1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 11 Jul 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 380       Contents: Re: autogen question backgrounding a process  Re: backgrounding a process  Re: backgrounding a process  Re: backgrounding a process  Re: backgrounding a process  Re: backgrounding a process  Re: backgrounding a process  Re: Clustering Problem Re: Clustering Problem Re: CSWS v1.3 abort N Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful PerformanceG Re: five modes (Was: vms security model - does it still exist on IA64?) L Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2    processors+ Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense + Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense + Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense + Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense + Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense + Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense + Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense + Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense P Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alph Re: KVM switches% Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME % Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME % Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME % Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME % Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME % Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME % Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME  Re: OpenVMS I64, a proposal  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: Pearl Users  Re: Pearl Users  Re: Pearl Users  Re: Pearl Users  Re: Pearl Users  Re: Pearl Users  Re: Pearl Users  Re: Pearl Users  RE: Pearl Users[Scanned] RE: Pearl Users[Scanned] RE: Pearl Users[Scanned]% Portents of itanium death - revisited ) Re: Portents of itanium death - revisited ) Re: Portents of itanium death - revisited ) Re: Portents of itanium death - revisited  Re: PPPOE? When? How?  Re: PPPOE? When? How?  Re: PPPOE? When? How?  Re: PPPOE? When? How? / Problem with XDM ( tcpip v5.3 on axp/vms 7.3-1) 3 Re: Problem with XDM ( tcpip v5.3 on axp/vms 7.3-1) P Redirecting screen output from FMS to files and displaying them using an emulatoP Re: Redirecting screen output from FMS to files and displaying them using an emu" Slow Decnet Speeds, help requested& Re: Slow Decnet Speeds, help requested5 Re: vms security model - does it still exist on IA64? 5 Re: vms security model - does it still exist on IA64?  VMS to Windows 2000  Re: VMS to Windows 2000  Re: VMS to Windows 2000  Re: X11 proxy on VMS ? Re: X11 proxy on VMS ? Re: X11 proxy on VMS ?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 11 Jul 03 16:26:14 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)  Subject: Re: autogen question ) Message-ID: <aX$hrnQLo1kP@elias.decus.ch>   C In article <3f0e03c7.96607828@news>, Rob.Buxton@wcc.govt.nz writes: + > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:35:28 +0000 (UTC), E > helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to  > reply) wrote:  > K >>On one system, I have some secondary page and swap files located off the  , >>system disk.  When running AUTOGEN, I get: >>0 >>RMS-E-FEX, file already exists, not superseded@ >>%SET-E-READERR, error reading DISK$LABEL:[DIR]PAGEFILE_1.SYS;1, >>-SYSTEM-W-ACCONFLICT, file access conflict1 >>%RMS-E-FEX, file already exists, not superseded @ >>%SET-E-READERR, error reading DISK$LABEL:[DIR]SWAPFILE_1.SYS;1, >>-SYSTEM-W-ACCONFLICT, file access conflict >>- >>Is this expected?  Should I worry about it?  > 1 > Autogen is trying to do stuff to the Pagefiles. B > Personally I don't like it doing that so I have the following in > modparams.dat  > D > pagefile = 0            ! Do NOT Make changes to Page & Swap Files > swapfile = 0 > dumpfile = 0 >   A Same here. The fundamental problem is when you have, say, monthly I jobs which use lots of page/swap file space. If you reboot for any reason A and run Autogen before those jobs have run, it will try to shrink  the page/swap files.  @ > That way I'll make the changes to the Pagfiles if I think it'sE > necessary.  Autogen advises me to shrink mine, I ignore that as I'm % > not that constrained by free space. F > I also don't like the fact it'll shrink them on one Autogen and then > grow them.  A That reminds me of the time I spent monitoring the non-paged pool C parameters (V6.2) on a cluster with 2 VAXes and 2 Alphas. (We had a G weekly reboot in order to do standalone backups,  so I got to play with B this over several weeks.) Autogen was continually trying to adjustH NPAGEDYN up or down (by a different percentage on Alpha and VAX BTW), so# after monitoring we nailed it down.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:27:00 GMT & From: "ratman" <romaeur@tiscalinet.it>  Subject: backgrounding a process9 Message-ID: <UhwPa.164828$Ny5.4658686@twister2.libero.it>   / How can I background a process on a vms system?    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 06:45:11 -0400 + From: Ken Robinson <kenrbnsn1@patmedia.net> $ Subject: Re: backgrounding a processA Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20030711064309.03c99d28@mail.patmedia.net>   ' At 10:27 AM 7/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:   0 >How can I background a process on a vms system?  - Once a job is running or before you start it?   ! Once a job is running, you can't.   J Before you start it, use the command spawn/nowait or submit. See the HELP  on both.  
 Ken Robinson     ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:00:57 GMT & From: "ratman" <romaeur@tiscalinet.it>$ Subject: Re: backgrounding a process9 Message-ID: <ZFxPa.165102$Ny5.4664161@twister2.libero.it>   + ...really tanks! is what I was looking for!   @ "Ken Robinson" <kenrbnsn1@patmedia.net> ha scritto nel messaggio; news:5.2.1.1.2.20030711064309.03c99d28@mail.patmedia.net... ) > At 10:27 AM 7/11/2003 +0000, you wrote:  > 2 > >How can I background a process on a vms system? > / > Once a job is running or before you start it?  > # > Once a job is running, you can't.  > K > Before you start it, use the command spawn/nowait or submit. See the HELP 
 > on both. >  > Ken Robinson >    ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:12:53 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) $ Subject: Re: backgrounding a process3 Message-ID: <hpYg09BxikJu@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <UhwPa.164828$Ny5.4658686@twister2.libero.it>, "ratman" <romaeur@tiscalinet.it> writes:  1 > How can I background a process on a vms system?   H Presuming you have the same meaning for the transitive verb "background" (dating from 1768) as    	http://www.m-w.com/  7 just provide the process with an appropriate data file.    ===============   < But you should really provide a description of what you want? as there are several unlisted possible meanings of "background" , as a transitive verb you might have in mind:   	Submit it as a batch job  	Start it as a detached process  	Start it as a subprocess ' 	Start it with the command SPAWN/NOWAIT $ 	Use the command DISCONNECT/CONTINUE! 	Use the command CONNECT/CONTINUE B 	Program it to wake up from the hibernate due to an ATTACH command  @ These all have subtly different meanings, so you should read the> VMS documentation, either on paper or from the CDROM that came@ with your copy of the operating system.  The system manager will> typically mount the CDROM on a publically accessible drive for? users of the system, at least as (partial) self-defense against  getting such questions.    ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 08:09:39 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) $ Subject: Re: backgrounding a process3 Message-ID: <FQS4nLDjqo$v@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <UhwPa.164828$Ny5.4658686@twister2.libero.it>, "ratman" <romaeur@tiscalinet.it> writes:1 > How can I background a process on a vms system?   F    You can't interrupt it and move it to the background if it's aleady     running (like ^Z on eunchis).  &    You can start it in the background:  B      spawn/nowait - a subprocess, dies if the parent process exits5      run/detached - a detached process, has no parent        submit - to the batch queue      See all of these in HELP.   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:31:27 +0000 (UTC) - From: lewis@spyder.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) $ Subject: Re: backgrounding a process. Message-ID: <bemoou$bgn$2@newslocal.mitre.org>   koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes in article <FQS4nLDjqo$v@eisner.encompasserve.org> dated 11 Jul 2003 08:09:39 -0500: c >In article <UhwPa.164828$Ny5.4658686@twister2.libero.it>, "ratman" <romaeur@tiscalinet.it> writes: 2 >> How can I background a process on a vms system? > G >   You can't interrupt it and move it to the background if it's aleady ! >   running (like ^Z on eunchis).  > ' >   You can start it in the background:  > C >     spawn/nowait - a subprocess, dies if the parent process exits   G Several people have suggested SPAWN/NOWAIT, and that's probably what he J wants.  But one fact bears mention -- SPAWN/NOWAIT can be interrupted fromL the keyboard!  Therefore I use SPAWN/NOWAIT/INPUT=NL: for stuff like this.  % Well, actually my LOGIN.COM contains:   *     $ SNN == "SPA/NOWAIT/NOTIFY/INPUT=NL:"  , So if I want to use it, it's something like:       $ snn delete *.tmp;*  + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.org > The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 11:54:24 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) $ Subject: Re: backgrounding a process3 Message-ID: <$iQ3Xs7aW3pS@eisner.encompasserve.org>   ^ In article <bemoou$bgn$2@newslocal.mitre.org>, lewis@spyder.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) writes: > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes in article <FQS4nLDjqo$v@eisner.encompasserve.org> dated 11 Jul 2003 08:09:39 -0500: d >>In article <UhwPa.164828$Ny5.4658686@twister2.libero.it>, "ratman" <romaeur@tiscalinet.it> writes:3 >>> How can I background a process on a vms system?  >>H >>   You can't interrupt it and move it to the background if it's aleady" >>   running (like ^Z on eunchis). >>( >>   You can start it in the background: >>D >>     spawn/nowait - a subprocess, dies if the parent process exits > I > Several people have suggested SPAWN/NOWAIT, and that's probably what he L > wants.  But one fact bears mention -- SPAWN/NOWAIT can be interrupted fromN > the keyboard!  Therefore I use SPAWN/NOWAIT/INPUT=NL: for stuff like this.  ' > Well, actually my LOGIN.COM contains:  > , >     $ SNN == "SPA/NOWAIT/NOTIFY/INPUT=NL:"  @ I do that too, but the original poster expressed no requirementsD for interruptability, lack thereof, or surviving some other process.   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:42:00 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: Clustering Problem 3 Message-ID: <S7aF9vbya+vS@eisner.encompasserve.org>   o In article <5.2.1.1.2.20030710092535.0567dcf8@mail.patmedia.net>, Ken Robinson <kenrbnsn1@patmedia.net> writes:  > B > I thought that this error message would have been fixed already.  D    Since the volume name is used by the kernel and by RMS in lockingD    files and records, it must be unique.  In that sense, the message    can't be "fixed".  G    Were you looking for cluster_config.com to prompt for a label change (    so that the problem could be avoided?   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:43:33 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)  Subject: Re: Clustering Problem 3 Message-ID: <H5xlc$L6ull2@eisner.encompasserve.org>   o In article <5.2.1.1.2.20030710110511.052bfaa8@mail.patmedia.net>, Ken Robinson <kenrbnsn1@patmedia.net> writes:  > M > That's what I meant by "fixed".  Once you know the meaning of the message,  M > you say "of course", but until then you can go crazy. Back in 1984 it took  L > DIGITAL almost two weeks to figure it out ... of course clusters were new / > then and there wasn't as much expertise then.   E    If it took Digital almost two weeks to figure out one of their own @    error codes, you were definitely talking to the wrong person!   ------------------------------   Date: 11 Jul 03 14:58:09 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)  Subject: Re: CSWS v1.3 abort) Message-ID: <1l4TYWwKIPFX@elias.decus.ch>   b In article <000501c346a3$9d0bddc0$41933cc7@cassb20c>, "old account" <rwolff@selkirk.bc.ca> writes:A > I upgraded from OpenVMS 7.2-1 to 7.2.2 so I could run CSWS 1.3. B > After installing 7.2-2 plus the TCPIP fix I upgraded to CSWS1.3./ > When I started CSWS I received the following:  >  > $ @sys$startup:apache$startup B > %APACHE-S-PROC_ID, identification of created process is 00000429E > %APACHE-E-PROCTERMINATED, process terminated with status = 1001829A  > %SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort > %SYSTEM-F-ABORT, abort > $  > ) > Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.    Did you run apache$config ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:21:40 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>W Subject: Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful Performance 2 Message-ID: <a46dnSm5XtM_7pOiXTWJiw@metrocast.net>  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message+ news:CxjPa.4355$9X2.944@news.cpqcorp.net... 0 > "rob kas" <rob@paychoice.com> wrote in message4 > news:BqHOa.537$lq7.52902976@news.netcarrier.net... > >  > >  > >    Keith > > K > >  Don't you feel a bit odd posting this after posting  after posting the  > > Omega Article? > > # > >   "Far better to go the Itanium L > > route (and perhaps eat some crow with a side dish of humble pie) than toJ > > relentlessly rely on an aging microprocessor such as PA-RISC or Alpha" > >  > H > Why?  Alpha was a "technical" success for most of it's life.  The chipI > designer, platform designer, and IO designer for EV7 are (for my money)  the D > best 3 guys, and the best team of engineers *ever* to work for the company.K > They built a system that in some respects already is being surpassed, but  inH > other respects won't be surpassed for many years by *any* of the major
