1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 29 Jul 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 415       Contents:9 %EIA0, unsupported vendor (something), device set offline = Re: %EIA0, unsupported vendor (something), device set offline ' Re: Any semi-current Mop registry info? ( Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server( Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server( Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server( Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server" Re: Cluster communications on DS10" Re: Cluster communications on DS10" Re: Cluster communications on DS10" Re: Cluster communications on DS10P Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful    PerformancN Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful PerformanceP Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful Performance PP Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful Performance P' Re: David D. or anyone with an STK L700  Re: DSSI problem Re: duplicating system disks Re: duplicating system disks Re: duplicating system disks Re: DVD compatibility with VMS" DVD-RW and Heuser Hofmann Software& Re: DVD-RW and Heuser Hofmann Software# Re: Elevate privileges in a program # Re: Elevate privileges in a program ( Forbes cover story: HP Merger Successful, Re: Forbes cover story: HP Merger Successful5 Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 2003 9 Re: Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 2003 9 Re: Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 2003 9 Re: Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 2003 . HP advertising focuses on building brand image2 Re: HP advertising focuses on building brand image2 Re: HP advertising focuses on building brand imageC HP ProLiant Servers Rank No. 1 in U.S. Customer Satisfaction Report + 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 AlpP Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why AlphP Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why AlphP Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why AlphP Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why AlphP Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why AlphP RE: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alph2 Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itanium2 Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itanium2 Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itanium2 Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itanium2 Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itanium Model Update Plan  Re: Model Update Plan  MSA1000  Re: MSA1000  Re: MSA1000  Re: MSA1000   Re: NEWBIE: DECWindows Bit Depth  Re: NEWBIE: DECWindows Bit Depth Re: OpenVms Backup& OT: Rolling Stones permanently stained* Re: OT: Rolling Stones permanently stained" Re: Packed decimal arithmetic in C 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: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates  Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates $ Re: Terminate with extreme prejudice: Threaded application crashes on a VAX, but not on an Alpha> Re: Threaded application crashes on a VAX, but not on an Alpha8 Vaunted VMS marketing nowhere to be seen - no film at 11 Volume shadowing ? Re: Volume shadowing ? RE: Volume shadowing ? Re: Volume shadowing ?& Yamahill? Prescott? Wot's it all mean?  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:17:19 -0000 ! From: Z  <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> B Subject: %EIA0, unsupported vendor (something), device set offline/ Message-ID: <vibm9fsc8i0p22@corp.supernews.com>   B I got this error today after booting to the OpenVMS 7.1-2 CD on an! Alpha machine (a GS-40, I think).   A The device in question was the HP tape drive, a TZ-89 type drive.   F Before I booted to CD, I could see the drive as MKB600.  After bootingF to the CD and choosing the DCL option (7), show device didn't list it.  3 What's the underlying problem and how can I fix it?    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:16:03 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> F Subject: Re: %EIA0, unsupported vendor (something), device set offline' Message-ID: <3F25E6F3.C76A2CB1@fsi.net>    Z wrote: > D > I got this error today after booting to the OpenVMS 7.1-2 CD on an# > Alpha machine (a GS-40, I think).  > C > The device in question was the HP tape drive, a TZ-89 type drive.  > H > Before I booted to CD, I could see the drive as MKB600.  After bootingH > to the CD and choosing the DCL option (7), show device didn't list it. > 5 > What's the underlying problem and how can I fix it?   ' EIA0 sounds like an ethernet interface.   H What VMS version was the box running before you booted up the CD? V7.1-2C may very well not understand Tx89s. Dunno. Even V7.2-2 doesn't have E /DENSITY keywords for it in DCL. The only machine I have that I could G examine that on is the Lab's production ES40. So, not exactly possible, 2 and may not be a valid test since you have a GS40.   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:33:16 +0100 ) From: Antonio Carlini <arcarlini@iee.org> 0 Subject: Re: Any semi-current Mop registry info?> Message-ID: <S%dVa.3837$G85.518@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>   Galen wrote:  A > Could anyone here provide MOP registry information that is more E > up-to-date than the "22 March 1993" copy that I have? This was once B > available from DEC as an update to Appendix A of the "MainenanceH > Operations Protocol Functional Specification V4.0.0" June 1992 edition? > (the order number for that was EK-DNA11-FS-001 in case you're  > curious).   C The chances are that you do indeed have the latest available public D copy. There was an internal copy too, but that was dated Sep 1994 or? thereabouts. Those were the latest I had access too when I left @ in mid 2000. My guess is that there have been minimal changes to the lists since then :-)  9 (That's not to say that they were accurate even then ...)    Antonio      --     --   --------------- - Antonio Carlini             arcarlini@iee.org    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:41:01 -0400 $ From: "PEN" <paul.nuneznosp@mhp.com>1 Subject: Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server , Message-ID: <bg3u8e$slc$1@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>   Hi Mark,  I PATHWORKS for OVMS has never liked 0 unit PAKs.   The same will hold true  with Advanced Server for OVMS.  K BTW, it's 100 units/client; a 3500 unit license would cover 35 clients (not  350).   
