mart's Web site features a $299 PC loaded with Lindows. A similarlyrH equipped PC from Dell Computer Corp. costs $559 while a Gateway Inc. box( runs $529, according to their Web sites.  L ``Sales have been very strong and have exceeded what we expected,'' Wal-MartI spokeswoman Cynthia Lin said, declining to give specific figures. The PC,hG which began selling a month ago, includes 128 megabytes of memory and as3 10-gigabyte hard-disk drive and excludes a monitor.P  E Lindows is based on Linux, which is more commonly used on servers, or F super-fast computers for such jobs as managing Web sites, than on PCs.J Wal-Mart's pricing is setting a new standard among the cheapest PCs, whichH have been selling for about $500 to $600. Microsoft has already lost one8 round of a court battle to halt use of the Lindows name.  L ``Wal-Mart has enough brand clout to say it can alter the terms of the game,K which is quite a statement to Microsoft,'' said Roger Kay, a PC analyst for  the marketing firm IDC.D  F Shares of Wal-Mart fell $1.33 to $52.85 Friday, while Microsoft shares dropped $1.05 to $51.86.   Microtel  I Lindows.com Inc., developer of the new operating system, was started last1G year by Michael Robertson, who also founded MP3.com Corp. That company, J whose Web site distributed digital music, was purchased last year for $3722 million in cash and stock by Vivendi Universal SA.  I Microtel Computer Systems, the closely held maker of the $299 to $599 PCs F running Lindows, has just 100 employees who build the computers at itsJ facility in City of Industry, California, a few miles east of Los Angeles.> The three owners include Juliet Chui, the company's president.  H The Lindows name confuses consumers and infringes the Windows trademark,K Microsoft spokesman Jon Murchinson said. A federal judge ruled earlier thisoL year that Lindows could keep its name for now. A trial is scheduled for next April.  J ``Their real motivation has nothing to do with consumers being confused,''C Robertson said. ``It has everything to do with being competition toT Microsoft.''  I Any threat to the world's biggest software maker is small for now, as its I operating systems are used in about 95 percent of PCs sold worldwide lastaL year, while systems from Apple Computer Inc. run most of the rest. Robertson0 is seeking a 5 percent market share for Lindows.   `Other Than Windows'  J Critics have not been kind to Lindows, saying it has a number of problems.* Those are being corrected, Robertson said.  K Wal-Mart hasn't figured out the PC industry yet, said Brent Clum, portfoliotL manager at Luther King Capital Management Corp., which manages $6 billion in8 assets and owns 1.08 million Dell Computer Corp. shares.  L ``It's an area that Wal-Mart has tried for as long as I can remember and canI never get it right as far as PCs go,'' Clum said. ``More power to them if. they can.''   H Wal-Mart decided to sell Linux-based PCs after customers kept asking for/ operating systems other than Windows, Lin said.u  K ``This is really targeted at the Linux community, which is very comfortablee3 with being on line and shopping on line,'' he said.d  I Price is the main reason consumers are buying Lindows, said Rich Hindman,uG vice president of Microtel. Many consumers don't need more than a basico operating system, he said.  D ``The majority of the people using the computer don't use the (full)K capability of the system,'' said Hindman, ``Surf the Internet, e-mail, play & games -- that's what most people do.''   License Fees  G A big reason PC makers are making less profit nowadays is that they arewJ stuck paying huge fees to Microsoft, Robertson said. PC makers have to pay@ Microsoft about $100 for each PC shipped with Windows, and other> applications can add hundreds of dollars to the cost, he said.  L By contrast, manufacturers only have to pay his company $500 a month for allK the PCs they ship loaded with Lindows, he said. Lindows plans to make money.L by selling $99 annual memberships so consumers can download applications for3 free from a list of 1,000 software titles, he said.i  K ``It's like Costco or Sam's Club where they sell at cost and make money off." the memberships,'' Robertson said.  J Large PC makers aren't providing alternate systems such as Lindows becauseG they don't want to antagonize Microsoft, which might demand even higher  payments for Windows, he said.  I ``It's not that we don't want to upset Microsoft,'' Dell spokesman DwayneeC Cox said. ``Our customers have told us they don't want (Linux-basede operating systems).''e  K Wal-Mart's $299 sticker price represents a new low for cheap PCs, Kay said. J Larger PC makers have a ``bread-and-butter'' business selling cheap PCs inK the range of $500 to $600, and Wal- Mart's backing is significant, he said.i  K ``It indicates a willingness to try something, to provide an alternative toKL the existing orthodoxy,'' said Kay. ``If anyone can do it, it would be a big retailer.''e   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:27:26 GMTe- From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>n1 Subject: Re: Who said Carly doesn't like OpenVMS?v* Message-ID: <3D31DA63.6070401@qsl.network>   Paul Sture wrote:tn > In article <zj6Y8.13824$Sb3.536969@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@openvms.org> writes: > ) >>Who said Carly doesn't like OpenVMS? :)o >>; >>http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=02/07/13/7134900  >> > / > Sorry, but that's giving me "Story not found"n  F It is working for me.  It seems someone got a picture of Carly in ZKO  holding some license plates.   -Johnf wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:06:47 GMTo* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>1 Subject: Re: Who said Carly doesn't like OpenVMS?oA Message-ID: <XBmY8.86981$iB1.4925186@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>s  8 "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network> wrote in message$ news:3D31DA63.6070401@qsl.network... > Paul Sture wrote:cJ > > In article <zj6Y8.13824$Sb3.536969@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "Kenneth% Farmer" <kfarmer@openvms.org> writes:m > >.+ > >>Who said Carly doesn't like OpenVMS? :)  > >>= > >>http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=02/07/13/7134900n > >> > >)1 > > Sorry, but that's giving me "Story not found"a >.G > It is working for me.  It seems someone got a picture of Carly in ZKOE > holding some license plates.  J Then again, some might suggest that she and Curly belong in the facilities& in which such plates are manufactured.   - bill   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2002.386 ************************