 > players. > E > In context, the point was that the cost/benefit long term to remain # > competetive with Alpha was bleak.   ) Perhaps to the arithmetically-challenged.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:46:29 -0500 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com> P Subject: Re: five modes (Was: vms security model - does it still exist on IA64?)3 Message-ID: <3F0EF7F5.8219AB5F@applied-synergy.com>    Neil Rieck wrote:  > > > "Chris Scheers" <chris@applied-synergy.com> wrote in message/ > news:3F0B26D3.D53F62CA@applied-synergy.com...  > > Hoff Hoffman wrote: K > > >   Extra credit question: which VAX implementation had five modes. :-)  > > E > > That would be the 700 series VAXen with PDP11 compatibility mode:  > > L > > 780, 782, 785, 750, 751, 730, 725, and 8600 (aka 790)  [Did I miss any?] >  > [snip] > P > I knew it was the 700 series machines; I didn't know that 8600 was a.k.a. 790. > Go figure.    H The story I have heard (which may be an urban legend) is that before theE machine was shipped, the name was changed from 790 to 8600 because it % was twice as powerful as an IBM 4300.   G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:10:04 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> U Subject: Re: HP Webcast this morning on Next-Generation Intel Itanium 2    processors - Message-ID: <wjBPa.82$o24.8@news.cpqcorp.net>   " I don't know of such a comparison.   My off-the-cuff opinion is:   G If you have a requirement that is transactional in nature, and requires J absolute single-site/system ultra-high reliability - NSK is the way to go.C If you want disaster tolerance, without an absolute requirement for ? ultra-high single node reliability - then VMS is the way to go.       . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageC news:vYoPa.125562$x4o.69147@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...  > F > "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message. > news:SVeOa.3985$Ca7.2743@news.cpqcorp.net... > > ; > > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message ' > > news:3F049F1E.F5A293A1@istop.com...  > > > Keith Parris wrote:  >  > [snip] >  > > >  > > C > > The real difference between the low-end and high-end for VMS is  > supportingC > > the cell structure, and getting all of our software (which also  > applies toD > > the low-end) in the fault handling area up-to-snuff.  It isn't a > "port", itG > > is the difference between a ES40 and a GS1280.  More of everything, 	 > more to  > > test, higher stresses. > > G > > The NSK hardware is specialized.  Remember that NSK isn't a typical  > OS, itF > > is a message passing system with redundancy and checking.  To make > use ofH > > the way NSK puts together a system would require a major redesign of	 > VMS for  > > it to be of any use. > > F > > > If VMS is to stay in its high availability niche, it seems to me
 > that theC > > > tandem line of machines might provide a better image for that 
 > niche (even  > > ifC > > > VMS sites might order some of those boxes without some of the  > > tandem-specific addons). > > D > > You should really do some research on NSK (what you keep calling > Tandem) to2 > > understand just how different an animal it is. >  > E > Is there anything internal which might be released into the wild by E > HP/Compaq that does a detailed contrast/compare of NSK vs. VMS when A > configured 'similarly' for reliability, operational issues, and G > aspects of building apps and environments, ie. NSK-type 'cluster' vs.  > VMS-style clusters?  > H > It's been a very long time since I looked at Tandem/NSK closely (but I& > have a very real need to do so now). >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:51:18 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense2 Message-ID: <1D2dnX6Cs_Xpw5OiXTWJjQ@metrocast.net>  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:VkhPa.4333$yV2.3008@news.cpqcorp.net... > 7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message . > news:II-dncxx59R3FpeiXTWJlg@metrocast.net... > 
 > <delete> > K > Problem here Bill is that while there are some nit's in Terry's story, it H > pretty much agrees with most of the *reliable* information I've heard. YourJ > "analysis" really comes from building a house of cards based informationL > which is a collection half truths, guesses, rumors, complete fabrications,J > and an occasional truth -- and I'm not even saying that *you* are making it? > up.  Even if I were to give you some shred of regard for your 
 objectiveness K > (and frankly you froth a bit every time you talk about Alpha, Compaq, HP,  orI > VMS) - your opinions are pretty much based on little-to-no actual real, " > insider, or factual information.  F I think you've been taking Big Lie lessons from Terry, Fred:  spew outI garbage while denigrating the opposition, and at least *some* people will 9 likely buy it if you do it often and consistently enough.   G One major difference between you and me is that I *document* my sources I (press statements by Rick Marcello, his Y2K figures on VMS system revenue F and profit to Rob Young, Dave Froble, and me as representatives of ourJ advocacy group, confirming revenue figures from a March, 2001 Compaq slideI presentation and a second source which John Smith cited but which I can't I recall at this precise moment, R&D spending projections from the 1999 and F Y2K Compaq annual reports, the infamous alpha_ia64.pdf and Heil/LipconI 'commitment to Alpha' Web letter confirming not only Alpha's evolutionary F roadmap but the theoretical reasons for its continued superiority overK Itanic, press and internal statements by Pfeiffer confirming his enthusiasm L for Alpha over Itanic, benchmarks proving Alpha's continuing competitivenessK despite Curly's depredations, comp.arch postings by Alpha architect Brannon K Batson, now at Intel ...) so that people can check them out for themselves, L while you just spew generalities about 'reliable' information that you claimH to have heard and attempt to sweep aside the specifics without rebuttal.  L I've had both direct and indirect contact with EV8 architects who have givenH me the information that I've passed on (without naming names, for ratherD obvious reasons).  How about you, Fred:  how much of your 'reliable'L information comes from those Alpha chip architects who were doing the actualJ work rather than from others looking in from the outside and coloring whatL they passed on with their own agendas - as you yourself often appear to do)?  K Two years ago, a participant here who vigorously supported Compaq's version I of the rationale for the Alphacide (because he was being told that it was H true by people whom he trusted but who were *not* part of the Alpha chipL teams) suddenly dropped out of the discussion after he finally got word fromK what he considered to be an unimpeachable and directly-informed source that H it was a pack of lies, and privately apologized to me for having doubtedK this - though was strangely reluctant to recant publicly (I don't know why, F but one might venture a guess).  So I'm not the *only* one who has hadK extremely credible internal contacts contradicting Compaq's spin:  I'm just G someone who's sufficiently disgusted to be aggressive about putting the K odorous mess out under the public nose where it's more difficult to ignore.   1 we *are* on all our internal roadmaps with no end  > date  K Wrong, Fred:  VMS's roadmap ends in 2005 (aren't HP roadmaps supposed to be K 5-year projections?).  There may be arrows pointing forward to suggest that L *something* might occur later, but even the 'investigations' listed for 2005J (all *hard* information stops in 2004, save for TCP/IP, RTR, and ACMS) are6 explicitly stated *not* to be any kind of commitments.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:10:22 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense2 Message-ID: <DOycncvAXJxh7ZOiXTWJjA@metrocast.net>  + "Dirk Munk" <munk@home.nl> wrote in message , news:bekmbo$ipn$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...   <many good points snipped>  K > And then the performance of Itanium. I am not overwhelmed. It seems a new < > Itanium is only faster because it gets more on-chip cache.  A In many cases Itanic *isn't* as fast as Alpha in the same process I generation.  In a couple of cases, it may not even be as fast as EV7 when K Itanic is a full process generation ahead.  And it can't come anywhere near  EV7 in bandwidth.   K The large on-chip cache and extensive compilation optimizations (especially 7 for SPECint in the HP-UX compiler) are what make Itanic I performance-competitive at all.  To the degree that real-world developers G don't optimize (or people run applications on systems other than HP-UX) F Itanic's performance will not match its benchmarks - and while similarG observations can be applied to just about *any* processor, optimization J seems to be more critical for Itanic performance than for its out-of-order* competitors (for fairly obvious reasons)..    In fact I get theH > idea that a  present day Itanium is a very big cache module with a CPU burried  > somewhere.  J Intel has stated that 43% of the McKinley die area is cache and 57% of theJ Madison die area is cache.  If they release a Madison version next year asH currently planned with 9 MB of on-chip cache, the percentage of die area* that it occupies should rise to about 67%.  L EV7 has proved that there are considerably more effective uses for die area.L Indications are emerging that the EV8 team will eventually be bringing thoseI better uses to Itanic in 2006-7 (only 3 - 4 years after Alpha and Opteron J got them, and 5 - 6 years after POWERx and even the often-denigrated SPARC
 got them).  D > I wonder what would happen if a Opteron would get that much cache.  L That's a complex question, but one can at least SWAG.  Itanic gains about 8%I SPECint performance with each doubling in cache size (more like 12% - 13% J for SPECfp).  So while it's not clear exactly how much Opteron performanceH would improve with more cache (that being processor-, architecture-, andH system-dependent), one can estimate what a 1.5 GHz Madison's performanceL would be with *less* cache:  about 80% of its SPECint score and about 70% of its SPECfp score.   I HP got a SPECint2k_base score of 1318 for Madison.  80% of that is 1054 - J slightly below the 1.8 GHz Opteron's 1095.  SGI's SPECint2K_base score forJ Madison is only 1077 (that HP-UX compiler makes a significant difference);F 80% of that is 862 (close to EV7 territory, but that would not be fairI because EV7 has 1.75 MB of on-chip cache, not 1 MB like Opteron, and with K 1.75 MB on the chip Madison should score in the low 900s - though of course J with the advantage of being a process generation ahead of EV7 and applyingB more complete feedback-directed optimization than EV7's base score
 reflects).  I The one thing that Itanic really *is* good at is single-processor SPECfp, G though.  HP and SGI get base scores of 2104 and 2041, respectively, and I while derating them by 70% would make the platform look a lot less like a I complete standout it's probably fair to say that for raw (not per-Watt or 5 per-dollar) SPECfp the EPIC architecture is a winner.    > K > The Opteron, another nice topic. It seems this fall AMD will stop selling  its H > 'normal' Athlons, and will only sell the Athlon 64. Thus 64 bit on the desktop,# > and not an Intel 64 bit in sight.   E I hadn't seen that yet - just an indication that 32-bit Athlons would K continue 'as the market requires' in 2004 rather than with specific product L descriptions.  So it may well depend on what the desktop demand for Athlon64L turns out to be:  if it's limited to a high-end niche (albeit 'niche' in theG desktop could still mean millions of units), then if the 32-bit Athlons F continue to be considerably less expensive to produce they'll probably survive for a while.   > J > You see what I am really worried about is that the Itanium will not be a2 > success. That will leave HP without a processor.  I That's a legitimate worry even for people who aren't disgusted by the way + Alpha and customers were treated by Compaq.    - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 08:56:36 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense3 Message-ID: <pBx3zhfXrEpY@eisner.encompasserve.org>   S In article <bekmbo$ipn$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:    > N > And then suddenly we hear "Hallelujah, we have seen The Light. It is called S > Itanium, and it will lead us to paradise". Now why should we believe that in the  F > light of earlier statements by Compaq ? Were those statements lies ? >   ? 	No.  That was what was believed up until the time they decided = 	otherwise.  Terry's piece is pretty clear.  High-level Alpha ; 	folks under heavy NDA were allowed to peak under the Intel = 	Itanium covers.  Watch Sun Microsystems.  Watch Sun over the A 	next 3-5 years.  You will see a lot of bluster coming from them. A 	But price and performance will wrench Sun and cause a great deal : 	of pain.  IBM won't be immune.  Yes - it takes 64 Itanium? 	Madison CPUs in a SuperDome to match the 32 processor IBM tpmC C 	(or come close).  But that's okay, the list prices for the Madison C 	are exactly 1/2 the Power CPU (and still make a good deal of money ; 	selling them - You bet HP and Dell get sweetheart deals on E 	Itaniums).  That price curve is just getting started.  Itanium will  F 	suck the air right out of Power and UltraSparc margins.  That is/was 8 	what Compaq was facing with Alpha - among other things.  S > And as Bill correctly states, the Itanium was years behind on schedule, and when  9 > it was introduced it was a horrible flop. Also a fact !   1 	Just getting started.  Less than glorious start.    > R > And the we were told, "The Alpha designers will help to make it a good and fast O > CPU". The same guys who were so wrong (apparently) on their own CPU design ?   > yeah that makes sense. >   8 	It is good and fast today, no matter how you splice it.  L > And then the performance of Itanium. I am not overwhelmed. It seems a new = > Itanium is only faster because it gets more on-chip cache.    F 	That would be wrong.  Read some of the realworldtech.com discussions.A 	It isn't just cache (certainly helps.  And who cares how you get A 	to the prom - you are there!)  Madison does 2000+ SpecFp and the C 	low-powered Deerfield will ensure Itanium has the best HPC part in = 	6-12 months.  So Itanium begins to dominate the HPC space in < 	a year (and no - Opteron clock cranking up won't even bringF 	it close to Deerfield in SpecFp).  That is a good leg up on a market.   > In fact I get the Q > idea that a  present day Itanium is a very big cache module with a CPU burried  O > somewhere. I wonder what would happen if a Opteron would get that much cache.    	It wouldn't run very fast ;-).    > P > The Opteron, another nice topic. It seems this fall AMD will stop selling its R > 'normal' Athlons, and will only sell the Athlon 64. Thus 64 bit on the desktop, # > and not an Intel 64 bit in sight.  >   ; 	That's okay.  A nice niche for AMD.  Maybe they sell a few A 	to rabid gamers.  Maybe not.  Maybe someday they get a profit.    	Maybe not.   E 	By the way, why do IBM, Dell, HP, etc. insist on selling 4-way Xeons @ 	instead of 4-way Opteron's?  It isn't as if Opteron hasn't been 	out for a while.   K > You see what I am really worried about is that the Itanium will not be a  2 > success. That will leave HP without a processor.   	Oh it will be a success.    > R > Oh yes, and some time ago you wanted to know which HP rep told me that HP would Q > build Opteron systems. That was absolutely not true. Just a few weeks later we  R > could find the specs of this system in the HP web site. No wonder, this time HP R > management is right. If the Opteron is a success and HP has no Opteron systems, ' > HP will loose big market shares......  >   ? 	You are mixing up Opteron and A64.  A desktop is not a server.   F 	Don't worry about Opteron being a business server success.  You can't> 	make money selling Opterons.  The CPU price is too low.  LOL.   				Rob    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:38:28 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> 4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense. Message-ID: <URAPa.77$F44.49@news.cpqcorp.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message , news:1D2dnX6Cs_Xpw5OiXTWJjQ@metrocast.net...  " <Snip of the same old tired stuff>   > J > Wrong, Fred:  VMS's roadmap ends in 2005 (aren't HP roadmaps supposed to beH > 5-year projections?).  There may be arrows pointing forward to suggest thatI > *something* might occur later, but even the 'investigations' listed for  2005L > (all *hard* information stops in 2004, save for TCP/IP, RTR, and ACMS) are8 > explicitly stated *not* to be any kind of commitments. >   E There are roadmaps, and then there are roadmaps.  You see an external K rolling roadmap, and while I haven't looked at that one lately, I would not 0 be suprised if there were not a more recent one.  G But why debate this with you?  I'm not quite sure what your interest is $ aside from an attempt to spread FUD.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:09:04 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense, Message-ID: <3F0ED310.5010302@tsoft-inc.com>   Rob Young wrote:  U > In article <bekmbo$ipn$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:  >  > N >>And then suddenly we hear "Hallelujah, we have seen The Light. It is called S >>Itanium, and it will lead us to paradise". Now why should we believe that in the  F >>light of earlier statements by Compaq ? Were those statements lies ? >> >> > A > 	No.  That was what was believed up until the time they decided ? > 	otherwise.  Terry's piece is pretty clear.  High-level Alpha = > 	folks under heavy NDA were allowed to peak under the Intelc > 	Itanium covers.    N So, you get a peek at the claims of the competition, and you swallow it hook, M line, and sinker?  Sounds like a dumb bottom feeder to me.  Add to that that  O this is the same competition that has failed so spectacularly up to this point B$ in time.  Oh, they're so persuasive?  L Ok Rob, I have a hobby building Ultralight aircraft.  But, next week, (yes, I that's right, sign that 'heavy NDA' right there, in triplicate), I'll be tO producing FTL starships!  Take a peek!  Just line up right here and plunk your WO money down.  Forget about any other ships or shuttles, I'm gonna blow them all  E away.  Centauri system in 15 minutes, tops!  You betcha!  Guaranteed!'  . >  Watch Sun Microsystems.  Watch Sun over theC > 	next 3-5 years.  You will see a lot of bluster coming from them.PC > 	But price and performance will wrench Sun and cause a great dealn< > 	of pain.  IBM won't be immune.  Yes - it takes 64 ItaniumA > 	Madison CPUs in a SuperDome to match the 32 processor IBM tpmCc > 	(or come close).e    Q Scalability Rob!  History has shown that 2 bushel of CPUs doesn't give twice the eO performance.  Wonder how many of those 64 CPUs don't add a thing to the total? i@ Without the on-chip glue, I wonder how they got 64 CPUs to work.  O Also, there isn't really much yet other than published benchmarks.  Wonder how e1 well this EPIC miracle will do on real user apps?e  3 >  But that's okay, the list prices for the MadisonrE > 	are exactly 1/2 the Power CPU (and still make a good deal of moneyr= > 	selling them - You bet HP and Dell get sweetheart deals onnG > 	Itaniums).  That price curve is just getting started.  Itanium will tH > 	suck the air right out of Power and UltraSparc margins.  That is/was : > 	what Compaq was facing with Alpha - among other things.    M So you say, without any facts to back this up.  By the way Rob, send another (K payment on that Starship you ordered.  While we're on the topic, maybe you 7P should order another Starship.  That way you'll get where you're going twice as  fast!      > S >>And as Bill correctly states, the Itanium was years behind on schedule, and when  9 >>it was introduced it was a horrible flop. Also a fact !t >> > 3 > 	Just getting started.  Less than glorious start.e    O Uh, Rob, about your Starship, there's been a delay, and we're still limited to oP 40 MPH, but that's Ok, we're just getting started.  What?  Of course we'll work N out the bugs!  Just because we didn't get a good start, as we promised, is no 0 indicator of how we'll be doing in another week!     > R >>And the we were told, "The Alpha designers will help to make it a good and fast O >>CPU". The same guys who were so wrong (apparently) on their own CPU design ? B >>yeah that makes sense. >> >> > : > 	It is good and fast today, no matter how you splice it.    M See above comment about 'real' applications vs benchmarks.  You gonna try to e1 optimize for EPIC every little program you write?d     > L >>And then the performance of Itanium. I am not overwhelmed. It seems a new = >>Itanium is only faster because it gets more on-chip cache. L >> > H > 	That would be wrong.  Read some of the realworldtech.com discussions.C > 	It isn't just cache (certainly helps.  And who cares how you geteC > 	to the prom - you are there!)  Madison does 2000+ SpecFp and theaE > 	low-powered Deerfield will ensure Itanium has the best HPC part in ? > 	6-12 months.  So Itanium begins to dominate the HPC space inI> > 	a year (and no - Opteron clock cranking up won't even bringH > 	it close to Deerfield in SpecFp).  That is a good leg up on a market.    M Forget about Opteron Rob.  Where it will hurt Intel is in the volumn market.  Q Where did Intel make it's money?  Where did Intel hurt the competition?  What is eO the 800 pound gorilla market?  Opteron doesn't have to be concerned with IA-64.s     >  >>In fact I get the Q >>idea that a  present day Itanium is a very big cache module with a CPU burried uO >>somewhere. I wonder what would happen if a Opteron would get that much cache.  >> > ! > 	It wouldn't run very fast ;-).i    L Did you get that FACT at one of those Intel NDA sessions?  Could you please < quote a source for this FACT?  Inquiring minds want to know.     > P >>The Opteron, another nice topic. It seems this fall AMD will stop selling its R >>'normal' Athlons, and will only sell the Athlon 64. Thus 64 bit on the desktop, # >>and not an Intel 64 bit in sight.w >> >> > = > 	That's okay.  A nice niche for AMD.  Maybe they sell a few C > 	to rabid gamers.  Maybe not.  Maybe someday they get a profit.  u
 > 	Maybe not.     P Uh, Rob, where did Intel make all this money you've been heard to say that they P can 'throw' at IA-64 until it's a world beater?  Sorry, I didn't hear you.  Did Q you whisper 'the desktop'?  Where would Intel be without 'the desktop'?  Care to 0 hazard a guess?r    G > 	By the way, why do IBM, Dell, HP, etc. insist on selling 4-way XeonseB > 	instead of 4-way Opteron's?  It isn't as if Opteron hasn't been > 	out for a while.1    K Gee, how many times do I have to mention, THE SERVER MARKET IS IRRELEVANT! nN Didn't IA-32 make VAX, Alpha, MIPS, Sparc, and the rest just niche players in N the world of total CPU sales?  Care to explain how the desktop made Intel the F 800 pound gorilla, but how the desktop isn't relevant for anyone else?   > K >>You see what I am really worried about is that the Itanium will not be a :2 >>success. That will leave HP without a processor. >> >  > 	Oh it will be a success..    O Doesn't matter.  The desktop matters.  When Intel has to compete (and it won't  O be with IA-64) on the desktop, then the success of IA-64 will no longer matter.t     > R >>Oh yes, and some time ago you wanted to know which HP rep told me that HP would Q >>build Opteron systems. That was absolutely not true. Just a few weeks later we bR >>could find the specs of this system in the HP web site. No wonder, this time HP R >>management is right. If the Opteron is a success and HP has no Opteron systems, ' >>HP will loose big market shares......5 >> >> > A > 	You are mixing up Opteron and A64.  A desktop is not a server.a > H > 	Don't worry about Opteron being a business server success.  You can't@ > 	make money selling Opterons.  The CPU price is too low.  LOL.    P Once again Rob, will you tell me where Intel got all this money you insist they 7 have?  Don't whisper, speak up, we all know the answer.g     Dave     -- m4 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: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:56:42 -0400t* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense2 Message-ID: <EymdnW6gaLPYQ5OiXTWJig@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:pBx3zhfXrEpY@eisner.encompasserve.org...m> > In article <bekmbo$ipn$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes: >, > >eH > > And then suddenly we hear "Hallelujah, we have seen The Light. It is calledH > > Itanium, and it will lead us to paradise". Now why should we believe that in the H > > light of earlier statements by Compaq ? Were those statements lies ? > >q >t@ > No.  That was what was believed up until the time they decided> > otherwise.  Terry's piece is pretty clear.  High-level Alpha< > folks under heavy NDA were allowed to peak under the Intel > Itanium covers.e  H But not, to all appearances, high-level Alpha *chip* folk who would have2 been qualified to assess what was being presented.  . >  Watch Sun Microsystems.  Watch Sun over the > next 3-5 years.t  K Why?  Are you suggesting that their systems are equivalent to Alphas?  ThatsB seems to differ markedly from your opinion prior to the Alphacide.  1   You will see a lot of bluster coming from them.rB > But price and performance will wrench Sun and cause a great deal
 > of pain.  L So far, Sun appears more than able to meet Itanic on processor pricing - andI since they can sell an entire workstation for under $1,000 that situation.J will continue even after the introduction of the 1 GHz/1.5 MB cache Itanic at around $800.>  1   IBM won't be immune.  Yes - it takes 64 Itaniuml@ > Madison CPUs in a SuperDome to match the 32 processor IBM tpmCD > (or come close).  But that's okay, the list prices for the MadisonD > are exactly 1/2 the Power CPU (and still make a good deal of money< > selling them - You bet HP and Dell get sweetheart deals on > Itaniums).  I That might be significant if the CPUs were the dominant cost component ofiH large systems, Rob.  But they aren't.  Want to bet that HP's margin on aF 64-processor SuperDome is as high as IBM's is on a 32-processor (on 16 chips) POWER4+?/  F And IBM doesn't have to worry about any 'sweetheart deals' on POWERxs.  9   That price curve is just getting started.  Itanium willo9 > suck the air right out of Power and UltraSparc margins.l  J You can't say "Just wait for Madison!" any more, Rob.  What are we waiting for *this* time?  
   That is/wass9 > what Compaq was facing with Alpha - among other things.   L The only significant problem Compaq was facing with Alpha was its monumentalH incompetence in handling it after Pfeiffer got ousted.  We don't have toC guess at Itanic performance any more, Rob:  it's right there in theRG benchmarks, and it doesn't stack up all that well even against EV7, lete
 alone EV8.  L An EV8 even a full process generation behind Itanic would have handled 2+ toA 4 times as much server load due to SMT.  Or don't you believe therF simulations run by the very same team in whose hands Intel has had theH confidence to place Itanic's future?  Couple the resulting need for onlyI one-half to one-quarter as many processors with the dramatically superiordJ scaling of the EV7/EV8 archtecture compared with a dinosaur like SuperDomeH and the significantly less expensive boards made possible by the on-chipG clue for both memory and inter-processor communication and you have oneoL potent iceberg (with which to sink a ship that only had enough fuel for half the ocean crossing anyway).l   ...h   > I > > And then the performance of Itanium. I am not overwhelmed. It seems a  new > > > Itanium is only faster because it gets more on-chip cache. >i > That would be wrong.  > You are correct, sir:  it's also because of strenuous compilerI optimizations - otherwise, it wouldn't look all that good even *with* all G that cache (and in fact doesn't unless you use HP-UX for your INT-style- processing).  2 >  Read some of the realworldtech.com discussions.B > It isn't just cache (certainly helps.  And who cares how you get: > to the prom - you are there!)  Madison does 2000+ SpecFp  G Oh - from your comments about pricing above, I thought you were talkingtK about something commercially significant.  Cray had *great* FP performance,h4 but I can't recall all that much volume as a result.    and theD > low-powered Deerfield will ensure Itanium has the best HPC part in > 6-12 months.  H Hmmm.  Since Deerfield will have significantly less performance than theI higher-end Madisons (and POWER4+s), you can't be talking about raw SPECfptJ scores.  And since Opteron (and Pentium, if 32 bits will do) will offer atG least comparable performance to Deerfield, in a comparably-priced part,BK using (at least in Opteron's and POWER4+'s case) at most as much power, youn% can't be talking about those metrics..  7 Perhaps you're just talking through your hat, as usual.i  0   So Itanium begins to dominate the HPC space in= > a year (and no - Opteron clock cranking up won't even brings# > it close to Deerfield in SpecFp).t  J Do you even roughly estimate the numbers before spewing such garbage, Rob?  K Deerfield runs at the same speed as McKinley with half as much cache.  ThatcE means that it will generate SPECfp scores in the 1260 - 1270 area, oroI perhaps a bit higher if a year's additional compiler development can helpo	 them out.   L The 1.8 GHz Opteron already generates SPECfp scores of 1122/1219.  That putsJ the 2 GHz Opteron - which reportedly will appear in less than a month now,E according to Register and Inquirer leaks (some Far East site has alsocJ released some benchmark figures for a 2 GHz Athlon64 running at 1.44v., soH the faster, lower-power process appears to be starting to produce usableJ chips) - easily at par with Deerfield, even without the additional Opteron0 clock-rate boosts scheduled for later this year.   ...   F > By the way, why do IBM, Dell, HP, etc. insist on selling 4-way XeonsA > instead of 4-way Opteron's?  It isn't as if Opteron hasn't been  > out for a while.  H Earth to Rob:  4-processor Opteron boxes (and the MPUs in them) appearedJ this month.  IBM announced its 2-processor 1U Opteron boxes last month forK shipment this year - which means they'll ship sooner after Opteron's launch.B date than IBM's Itanic2 boxes shipped after Itanic2's launch date.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:04:20 GMTF9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>m4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense. Message-ID: <8eBPa.80$w74.64@news.cpqcorp.net>  + "Dirk Munk" <munk@home.nl> wrote in message., news:bekmbo$ipn$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...K > Well Fred, I suppose you are telling the truth as you see it, and Bill ism" > telling the truth as he sees it. >o > What do I know ? >oJ > When the first Alpha was announced (150 MHz) we were told that the Alpha wouldeD > reach 1 GHz in 2000. At that time 60 MHz Pentiums could be used as barbecues ifI > they did not explode. There was a 1 GHz Alpha around 2000, maybe not in  > production but it was there. >f  + Looks like both predictions were wrong, eh?,  K > We could always rely on the predictions of the Digital CPU designers, anda thee; > Alpha was without any doubt the fastest processor around.  >t  K Hmmm.  I guess you never counted the EV6 revision numbers.  But yes, it was.6 always near or at the top - for a 64-bit CPU at least.  L > We were given a great white paper telling us in detail the benefits of the AlphaaD > design over the Itanium, with a road map up till EV12. Based on my previousL > experiences I believed (and still believe) that white paper. Do you have aD > similar white paper telling us the opposite (no marketing blahblah please)? >gG > We were also given solemn commitments to the Alpha from your own Vice 
 President. >s > Do you deny these facts ?  >t  K Deny what?  That given time and money that Alpha could have continued to benI competetive?  Or that everyone here was committed to Alpha?  Of course wem were.-  F > And then suddenly we hear "Hallelujah, we have seen The Light. It is calledK > Itanium, and it will lead us to paradise". Now why should we believe thata in theF > light of earlier statements by Compaq ? Were those statements lies ? >   K Or perhaps that in the light of realistic information, it was clear that to J make Alpha competetive that we would not be able to build a successful andA profitable product.  You keep confusing the theoretical technical E goodness/coolness of Alpha with our ability to build a growing and/or-I profitable business with it.  I'd be happy as a clam if we had stuck with 9 Alpha, and had a business model that allowed us to do it.   I > And as Bill correctly states, the Itanium was years behind on schedule,r and when9 > it was introduced it was a horrible flop. Also a fact !: > L > And the we were told, "The Alpha designers will help to make it a good and fastL > CPU". The same guys who were so wrong (apparently) on their own CPU design ?f > yeah that makes sense. >y  L As RR said "There you go again".  Stop confusing the technical capability ofK Alpha, with it's success or profitability.  The question is how much money, C how much time, and what is the return on the investment?  It's coolsK technology.  But costly.  Is the performance margin wide enough that peopleo; will pay a high enough premium for it over the competition?s  K > And then the performance of Itanium. I am not overwhelmed. It seems a newrJ > Itanium is only faster because it gets more on-chip cache. In fact I get the H > idea that a  present day Itanium is a very big cache module with a CPU burried1H > somewhere. I wonder what would happen if a Opteron would get that much cache. >   J I like these "it's only faster because" insanities.  It is usually someoneL trying to justify why they don't like something.  Pentiums are "only faster"J because of long pipelines, if they had fewer, gee *then* we could compete.H So, you are underwhelmed by the highest performance numbers for a 64-bitH chip in SPEC?  Or by the benchmarks that are comming out validating it's performance?  K > The Opteron, another nice topic. It seems this fall AMD will stop sellingp itsgH > 'normal' Athlons, and will only sell the Athlon 64. Thus 64 bit on the desktop,# > and not an Intel 64 bit in sight.d >g  G Yup.  With most of them running Windows XP, and not the 64-bit variety.nE With nary a "name" vendor signed up to create those bet-your-businessl servers.  J > You see what I am really worried about is that the Itanium will not be a2 > success. That will leave HP without a processor. >   H Ain't gonna happen.  Itanium is here for the long haul.  The *only* onesJ predicting it's demise are competetors (really?) or the ISA wonks who just" can't bring themselves to like it.   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 12:17:28 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)V4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense3 Message-ID: <qvOg80Y+kTNL@eisner.encompasserve.org>d  _ In article <EymdnW6gaLPYQ5OiXTWJig@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:e > M > Why?  Are you suggesting that their systems are equivalent to Alphas?  That.D > seems to differ markedly from your opinion prior to the Alphacide.  F    SPARC's been a bit behind the curve on performance for a long time.G    Sun doesn't sell many SPARC on performance, they sell a lot of them j    on system (not chip) price.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:10:43 -0400V* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alph.2 Message-ID: <rk2dnUK7eb6d_pOiU-KYvA@metrocast.net>  > "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> wrote in message( news:bekh2j$m0$1@titan.btinternet.com...
 > Yeah right!o > K > And Intel were ready to launch the KILLER chip in 45 mins if Alpha didn't  > bend over? >t( > (Uranium wafers from Niger apparently)  I A particularly apt comparison.  Too bad you don't seem to understand why.u   >   > Where do you people come from?  ? Apparently a considerably better-informed location than you do.f   >yG > I for one am over-the-moon that VMS is being ported to Itanium AND SO)L > QUICKLY! (I'm even more excited that the latest Itanium version is gettingL > favourable press. At least over here.) But yes, I would have much preferedL > it if Alpha had of continued as an alternative, and I find it particularlyF > gauling that Shannon goes on about late delivery being a problem for Alpha, > given the Itanium slippage!n  I That's a start, anyway - but the lies are just one aspect of the problem.l  J Leaving aside lies and treachery, the rest of the problem is that, despiteI two years of neglect that never should have been allowed to happen in thegI first place (Pfeiffer had clearly wanted to proceed full steam ahead withhI Alpha, and Capellas clearly did exactly the reverse), even as of June 24,eL 2001 Alpha not only retained far more immediate revenue and profit potentialE if marketed but far more long-term potential to grab major upper-end,mL high-margin market share for Compaq.  The projections available at that timeK indicated this, the subsequent two years' worth of experience with both EV7eK and Itanic support those projections, and the fact that Intel appears to be'J depending 100% on the Alpha team to create a better successor to Itanic inI 2006-7 pretty clearly proves that Itanic had nowhere promising to go withn' Itanic as of the date of the Alphacide.o   >t? > Whatever people have to do to pay the rent is their business.o  J Not when they break very specific commitments to others in the process, itK isn't.  And not when they lie in attempts to avoid being called to task fort such treachery.a  K Compaq *specifically* encouraged their customers to commit to Alpha for thetL long term by guaranteeing Compaq's own long-term commitment to enhancing theH platform.  Breaking those commitments without trying to renegotiate themH first with the people to whom they had been made would have been dubiousH enough even if Compaq had had compelling reasons to do so; breaking themK *without* any such compelling reasons - and then lying to try to cover thate up - is even worse.e  	  AlastairlF > Campbell does what he does with the contempt that we all deserve andK > "others" do what they have to do. But this is history! Let's all get overl > it.w  K So you're effectively saying that Tony Blair should not be held responsibleeD for lying to the British public because the Iraq war is now history?/ Perhaps your attitude needs a bit more thought.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:32:17 +0100h/ From: Tim ffrench-Lynch <nospam@baesystems.com>r Subject: Re: KVM switchesC. Message-ID: <3F0E9231.51F0C137@baesystems.com>   Ken Fairfield wrote:3 > Great!  Waiting with bated breath, as they say...e  G The Adder Omega KVM arrived yesterday. I think it works, but I'm havingnF sufficient problems with my Alphastation 200 4/166 that it's difficult to be conclusive.   F This is an old computer being bought back into use after a year or so.G There seemed last night an overheating problem, once warm the boot SROM G failed checksum. This is obviously not related to the KVM but does makesF life more difficult. I've never seen my PC as hot inside as last nightE so this was extreme conditions. The system is on its side so that may  not help either.  D I'm still at basic terminal level - no X-windows yet so I don't knowD about the mouse and any keyboard problems could be down not having aA fully working system as yet. I'm using a cheap (4.95) no name PCg	 keyboard.k  F I found that the keyboard worked far better than with the previous twoH previous cheap KVMs. I did find trouble after a control-Y, once only theE return key worked, the other time the return key worked and I got odd F cursor movement from other keys but no suggestion of any characters on hitting return.   G Video seemed good quality (but then even my 20 KVM managed that) and IrH haven't hooked up the sound yet. Cables are good and heavy, much thickerF than with the cheap KVMs I've used. The device has flashable ROM and IF like the ability to switch KVM but not sound - just what I'm after for' BBC Radio 4 over the internet on my PC.e  F I summary, it seems to work but my AlphaStation is really not the bestF one to test it with. Two previous KVMs were discarded in minutes so my results do seem encouraging.  . Once I'm fully up and running I'll post again.    > > It looked to me like the Omega is more capable than the GEM,= > yet the GEM is more expensive.  Any hint why that might be?)  G The Omega is plenty solid enough for home use or putting out of the waycF in a work environment but it probably isn't as robust as the GEM which may(?) have a metal case.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:36:00 +0200i From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>. Subject: Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME& Message-ID: <3F0E5AD0.6030601@home.nl>   That is a nice feature Guy.a  P However there is anothere feature I would like to see in the time lexicals, and 6 that is a way to do some kind of timezone calculation.  L Perhaps it is possible to extend f$time, since it only has a empty argument.  M Something like f$time("UTC") that will give me the UTC system time. Since my  O system is running in the MET DST zone, that would be 2 hours less then the the . normal system time.q   $ write sys$output f$time()W 11-JUL-2003 08:30:36.52%    $ write sys$output f$time("UTC") 11-JUL-2003 06:30:36.52l  L The basic rules for these calculations are already hidden somewhere in VMS..   Regards, Dirk       Guy Peleg wrote: > Hello DCL gurus, > I > I thought you might be interested  to know that with the next Alpha VMSs$ > version V7.3-2, we will ship a new  > lexical function F$DELTA_TIME. > F > F$DELTA returns the difference between a beginning and end time. The% > first argument is an absolute time,5F > the second argument can be absolute or delta time. See the following
 > example. >  > BLUSKY> start=f$time() > BLUSKY> end=f$time() > BLUSKY> sh sym start% >   START = "10-JUL-2003 17:38:06.82"  > BLUSKY> sh sym end# >   END = "10-JUL-2003 17:38:30.64"h- > BLUSKY> write sys$output f$delta(start,end)5 >    0 00:00:23.82 > * > No it won't be backported to VAX 5.5-2 . > & > As usual, your comments are welcome. >  > Guy Peleg, > OpenVMS Engineeringe >  >    ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:48:17 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)s. Subject: Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME3 Message-ID: <MocqtC0gjxhK@eisner.encompasserve.org>g  K In article <3F0D7BFC.383CB534@hp.com>, Guy Peleg <guy.peleg@hp.com> writes:  > Hello DCL gurus, > I > I thought you might be interested  to know that with the next Alpha VMSi$ > version V7.3-2, we will ship a new  > lexical function F$DELTA_TIME. >   E    I expect 7.3-2 is Alpha only.  Is there a time frame for a 7.4 forh&    VAXen to expect this to show up in?      8.1 or 8.2 for IA64?s   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:51:26 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)t. Subject: Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME3 Message-ID: <ZrDF6FPiKW8o@eisner.encompasserve.org>n  [ In article <3F0E0834.3CC0D067@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:  > A > ...should work just fine. Well, except that the hour field gets   > zero-padded to three digits...  C    Must be a bug.  We only have those really long days when someonea    makes us use Windows.   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:52:48 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) . Subject: Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME3 Message-ID: <E5NgMP+OKRxT@eisner.encompasserve.org>-  B In article <03071022295619@antinode.org>, sms@antinode.org writes:  I >    Without thinking very hard, I can't see a reason for NODE::.TYPE, orSG > anything else with a hole in the middle.  I always seem to want NAME,< > TYPE.n  H    I can, and any real improvements VMS style would not assume we can't.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:53:02 +0200 $ From: Michael Unger <unger@decus.de>. Subject: Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME9 Message-ID: <bemgdp$6fgmm$1@ID-152801.news.uni-berlin.de>t  6 On 11-Jul-2003 03:14, Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER wrote:  M > In article <3F0D7BFC.383CB534@hp.com>, Guy Peleg <guy.peleg@hp.com> writes:lI >>I thought you might be interested  to know that with the next Alpha VMSm$ >>version V7.3-2, we will ship a new  >>lexical function F$DELTA_TIME. > . > Good. I can think of one or two uses for it. > I > While we are on time and lexical functions: Can we also have a F$CVTIMEIO > improvement to convert COMPARISON/ISO timeformat to ABSOLUTE/VMS timeformat ?aK > Converting only from ABSOLUTE (and DELTA) time is sometimes not enough...p   Agreed!h   Michael    -- a  @ Please do *not* send "Security Patch Notifications" or "SecurityA Updates"; this system isn't running a Micro$oft operating system. = And don't annoy me <mailto:postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> please ;-)c   ------------------------------  + Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:12:38 +0000 (UTC)w- From: lewis@spyder.mitre.org (Keith A. Lewis) . Subject: Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME. Message-ID: <bemnlm$bgn$1@newslocal.mitre.org>   david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk (David Webb) writes in article <bek1vj$c0e$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk> dated Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:50:11 +0000 (UTC):9 >Alpha2:a = f$cvtime("''f$time()' +6-4:0:0.0","ABSOLUTE")P  I Hahaha, that must be the one syntax I didn't try.  Looks like DCL already L does what I requested.  Thanks for the info, David, and thanks again for the new feature, Guy!   + --Keith Lewis              klewis$mitre.orgh> The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:03:34 +0300t" From: Guy Peleg <guy.peleg@hp.com>. Subject: Re: New lexical function F$DELTA_TIME& Message-ID: <3F0EDFD6.C87CE53C@hp.com>  C It's already in V8.1 and V8.2. V8.2 will  be a VAX release as well.a   Bob Koehler wrote:  M > In article <3F0D7BFC.383CB534@hp.com>, Guy Peleg <guy.peleg@hp.com> writes:  > > Hello DCL gurus, > >nK > > I thought you might be interested  to know that with the next Alpha VMSl& > > version V7.3-2, we will ship a new" > > lexical function F$DELTA_TIME. > >  >eG >    I expect 7.3-2 is Alpha only.  Is there a time frame for a 7.4 ford( >    VAXen to expect this to show up in? >e >    8.1 or 8.2 for IA64?    ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:46:26 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)l$ Subject: Re: OpenVMS I64, a proposal3 Message-ID: <CArkU3usYwJW@eisner.encompasserve.org>   n In article <YkjPa.4351$m53.2829@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes: > I think it's a fine idea.t > N > I think it's perhaps a bit too early in the process for this to be possible. > M > I think someone should keep this on the back burner, but target it for, say I > January '04 or so.  Perhaps somehow, someone, can come up with a couple F > systems that maybe get managed in some DECUS-like way, with the V8.1
 > release.  @    Thanks, that's exactly the kind of response I was hoping for!   ------------------------------  ! Date: Fri, 11 Jul 03 08:40:34 GMTu From: jmfbahciv@aol.com $ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates+ Message-ID: <bem4ld$j7r$1@bob.news.rcn.net>e  8 In article <%goPa.30441$C43.27865@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>,-    bob smith <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net> wrote:i! >healyzh@NOaracnetSPAM.com wrote:aC >> In alt.sys.pdp11 Dennis Grevenstein <dennis@pcde.inka.de> wrote:w >> a >>>OS-11		1972 >>>RT11 V1		1973 >>>RT11 V2		1974 >>>RT11 V2C	1976 >> n >> eL >> Interesting...  This means that the dates for revisions in the copy of a  V2C-K >> manual I have must loosly translate to releases of RT-11.  This is what m It/ >> was suspecting, but couldn't really believe.p >> OJ >> Is OS-11 related to RT-11?  I think this is the first I've heard of it. >> b
 >> 			Zane >> .% >my memory is hazy, and maybe faulty.X >BUT....F >os8 experienced some success, and there is some distant memory of an D >OS11.  Just like RTS8 was discussed as being labled RT8...but some G >squabble seemed to make it change to RTS...but I could be wrong. Mybe t >Barb recalls all those fights.   > I wasn't involved in -11 land politics.  I just typed in code,= diagnostics, docs and specs for them.  John Everett did some a8 of the coding early on.  He may recall mini naming wars.  < OS is too generic.  As a guess, I'd say that the SPDs needed< to be more specific about what the function of the operating system was for.      /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.r   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:34:48 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)-$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates3 Message-ID: <LCeL+DmnR9gW@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  k In article <5vrrgvg3h15mv1te93sjptlgt7eikkph1d@4ax.com>, Randy Park <rjpark@mindspring.nospaam.com> writes:n > G > I started with RSTS/E V6A.  All variables in BASIC-PLUS were a single.. > letter optionally follwed by a single digit.  @    For some strange reason that was the early BASIC standard for:    variable names.  Made 6 character Fortran IV look good.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:15:03 -0700a0 From: Randy Park <rjpark@mindspring.nospaam.com>$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates8 Message-ID: <adotgvse2kj54pl6ftnt7564km78idh43q@4ax.com>  F On 11 Jul 2003 07:34:48 -0500, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:  l >In article <5vrrgvg3h15mv1te93sjptlgt7eikkph1d@4ax.com>, Randy Park <rjpark@mindspring.nospaam.com> writes: >> iH >> I started with RSTS/E V6A.  All variables in BASIC-PLUS were a single/ >> letter optionally follwed by a single digit.u >lA >   For some strange reason that was the early BASIC standard forb; >   variable names.  Made 6 character Fortran IV look good.k  F BASIC was created at Dartmouth College by Kenemy & Kurtz as a teachingE aid, hoping it would be easier than other languages to learn.  I oncehB had a copy of their published text book.  The short variable namesD were probably for simplicity in writing the first BASIC interpreter.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:53:59 -0500u+ From: "John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>a$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates- Message-ID: <bemr5j$7ua@library1.airnews.net>c  = "Randy Park" <rjpark@mindspring.nospaam.com> wrote in messagea2 news:adotgvse2kj54pl6ftnt7564km78idh43q@4ax.com...H > On 11 Jul 2003 07:34:48 -0500, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org > (Bob Koehler) wrote: >bF > >In article <5vrrgvg3h15mv1te93sjptlgt7eikkph1d@4ax.com>, Randy Park' <rjpark@mindspring.nospaam.com> writes:o > >>J > >> I started with RSTS/E V6A.  All variables in BASIC-PLUS were a single1 > >> letter optionally follwed by a single digit.n > >kC > >   For some strange reason that was the early BASIC standard for = > >   variable names.  Made 6 character Fortran IV look good.e >tH > BASIC was created at Dartmouth College by Kenemy & Kurtz as a teachingG > aid, hoping it would be easier than other languages to learn.  I oncecD > had a copy of their published text book.  The short variable namesF > were probably for simplicity in writing the first BASIC interpreter.  J Somewhere, I saw an interview with Kemeny.  That first "interpreter" was aH full-up compiler with an interactive editor wrapped around it.  Everyone+ else, for some reason, hacked interpreters.y   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:58:36 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)t Subject: Re: Pearl Users3 Message-ID: <jk4Qvv2X3x9R@eisner.encompasserve.org>t  U In article <3F0D9DFC.8CB8FA99@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:s > E > I don't know Pearl at all, but it seems to be very popular with COV  > folks.= > Can anyone give me a brief list of its advantages over DCL?h  =    Lots of eunichs origin web stuff can be ported in a hurry. F    Eunichs folks like to use it because it handles string manipulationG    better than most of the alternatives.  Not really great, but lackingw    in competition.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:25:49 -0400h8 From: Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> Subject: Re: Pearl Users' Message-ID: <3F0EBADD.933593D1@vcu.edu>   G it also handles lots of other stuff, depending on what modules you loadoF up, for instance if you load up dbi and dbd modules for your database,F you can wind up with a nice front-end to your db, that's web-capable. E load another module, you can massage text as well as TPU, (see text::  xxx modules on cpan)  F and there are hundreds of modules avail.  now, the caveat is they wereE written by lots of people, with varying degrees of success...  ;-D (it did not say perl was perfect..)    Jima   Bob Koehler wrote: > W > In article <3F0D9DFC.8CB8FA99@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:i > >tG > > I don't know Pearl at all, but it seems to be very popular with COVn
 > > folks.? > > Can anyone give me a brief list of its advantages over DCL?e > ? >    Lots of eunichs origin web stuff can be ported in a hurry. H >    Eunichs folks like to use it because it handles string manipulationI >    better than most of the alternatives.  Not really great, but lackingh >    in competition.   -- 4F "4,000 years ago I made a mistake."  Elrond Half-Elven, in "Fellowship of the Ring"  F "I try not to be right any more than necessary". -- Larry Wall, author of the Perl Language   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:22:39 -0400e8 From: Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> Subject: Re: Pearl Users' Message-ID: <3F0EBA1F.2702AA88@vcu.edu>o  & There was a language called Pearl???     jim    Larry Kilgallen wrote: > W > In article <3F0D9DFC.8CB8FA99@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:s > > G > > I don't know Pearl at all, but it seems to be very popular with COVc
 > > folks. > C > Pearl was a programming language on the VAX (and other machines),d0 > possibly popular with European academic types. > ? > > Can anyone give me a brief list of its advantages over DCL?t > G > Perl is a language (I believe interpreted) currently in vogue on many  > platforms. > A > If the "popular with COV folks" comment is based on a survey ofCA > newsgroup topics, beware, because "Pearl" is a term used by Sue,B > Skonetski for daily announcements of VMS news items.  That is asB > in "Pearls of Wisdom" having nothing to do with either the older7 > or the newer programming language pronounced "pearl".S   -- VF "4,000 years ago I made a mistake."  Elrond Half-Elven, in "Fellowship of the Ring"  F "I try not to be right any more than necessary". -- Larry Wall, author of the Perl Language   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 08:38:21 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)I Subject: Re: Pearl Users3 Message-ID: <4z9hVctlmk5F@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <3F0EBA1F.2702AA88@vcu.edu>, Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> writes:   <top posting corrected>A   > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> cX >> In article <3F0D9DFC.8CB8FA99@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: >> >H >> > I don't know Pearl at all, but it seems to be very popular with COV >> > folks.. >>  D >> Pearl was a programming language on the VAX (and other machines),1 >> possibly popular with European academic types.i   <top posting corrected>a  ( > There was a language called Pearl???    ' Yes, that is what I said (well, typed). D It was a DEC layered product on VAX, but might have been based on anM implementation from elsewhere (as were DEC Fortran and PL/I implementations).n   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:59:54 -0400n8 From: Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> Subject: Re: Pearl Users' Message-ID: <3F0EC2DA.DC7EAC9A@vcu.edu>h   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > d > In article <3F0EBA1F.2702AA88@vcu.edu>, Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> writes: >  > <top posting corrected>  >  > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > >>Z > >> In article <3F0D9DFC.8CB8FA99@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes: > >> >J > >> > I don't know Pearl at all, but it seems to be very popular with COV
 > >> > folks.H > >>F > >> Pearl was a programming language on the VAX (and other machines),3 > >> possibly popular with European academic types.g >  > <top posting corrected>f > ( > > There was a language called Pearl??? > ) > Yes, that is what I said (well, typed). F > It was a DEC layered product on VAX, but might have been based on anO > implementation from elsewhere (as were DEC Fortran and PL/I implementations).s  G ok. bottom posting now.. (thanks for just doing it, and not commenting,r I think that would cause more compliance)  G ok, I'll bite... what was it like? like perl, cobol, basic, or snobol4?y -- dF "4,000 years ago I made a mistake."  Elrond Half-Elven, in "Fellowship of the Ring"  F "I try not to be right any more than necessary". -- Larry Wall, author of the Perl Language   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 09:30:06 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)y Subject: Re: Pearl Users3 Message-ID: <TO6TGgBG2xr+@eisner.encompasserve.org>   b In article <3F0EC2DA.DC7EAC9A@vcu.edu>, Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> writes:  I > ok, I'll bite... what was it like? like perl, cobol, basic, or snobol4?c  F My familiarity with Pearl is seeing it on product lists, not using it.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:47:24 +0100 5 From: "Robert A.M. van Lopik" <lopik@mail.telepac.pt>0 Subject: Re: Pearl Users9 Message-ID: <bemion$6u5vk$1@ID-191217.news.uni-berlin.de>h  E "Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery" <jpagnew@vcu.edu> wrote in messaget! news:3F0EC2DA.DC7EAC9A@vcu.edu...m > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > L > > In article <3F0EBA1F.2702AA88@vcu.edu>, Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> writes:P > >d > > <top posting corrected>n > >  > > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > >>< > > >> In article <3F0D9DFC.8CB8FA99@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:o > > >> >L > > >> > I don't know Pearl at all, but it seems to be very popular with COV > > >> > folks.S > > >>H > > >> Pearl was a programming language on the VAX (and other machines),5 > > >> possibly popular with European academic types.o > >E > > <top posting corrected>  > >g* > > > There was a language called Pearl??? > >g+ > > Yes, that is what I said (well, typed).oH > > It was a DEC layered product on VAX, but might have been based on an? > > implementation from elsewhere (as were DEC Fortran and PL/I  implementations).  >nI > ok. bottom posting now.. (thanks for just doing it, and not commenting,o > I think that would > cause more compliance) >rI > ok, I'll bite... what was it like? like perl, cobol, basic, or snobol4?  > --I Starting with a 1985 copy of a book called "The DEC Dictionnary", I foundaI that PEARL is an acronym for "Process and Experiment Automation Real-timed@ Language" . Googling on from that point you find something like:G <language> (PEARL) A real-time language for programming process control K systems, widely used in Europe. Size and complexity exceeds Ada. Defined ine DIN 66253 Teil 2.    That should be enough-      	 greetingsr  
 rob van lopik    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:25:05 -0400d8 From: Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> Subject: Re: Pearl Users' Message-ID: <3F0ED6D1.72B753F6@vcu.edu>t   "Robert A.M. van Lopik" wrote: > G > "Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery" <jpagnew@vcu.edu> wrote in messagee# > news:3F0EC2DA.DC7EAC9A@vcu.edu...) > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > >pN > > > In article <3F0EBA1F.2702AA88@vcu.edu>, Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery > <jpagnew@vcu.edu> writes:r > > >i > > > <top posting corrected>r > > >  > > > > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > > >>> > > > >> In article <3F0D9DFC.8CB8FA99@pacbell.net>, Don Sykes! > <anonymous@pacbell.net> writes:h
 > > > >> >N > > > >> > I don't know Pearl at all, but it seems to be very popular with COV > > > >> > folks.l > > > >>J > > > >> Pearl was a programming language on the VAX (and other machines),7 > > > >> possibly popular with European academic types.0 > > >c > > > <top posting corrected>b > > >c, > > > > There was a language called Pearl??? > > >n- > > > Yes, that is what I said (well, typed).PJ > > > It was a DEC layered product on VAX, but might have been based on anA > > > implementation from elsewhere (as were DEC Fortran and PL/Ip > implementations).. > >mK > > ok. bottom posting now.. (thanks for just doing it, and not commenting,r > > I think that would > > cause more compliance) > >rK > > ok, I'll bite... what was it like? like perl, cobol, basic, or snobol4?  > > --K > Starting with a 1985 copy of a book called "The DEC Dictionnary", I foundsK > that PEARL is an acronym for "Process and Experiment Automation Real-timeaB > Language" . Googling on from that point you find something like:I > <language> (PEARL) A real-time language for programming process controlcM > systems, widely used in Europe. Size and complexity exceeds Ada. Defined ine > DIN 66253 Teil 2.F >  > That should be enoughs >  > greetingss >  > rob van lopikg  + It is!!!  Thanks, Rob!!  and happy friday..d -- cF "4,000 years ago I made a mistake."  Elrond Half-Elven, in "Fellowship of the Ring"  F "I try not to be right any more than necessary". -- Larry Wall, author of the Perl Language   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:13:07 +01001- From: "Steve Spires" <Steve.Spires@torex.com> ! Subject: RE: Pearl Users[Scanned] E Message-ID: <91947A84607D9D48B8E674A5FAB54DA68545E1@tahiti.tinuk.com>i   I believe she's a singer?e   Steve Spires Technical Consultant Torex Health [P](44)01295 274388o [F](44)01295 275131e www.torex.com=20   > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Young=20 >=20   [cut...]  , > 	Pearl must be Perl's cousin or something. >=20   [cut...]   ------------------------------   Date: 11 Jul 03 16:39:14 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture)t! Subject: RE: Pearl Users[Scanned]n) Message-ID: <MZoe3I8$iiK1@elias.decus.ch>b  u In article <91947A84607D9D48B8E674A5FAB54DA68545E1@tahiti.tinuk.com>, "Steve Spires" <Steve.Spires@torex.com> writes:  > I believe she's a singer?  >    Beat me to it!   >  >> -----Original Message-----c >> From: Rob Young=20n >>=20e > 
 > [cut...] > - >> 	Pearl must be Perl's cousin or something.-   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:49:04 +0100r- From: "Steve Spires" <Steve.Spires@torex.com>:! Subject: RE: Pearl Users[Scanned]kE Message-ID: <91947A84607D9D48B8E674A5FAB54DA68545E4@tahiti.tinuk.com>   @ Isn't Pearl a LISP implementation? ISTR it when I was 'Lisping'.   Steve Spires Technical Consultant Torex Health [P](44)01295 274388t [F](44)01295 275131l www.torex.com=20   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: Larry Kilgallen [mailto:Kilgallen@SpamCop.net]=20e > Sent: 11 July 2003 15:30 > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com # > Subject: Re: Pearl Users[Scanned]e >=20 >=20@ > In article <3F0EC2DA.DC7EAC9A@vcu.edu>, Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV=20( > Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu> writes: >=20E > > ok, I'll bite... what was it like? like perl, cobol, basic, or=20y > > snobol4? >=20H > My familiarity with Pearl is seeing it on product lists, not using it. >=20 >=20 >=20   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:12:13 -0400u* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>. Subject: Portents of itanium death - revisited2 Message-ID: <8ECdnTrmnMU1NJOiXTWJiQ@metrocast.net>  C Just to bring things up to date, a month ago yesterday Rob made the K following statement with respect to the performance of the forth-coming new) XeonMPs on the TPC-C benchmark:   H "Now it isn't rocket science to presume that a 40% increase in CPU speed) will translate in quite a bit more tpmC."e  D I chose to question that presumption, but Rob, as usual, wasn't very
 receptive.  L There has been a Dell TPC-C submission for the new boxes up for a while now,H but I've waited a 'decent' amount of time to see if any more appeared toG give a more complete picture.  However, no one else seems to think it's K worth bothering to make a submission, so I guess it's time for a reckoning.o  E The new 2.8 GHz XeonMP score is 84595 - a bare 8% improvement over aneG identical Dell box with 2 GHz XeonMPs despite the 40% increase in clockiG rate.  It does marginally beat the 4-processor 1.8 GHz Opteron score ofdJ 82226, which might be considered some kind of minimal victory if it didn'tD cost 45% more than the Opteron system and hadn't benefited from HP's! extensive TPC-C tuning expertise.r   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 09:06:37 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)d2 Subject: Re: Portents of itanium death - revisited3 Message-ID: <aHaH74UVFw7y@eisner.encompasserve.org>i  _ In article <8ECdnTrmnMU1NJOiXTWJiQ@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:w  G > The new 2.8 GHz XeonMP score is 84595 - a bare 8% improvement over ann' > identical Dell box with 2 GHz XeonMPsf  = 	Right.  And pouring through the full disclosure will tell us.$ 	if there is any improvement coming.   				Robh   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 09:57:57 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)t2 Subject: Re: Portents of itanium death - revisited3 Message-ID: <B9e+MGqrtUUs@eisner.encompasserve.org>   _ In article <8ECdnTrmnMU1NJOiXTWJiQ@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:u > J > "Now it isn't rocket science to presume that a 40% increase in CPU speed+ > will translate in quite a bit more tpmC."  > F > I chose to question that presumption, but Rob, as usual, wasn't very > receptive. >   > 	So... in your desperation to prove a point you are forgetting 	what you wrote 3 weeks ago?  ? 	Elsewhere, I was guessing a 20% increase.  You seemed to thinku4 	it would hit 100000 tpmC or that same 20% increase:  b http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9uacnRGAn7eE9WSjXTWJkA%40metrocast.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain   Rob Young writes:h  * >  If so, shouldn't we expect that 2.8 GHz7 > Xeon 4-way to shoot past a 4-way Opteron quite a bit?n   Bill Todd writes:   I I'm guessing around 100K tpmC, if the memory speed also increases.  WhichpK means that anyone who needs performance specifically in the 83K - 100K tpmCtL band won't have Opteron as an option until its performance improves as well.K For 82K tpmC or below, of course, Opteron's price/performance kills Xeon's.o  G > The new 2.8 GHz XeonMP score is 84595 - a bare 8% improvement over anI( > identical Dell box with 2 GHz XeonMPs   < 	Keyword there is: identical.  I suppose with faster memory,= 	it jumps to your guess of 100000 tpmC or so.  After all, thea@ 	Xeon 2.8 boxes won't be hobbled with slower memory forever.  IsC 	it a new chipset in the wings?  I suppose we could trudge through	 = 	the Inquirer and determine which chipset is coming and when.5   				Robo   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:03:47 -0400:* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>2 Subject: Re: Portents of itanium death - revisited2 Message-ID: <L9udne0bLuJwQpOiXTWJhQ@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:B9e+MGqrtUUs@eisner.encompasserve.org...l@ > In article <8ECdnTrmnMU1NJOiXTWJiQ@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"  <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > >iL > > "Now it isn't rocket science to presume that a 40% increase in CPU speed- > > will translate in quite a bit more tpmC."  > > H > > I chose to question that presumption, but Rob, as usual, wasn't very > > receptive. > >0 >V? > So... in your desperation to prove a point you are forgettings > what you wrote 3 weeks ago?e  G No - I'm just able to understand it, something which appears to be more@8 difficult for you (though that's hardly the first time).   > @ > Elsewhere, I was guessing a 20% increase.  You seemed to think5 > it would hit 100000 tpmC or that same 20% increase:E >h >iL http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9uacnRGAn7eE9WSjXTWJkA%40metrocast.net& oe=UTF-8&output=gplain >a > Rob Young writes:a >o, > >  If so, shouldn't we expect that 2.8 GHz9 > > Xeon 4-way to shoot past a 4-way Opteron quite a bit?t >i > Bill Todd writes:  > D > I'm guessing around 100K tpmC, if the memory speed also increases.  C Look at the last 6 words above, Rob.  Your original suggestion saiduK absolutely nothing about other changes, and that's what I responded to.  ItlK was only after you suggested that the memory speed would also be increasing  that I wrote the above.a     WhichSH > means that anyone who needs performance specifically in the 83K - 100K tpmCH > band won't have Opteron as an option until its performance improves as well.eE > For 82K tpmC or below, of course, Opteron's price/performance kills  Xeon's.d >iI > > The new 2.8 GHz XeonMP score is 84595 - a bare 8% improvement over anh) > > identical Dell box with 2 GHz XeonMPsd > = > Keyword there is: identical.  I suppose with faster memory, > > it jumps to your guess of 100000 tpmC or so.  After all, the= > Xeon 2.8 boxes won't be hobbled with slower memory forever.r  I You were assuming that they wouldn't be hobbled with PC1600 memory *now*, K Rob.  You were wrong (as usual).  Now you're assuming that a new chipset ishJ in the wings with a faster FSB - once again, without a shred of basis save your own hopes.o   - bill   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 11:12:48 +0100K From: pmoreau@ath.cena.fr (Patrick MOREAU, CENA Athis, Tel: 01.69.57.68.40)a Subject: Re: PPPOE? When? How?! Message-ID: <GGWCPgRh0PK0@sinead>f  8 In article <3F0DCDF5.909E302D@intel.com>, Ken Fairfield   <My.Full.Name@intel.com> writes: [...]t@ > 	Can you give an example of such an integrated "modem-router"?E > My DSL modem was supplied by the vendor (Verizon if you care), and  D > I've since picked up a Linksys from a colleague to put betweem theD > modem and my PC and (soon to arrive) PWS600au.  Being very new to G > "home networking", I'd appreciate any tips or references people couldt	 > supply.u  N I'm using a Netgear DG814 (DSL port + 4 Ethernet 100 ports). Pretty basic but L easy to use. Offers NAT (my home LAN uses private IP addr), support of a DMZ and some content filtering.    Patricke  n --O =============================================================================== N pmoreau@ath.cena.fr  (CENA)      ______      ___   _          (Patrick MOREAU)4 moreau_p@decus.fr (DECUS)       / /   /     / /|  /|J CENA/Athis-Mons FRANCE         / /___/     / / | / |   __   __   __   __  N BP 205                        / /         / /  |/  |  |  | |__| |__  |__| |  |N 94542 ORLY AEROGARE CEDEX    / /   ::    / /       |  |__| | \  |__  |  | |__|N http://www.ath.cena.fr/~pmoreau/            http://www.multimania.com/pmoreau/O ===============================================================================D   ------------------------------   Date: 11 Jul 03 16:04:46 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture). Subject: Re: PPPOE? When? How?) Message-ID: <GRN6JadqfS9W@elias.decus.ch>n  X In article <3F0DCDF5.909E302D@intel.com>, Ken Fairfield <My.Full.Name@intel.com> writes: > Reinhard Eigner wrote: >> e/ >> > > I want to pppoe from my Alpha to my ISP.rN >> > > I found in the FAQ that there is no such PPP for the moment for obscure >> > > reasons (to me).n >> > >= >> > > Did anyone succeed to do that with a particular tool ?e >> >? >> > Yes, with an integrated modem-router (on a DSL connexion).h >> >@ >> I suggest the same. I also use a DSL router at home, where my7 >> two PC Systems and my PWS600au@VMS7.3-1 are running.b? >> That's the easiest way to bring your machine in the interneta > @ > 	Can you give an example of such an integrated "modem-router"?E > My DSL modem was supplied by the vendor (Verizon if you care), and  D > I've since picked up a Linksys from a colleague to put betweem theD > modem and my PC and (soon to arrive) PWS600au.  Being very new to G > "home networking", I'd appreciate any tips or references people coulda	 > supply.r >      My 2 cents:   D I started out with a 4 port ISDN router, but since it only supportedC 10 Mb/s I added a 10/100 Mb/s hub, so that my systems could talk toh? each other at 100 Mb/s. Therefore when I went to ADSL, I simplyhF went for a 1 port router. Mine's a Zyxel, which I am led to understandA is a rebadged Netgear router. Someone here alerted me to possiblerD security problems with that, now fixed by new firmware. The original? defaults left it wide open to attack. It is worth spending some B time familiarizing yourself with your router and at the very leastD changing the password before physically connecting it to the outside? world. Both the default password supplied and the documentationhB suggested lead one to think that the password is a 4 digit number,D but mine happily works with a 10 byte alphanumeric (and does use all
 10 bytes).  D Since you imply that your Linksys is not new, I would recommend thatB you check to see your firmware is up to date. The firmware in mine< is country specific, so make sure you get the right flavour.  B I have a couple of logs online showing a sample configuration with@ TCP/IP Services, one via menus, the other from the command line:  0 http://www.sture.homeip.net/vms/tcpip_config.txt8 http://www.sture.homeip.net/vms/tcpip_config_partial.txt   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 11:13:07 -05004 From: kuhrt@nospammy.encompasserve.org (Marty Kuhrt) Subject: Re: PPPOE? When? How?3 Message-ID: <rp6pg6QtuAax@eisner.encompasserve.org>e  X In article <3F0DCDF5.909E302D@intel.com>, Ken Fairfield <My.Full.Name@intel.com> writes: > Reinhard Eigner wrote: >> 6/ >> > > I want to pppoe from my Alpha to my ISP.eN >> > > I found in the FAQ that there is no such PPP for the moment for obscure >> > > reasons (to me).  >> > >= >> > > Did anyone succeed to do that with a particular tool ?  >> >? >> > Yes, with an integrated modem-router (on a DSL connexion).  >> >@ >> I suggest the same. I also use a DSL router at home, where my7 >> two PC Systems and my PWS600au@VMS7.3-1 are running.a? >> That's the easiest way to bring your machine in the internetl > @ > 	Can you give an example of such an integrated "modem-router"?E > My DSL modem was supplied by the vendor (Verizon if you care), and dD > I've since picked up a Linksys from a colleague to put betweem theD > modem and my PC and (soon to arrive) PWS600au.  Being very new to G > "home networking", I'd appreciate any tips or references people coulde	 > supply.M  = What I have at home is DSL from Covad (Speakeasy) which hooks ? into their modem/thingy, which then hooks into a Sonic firewalle: via cat5.  The Sonic then is connected via cat5 to a small> switch/hub where all my home machines connect.  The Sonic does> NAT (network address translation) so that I can map an outside= address (kuhrt.net for instance) to an inside one.  All of my A machines inside are assigned 172.17.17.* addresses, including the3? Sonic.  NATing allows the outside world access to kuhrt.net and : versa visa.  I have set up the IP stack on my VMS boxes toA consider the Sonic as the gateway, and it all seems to work fine.o  > It was a little daunting for me to get started, since I hadn't? done that type of thing before, but in retrospect it was prettyK easy.t  
 Good luck!   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:42:05 -0500a/ From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>. Subject: Re: PPPOE? When? How?3 Message-ID: <3F0EF6ED.5EB4BB8F@applied-synergy.com>    Ken Fairfield wrote: >  > Reinhard Eigner wrote: > > 0 > > > > I want to pppoe from my Alpha to my ISP.O > > > > I found in the FAQ that there is no such PPP for the moment for obscure- > > > > reasons (to me). > > > >2> > > > > Did anyone succeed to do that with a particular tool ? > > >K@ > > > Yes, with an integrated modem-router (on a DSL connexion). > > >NA > > I suggest the same. I also use a DSL router at home, where mya8 > > two PC Systems and my PWS600au@VMS7.3-1 are running.@ > > That's the easiest way to bring your machine in the internet > G >         Can you give an example of such an integrated "modem-router"? D > My DSL modem was supplied by the vendor (Verizon if you care), andD > I've since picked up a Linksys from a colleague to put betweem theC > modem and my PC and (soon to arrive) PWS600au.  Being very new toxG > "home networking", I'd appreciate any tips or references people couldi	 > supply.t    F You don't need an integrated modem-router.  You already have the modem' that Verizon wants you to use.  Use it..  F If the Linksys box you were given is one of their cable routers, i.e.,H it has a WAN port, the Linksys box can do the PPPoE negotiation for you.  D You plug the cable modem into the WAN port on the Linksys.  You plugH your PCs and PWS to the LAN ports (Assuming there are enough LAN ports. D Otherwise, plug a switch into one of the LAN ports and then plug the computers into the switch.)r  E You connect to the Linksys with a web browser to configure it.  TheregC should be a page where you can set up your PPPoE login information.t  ( This should get you started.  Good luck!  G -----------------------------------------------------------------------o$ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com 0   Fax: 817-237-3074@   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 01:21:02 -0700 From: user@lngs.infn.it 8 Subject: Problem with XDM ( tcpip v5.3 on axp/vms 7.3-1)= Message-ID: <1729f461.0307110021.2ebce87d@posting.google.com>.   Hello,C        I have a Win-2000 PC with the Cygwin X-server working on it.eC The following command works with any U*x, Linux and VMS with an old  version of Multinet:  *        /usr/X11R6/bin/Xwin -query   myhost  A a root window pops up with the login box inside. After the login  @ completion a desktop is shown, so I can't tell that the X-server
 doesn't work.h  : The same command doesn't work on the VMS with TCPIP V 5.3.; The root window pops up but there isn't a login box inside.y  , in SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP$XDM.WORK]  there are:  ( $ type [.work]wngs0a_lngs_infn_it_0.COM;D   $ @SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]TCPIP$XDM_XSESSION.COM wngs0a.lngs.infn.it:0  ( $ type [.work]wngs0a_lngs_infn_it_0.out;  ( $ type [.work]wngs0a_lngs_infn_it_0.err;/ xdm error (pid 13492): IO Error in XOpenDisplay,  ( where wngs0a.lngs.infn.it is just my PC.B I can't tell that the XDM server doesn't work because from one NCD= X-terminal, I can get the login box and then the cde desktop.   ? Any idea to get over this problem? Many thanks in advance, bye.d  # email: user(at)lngs(dot)infn(dot)itiC ___________________________________________________________________    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:00:07 +0100v* From: Nic Clews <sendspamhere@[127.0.0.1]>< Subject: Re: Problem with XDM ( tcpip v5.3 on axp/vms 7.3-1)' Message-ID: <bemg2g$sgh$1@lore.csc.com>@   user@lngs.infn.it wrote: >  > Hello,E >        I have a Win-2000 PC with the Cygwin X-server working on it. E > The following command works with any U*x, Linux and VMS with an olds > version of Multinet: > , >        /usr/X11R6/bin/Xwin -query   myhost > ...f > a root windowrA > Any idea to get over this problem? Many thanks in advance, bye.     : Have you created XACCESS.TXT in SYS$SPECIFIC:[TCPIP$XDM] ?   (there is a *.TEMPLATE file)     -- x? Regards, Nic Clews a.k.a. Mr. CP Charges, CSC Computer Sciences- nclews at csc dot comr   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 00:06:10 -0700% From: deepakonline@myway.com (Deepak)lY Subject: Redirecting screen output from FMS to files and displaying them using an emulatob= Message-ID: <38dea33f.0307102306.153238b8@posting.google.com>P   Hi,w  F The company I work for is shutting down their VMS system at the end ofF the year. We use FMS for displaying online screens. We want to know if there is some way we can  E 1. Dump the FMS screen output from online applications to text files.2  . 2. Display this screen dump using an emulator.  F Is there any way we can do this? I would greatly appreciate if someone could suggest some solutions.e  C Also, we are using VT400 7-bit emulators (Attachmate Enterprise and	F WRQ Reflection) to diplay the VMS screens now. Is there any way we can; display the corresponding screen dumps in a VT220 emulator.   0 Please post a reply if you have any suggestions.  
 Thank you.   Deepak   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:29:06 -0400 8 From: Jim Agnew - VCU/MCV Neurosurgery <jpagnew@vcu.edu>Y Subject: Re: Redirecting screen output from FMS to files and displaying them using an emu ' Message-ID: <3F0EBBA2.13A94622@vcu.edu>e  / sorry to hear that you company is that offbeat.g  G however, you can write up "screen scrapers" in Kermit to download this.t  " but, what do you mean by a "dump"?  B do you want to print off the screen to allow the new developers to
 duplicate it?-  , do you need electronic copies of the screen?  9 do you need "functional" electronic copies of the screen?:  * can you enlighten us with your wants, sir?   Jimg  
 Deepak wrote:s >  > Hi,  > H > The company I work for is shutting down their VMS system at the end ofH > the year. We use FMS for displaying online screens. We want to know if > there is some way we can > G > 1. Dump the FMS screen output from online applications to text files.g > 0 > 2. Display this screen dump using an emulator. > H > Is there any way we can do this? I would greatly appreciate if someone > could suggest some solutions.3 > E > Also, we are using VT400 7-bit emulators (Attachmate Enterprise and:H > WRQ Reflection) to diplay the VMS screens now. Is there any way we can= > display the corresponding screen dumps in a VT220 emulator.o > 2 > Please post a reply if you have any suggestions. >  > Thank you. >  > Deepak   -- @F "4,000 years ago I made a mistake."  Elrond Half-Elven, in "Fellowship of the Ring"  F "I try not to be right any more than necessary". -- Larry Wall, author of the Perl Language   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:33:40 -0700% From: j_radnor@hotmail.com (J Radnor) + Subject: Slow Decnet Speeds, help requested = Message-ID: <b6d48a68.0307110633.17dd5c08@posting.google.com>i   Hello,  B We are having Network speed trouble on our Alpha Box that seems to@ be related to packet size, when the following test is done with  a command file such as this:  B $ IF P1 .EQS. "" then write sys$output "Need one parameter <Node>" $ IF P1 .EQS. "" then goto done0 $ time, $  NCP LOOP NODE 'p1' COUNT 1000 LENGTH 1400 $ time, $  NCP LOOP NODE 'p1' COUNT 1000 LENGTH 1401 $ time $! $ done:n $ exit   @speedtest mynodem   10-JUL-2003 14:30:11   10-JUL-2003 14:30:19   10-JUL-2003 14:34:13  I So, a 1 byte packet size difference results in a time difference increaseeJ from 8 seconds, to close to 4 minutes, all other things being equal (quiet? system). The test is between 2 Alpha boxes on our corp network.a  4 Any ideas on where to begin looking are appreciated.  H This happened on 7.1, and still happens the same way after 7.3-1 upgrade was applied.   Thanks   John Radnore Dofasco Inc.
 Hamilton, Onte Canada   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:08:53 GMT A From: "Colin Butcher" <colin_DOT.butcher_AT@xdelta_DOT.co_DOT.uk>r/ Subject: Re: Slow Decnet Speeds, help requestedr= Message-ID: <piBPa.8483$8g6.65105117@news-text.cableinet.net>   J Could be lots of things. Start by substituting a piece of cross-over cable7 for the corporate network, then build it up from there.s  G Check that everything is self consistent at both ends - DECnet settingslK (pipeline quota, segment size, segment buffer size, line buffers to maximuma ...).c  = Check system performance at both ends (CPU,, IO Memory etc.).J  C Check ethernet adapter speed & duplex settings - don't rely on autoBL negotiation. Set 100Mbit/sec full duplex explicitly on the Alphas and on the	 switches.g  = Consider using DECnet-Plus (Phase V) to get more information.y  K Consider using a network protocol and traffic analyser (you'll need to turn  on switch port mirroring).   Lots to work through.e  ; Maybe even call for outside help to come and work with you.s  A -----------------------------------------------------------------o Hope this helps, Colin.s) colin DOT butcher AT xdelta DOT co DOT ukfL Systems Archaeologist - Investigation & troubleshooting of older systems and	 networks.-   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 07:56:14 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)a> Subject: Re: vms security model - does it still exist on IA64?3 Message-ID: <K$4frXYCcWIo@eisner.encompasserve.org>y  n In article <2tgPa.4319$7S2.4221@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes:   >  We also plan on making thebH > stack no-execute (I believe we are also doing it for Alpha, but it was > simpler to do on IA-64).  G    Now that will drop some bricks in front of all those script kiddies!t  F    I didn't know Alpha had hardware support for no-execute, is this an;    addition to the architecure, or did I miss it somewhere?    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:31:40 GMTl9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> > Subject: Re: vms security model - does it still exist on IA64?. Message-ID: <wLAPa.76$3%3.15@news.cpqcorp.net>  H "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:K$4frXYCcWIo@eisner.encompasserve.org...sF > In article <2tgPa.4319$7S2.4221@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge") <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes:o >  > >  We also plan on making the J > > stack no-execute (I believe we are also doing it for Alpha, but it was > > simpler to do on IA-64). >.I >    Now that will drop some bricks in front of all those script kiddies!- > H >    I didn't know Alpha had hardware support for no-execute, is this an= >    addition to the architecure, or did I miss it somewhere?  >0  G There is a NOX (no execute) bit in the VMS Alpha PTE format.  I'm not a G memory management guru - I think it's enforced in the TLB miss handler.>   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:19:31 GMTl% From: "KC" <kevin.n.coyle@compaq.com>r Subject: VMS to Windows 2000. Message-ID: <7AAPa.73$E%3.42@news.cpqcorp.net>  K I just became involved in converting an existing application that exists onaJ VMS to a brand new application that is running on windows 2000. One of theI features of the old vms application was that it contained many attachment J files (such as .doc, .jpeg, .bin?, .exe???) that the users wish to migrateI over to the new application on windows 2000...My wuestion is what type of K compaitiblity issues are involved here ; or will the files move over ok andmL the .doc files be able to be accessed without any problem?? ALso..what mightK be the best method of moving the files....such as using compression tools?? L (if so which ones) or just a straight copy....The are tons of files involvedE here so I'm trying to get a feel for the issues we might be facing...-  C any help or pointers to compatibility issues would be appreciated!!e   Thanx.   KC   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:46:50 +0100r From: Roy Omond <Roy@Omond.net>e  Subject: Re: VMS to Windows 20004 Message-ID: <bemm5d$74m$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>  	 KC wrote:iM > I just became involved in converting an existing application that exists onAL > VMS to a brand new application that is running on windows 2000. One of theK > features of the old vms application was that it contained many attachment>L > files (such as .doc, .jpeg, .bin?, .exe???) that the users wish to migrateK > over to the new application on windows 2000...My wuestion is what type of M > compaitiblity issues are involved here ; or will the files move over ok andeN > the .doc files be able to be accessed without any problem?? ALso..what mightM > be the best method of moving the files....such as using compression tools??-N > (if so which ones) or just a straight copy....The are tons of files involvedG > here so I'm trying to get a feel for the issues we might be facing...s > E > any help or pointers to compatibility issues would be appreciated!!   > Bad news.  None of the VMS attachment files will be movable to? Windows 2000.  You see, on VMS a ".doc" file is the output from > the DibOl Compiler, ".jpeg" is the JaPanese-EnGlish dictionaryA input, ".bin" is the VMS equivalent of the Macintosh "trash can", B and ".exe" is an EXtended Expression file, none of which will make2 any sense whatsoever on the Windows 2000 platform.  @ I think the best solution for you is to simply keep the existing? application running on a VMS platform.  In fact, you might evene> find some of your workplace colleagues who know a little about= VMS (depends where you are within the company - ah, maybe noto after all).b  
 *sigh* ...  	 Roy Omond  Blue Bubble Ltd.   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:36:45 -0400o* From: "Stanley F. Quayle" <stan@stanq.com>  Subject: Re: VMS to Windows 2000. Message-ID: <3F0EAF5D.12570.472C368@localhost>  ) On 11 Jul 2003 at 16:46, Roy Omond wrote:c   > KC wrote: " > > The are tons of files involvedI > > here so I'm trying to get a feel for the issues we might be facing...r > B > I think the best solution for you is to simply keep the existing( > application running on a VMS platform.  B Might I suggest that you run CHARON-VAX under Windows 2000.  That D will allow you to run VMS while meeting the requirement for Windows.  ; [This is a Shameless Plug (tm) from a CHARON-VAX reseller.]i
 --Stan QuayleC Quayle Consulting Inc.  
 ----------C Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  +1 614-868-1363  Fax: +1 614 868-1671r1 8572 North Spring Ct. NW, Pickerington, OH  43147t= Preferred address:  stan@stanq.com       http://www.stanq.com-   ------------------------------    Date: 11 Jul 2003 08:03:18 -0500; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)s Subject: Re: X11 proxy on VMS ?.3 Message-ID: <LxDkjhrol6Lw@eisner.encompasserve.org>g  m In article <ZpjPa.4353$P53.398@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes: M > Anyone who is using a X11 Terminal that uses LAT and/or any of the softwarenH > that went along with the DEC X11 Terminals, should probably contact meE > directly - so I know who you are, and can make you known to productl
 > management.s > N > The old DEC stuff is antique, and it slipped through the cracks for the V1.3N > release (which we are fixing in V7.3-2).  But the next question is if anyoneK > expects to be able to use a X11 terminal that depends on LAT or the otheroI > DEC X-Terminal-specific stuff when they have a IA64 host running VMS...  > N > Right now, I think we are planning on porting the LAT transport, but not anyM > of the old DEC-X-Terminal specific stuff... partly because we don't the olds > hardware to test it.  H    Is it safe to assume I'll be able to use DECnet and TCP/IP transportsF    between my VXT 2000+ and an IA64?  Am I going to have problems with    X11R5 vs. X11R6?u  E    Currently the only problem I have is that some applications expectkC    CDE (mozilla's Java support and Netbeans) and will blow away thefB    local MWM.  I find I can start a host based MWM in those cases.E    Besides, Netbeans isn't worth a hill of beans on a 10 Mb ethernet.g   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:27:26 GMTa9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>w Subject: Re: X11 proxy on VMS ?m. Message-ID: <yHAPa.75$F44.69@news.cpqcorp.net>  H "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:LxDkjhrol6Lw@eisner.encompasserve.org...0E > In article <ZpjPa.4353$P53.398@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge".) <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes: F > > Anyone who is using a X11 Terminal that uses LAT and/or any of the softwareJ > > that went along with the DEC X11 Terminals, should probably contact meG > > directly - so I know who you are, and can make you known to producte > > management.8 > >.K > > The old DEC stuff is antique, and it slipped through the cracks for the  V1.3I > > release (which we are fixing in V7.3-2).  But the next question is if  anyoneG > > expects to be able to use a X11 terminal that depends on LAT or thee other K > > DEC X-Terminal-specific stuff when they have a IA64 host running VMS...e > > L > > Right now, I think we are planning on porting the LAT transport, but not anynK > > of the old DEC-X-Terminal specific stuff... partly because we don't thea oldd > > hardware to test it. >tJ >    Is it safe to assume I'll be able to use DECnet and TCP/IP transportsH >    between my VXT 2000+ and an IA64?  Am I going to have problems with >    X11R5 vs. X11R6?A >b  L If you install V1.3 of Motif (X11R6) you will not get the LAT transport, andF the other stuff that was sort-of LAT oriented (I think there is a fontK server for the X terminals).  If you leave it V1.2-6 you are all right.  We K restored the LAT transport et al in V7.3-2.  I don't really know much about I the VXT 2000, but if you are just using DECnet/TCPIP transports and don'tb< rely on anything except X11 connectivity - you should be OK.  G >    Currently the only problem I have is that some applications expectoE >    CDE (mozilla's Java support and Netbeans) and will blow away the)D >    local MWM.  I find I can start a host based MWM in those cases.G >    Besides, Netbeans isn't worth a hill of beans on a 10 Mb ethernet.6 >  >l >F   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:44:58 -0500t/ From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>  Subject: Re: X11 proxy on VMS ?.3 Message-ID: <3F0EF79A.6221D3F2@applied-synergy.com>    Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > M > Anyone who is using a X11 Terminal that uses LAT and/or any of the software-H > that went along with the DEC X11 Terminals, should probably contact meE > directly - so I know who you are, and can make you known to producte
 > management.7 > N > The old DEC stuff is antique, and it slipped through the cracks for the V1.3N > release (which we are fixing in V7.3-2).  But the next question is if anyoneK > expects to be able to use a X11 terminal that depends on LAT or the other I > DEC X-Terminal-specific stuff when they have a IA64 host running VMS...  > N > Right now, I think we are planning on porting the LAT transport, but not anyM > of the old DEC-X-Terminal specific stuff... partly because we don't the oldn > hardware to test it.    D How about if I send you a VXT2000 for testing and you send me a seed1 IA64 for testing when they are available?  <grin>r  E Seriously, if you need a VXT for testing, I think I can send you one.   G -----------------------------------------------------------------------t$ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com u   Fax: 817-237-3074r   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.380 ************************age-ID: <91947A84607D9D48B8E674A5FAB54DA68545E4@tahiti.tinuk.com>   @ Isn't Pearl a LISP implementation? ISTR it when I was 'Lisping'.   Steve Spires Technical Consultant Torex Health [P](44)01295 274388t [F](44)01295 275131l www.torex.com=20   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: Larry Kilgallen [mailto:Kilgallen@SpamCop.net]=20e > Sent: 11 July 2003V*'|l vwů%p5A-1eJӍ-rj7T˹T_!XUsmjP^V.M9ҧ2hc3Zfw~jeGlV(ѹ2λCw]+h 4%
s^3^U?*sfȳ3"DfHW؇QD]^e7H.͓8O
֒"dlUM愄-&'DNqa](O,S,)T%۬#[JB5J|si1e1؆)
s}ӹ>ꚷkwE=ֵFڒ-ӽx338mǌwֽry>Ym{݆.=7FbbXkհ,)!#rZ
IW턳h90hhMQ!h8R۫6@Us?h,!+X~XS7Dr}n$kƥR׸ĔğB IL5LRU1$GYNj;qoulB1pMh@n༐,P
)TE~P"@(@M7Y?{3g X<;;ܼsX$ 
sESڏ:$_DؚLLڔsw$OGSR-r4@Kk5LsVEpH~ӿ"I!䑏1L-c$oVr}mh*wg[ކR6y6^<9:`o3`$6HfoWс*e}jpsHK.|JN;0&NR
a^y-\.ٓ;Qafu>XL[f{+`	S2`f_x>
v0UZeS-16ee;@٭(m̥e7Q"BalJ-1Jkuy6ؚ|>'XD*CIq!d5ї([L1Sxm(Dg_mX.֫"{*F,s(
WDMXOh˿jNr
EQ;wfgzENpʣ/HD*\>gЂ,?}Y\lOFE^D$̹>-u?*^>hD}ILLroYc&'oD)9r`l(Uzpڎ:џ/?..d%Ag]~qatg8$߻vSg7?:;M}oݛr}w
1ΩUS) Sǚͯ"e[+-\W<Ad9bpRQ<ЕF&5aab<k3:uMfM~Ny\<#{R\;U]A!]sQ3yl2+߅eĘ2w^URe?[4u	9+-%U;Bb	i᠊ѩbIk\^ҿe	 ΏAuLς2N"hVEsHl8nPܦ @^^\sZ݀ryn"zI0<у"ǉav½+ڈԽ)47sǭ`
QEeeK5pD]srE::ur~u=ӽ3ƿ$)δ4J	TG.HFT6X=Gf!,a[A|y#e#a1yvʰULM`?uteMǥ[ D{u1@{tnt8&TBv0TU+{&D\ԟYnYr1ME1cKY;BM#GK4FZ `mʠnYPуI;5ッ7(B#'$')2A

\YW9-MlT)PGMaLB{dO<O8pS
<HQKC`Ҽ!~,^r'?tk߽Sp+U7֎z^#ۙf/Աӗ~_2+=?OͩMߟ]MQI
4nE-4<@=q.inџݧfov$jkمmt"^au܆ښ'd b~ᗥ~iV)@X>b0%[xCOT@ڌ
B7m8b#m@WEa6S`2'Y?2\]uSFf/VP\cR|pHep/;P6r<ys*egR'v7y+mGls{[޸]'ͭD􀉓1ibT:{SkK ueKnkh|^0=ؠW?ǵ[Na