 Paul Nunez HP Services    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:16:26 GMT  From: Rob.Buxton@wcc.govt.nz1 Subject: Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server $ Message-ID: <3f25bc61.15559796@news>  0 On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:01:13 +0100, "Mark Iline" <system@meng.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:  I >After much pursuit via our excellent reseller, a Pathworks Client Access ? >Licence has appeared on the June 2003 DECcampus CDs in the UK.  > J >The PAK is PWLMXXXCA07.03 , and is just like the temporary PAKs we'd beenJ >using, except that whereas these had 3500 units (350 clients, I believe),F >the campus one has zero units. (Actually, the campus one  also had anH >obvious typo in its name, but fixing that allowed it to be registered). > B >The equivalent ASDU PAK also has zero units, and allows unlimited) >connections to Advanced Server on Tru64.  > E >However, Pathworks 6.0 treats the Campus PAK as having no units, and ; >allowing zero clients. This is not particular;ly useful...  >  >The questions:  > # >Is anyone else playing with this ?  > I >Is this PAK 'wrong' ? ie it ought to have a large number of units rather  >than zero ? > J >Would this PAK work with AS7 (for VMS) to give unlimited connections, but >just doesn't work with PW6 ?  > B The PAK above is for either AS7.3 or PW6.1, I don't think it works  with the earlier versions of PW./ For PW6.0. / AS 7.2 the PAK was PWLMXXXCA07.02   >  >Mark  >  >Mark Iline 
 >UCL Mech Eng  >  >  >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:56:11 -0400 5 From: "Brad McCusker" <brad.mccuskerNosp@Mcompaq.com> 1 Subject: Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server / Message-ID: <vibs353q4lkq9b@corp.supernews.com>   H <Rob.Buxton@wcc.govt.nz> wrote in message news:3f25bc61.15559796@news...2 > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:01:13 +0100, "Mark Iline"  > <system@meng.ucl.ac.uk> wrote: > K > >After much pursuit via our excellent reseller, a Pathworks Client Access A > >Licence has appeared on the June 2003 DECcampus CDs in the UK.  > > L > >The PAK is PWLMXXXCA07.03 , and is just like the temporary PAKs we'd been > >  <snip>D > The PAK above is for either AS7.3 or PW6.1, I don't think it works" > with the earlier versions of PW.  L No.  That PAK will work for AS V7.3, V7.2A, V7.2, and PW V5.0D through V6.1.  0 > For PW6.0. / AS 7.2 the PAK was PWLMXXXCA07.02 > >   < That was the mininum, not the maximum (there is no maximum).  I (And I know nothing about this DECCampus thing.  Anyone care to explain?)   
 Brad McCusker  OpenVMS Engineering 
 Nashua NH USA    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:48:56 -0400 5 From: "Brad McCusker" <brad.mccuskerNosp@Mcompaq.com> 1 Subject: Re: Campus and Pathworks/Advanced Server / Message-ID: <vibv61an79eqc2@corp.supernews.com>   @ "Brad McCusker" <brad.mccuskerNosp@Mcompaq.com> wrote in message) news:vibs353q4lkq9b@corp.supernews.com...  >  > H > No.  That PAK will work for AS V7.3, V7.2A, V7.2, and PW V5.0D through V6.1.  >   ( The list above should also include V7.3A   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 12:46:30 -0500 . From: Larry Schuldt <lschuldt@Rudenessdls.net>+ Subject: Re: Cluster communications on DS10 8 Message-ID: <6aoaivs37vklij9179e56n283318git4td@4ax.com>  @ On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:56:15 -0400, "Hal Kuff" <kuff@tessco.com> wrote:  I >    We're running DS10's in clusters with ES40 systems over 100MBit full M >duplex, no issues... I assume you set the ewa* and ewb* setttings in the SRM  >to 100 full fastfd  >  > D We had tried that and it didn't work; sorry I don't have details any more.   $ You had no problems with it, though?   larry  --  = To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 13:15:42 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) + Subject: Re: Cluster communications on DS10 = Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307281215.4b3df1a4@posting.google.com>   n Larry Schuldt <lschuldt@Rudenessdls.net> wrote in message news:<8u8aiv86uefiiio9g2itii9lvop9lnl7r2@4ax.com>...E > I remember a post from a month or two ago.... Someone was trying to H > run SCS communications over a fast ethernet full duplex connection andH > couldn't get it to work. Was there ever a resolution to this issue? We > have the same problem.  / Some other things that might possibly be wrong: D o  NISCS_LOAD not set to 1 (Have you enabled SCS communications overD the LAN using CLUSTER_CONFIG.COM?  That adds a line to MODPARAMS.DATC for setting NISCS_LOAD_PEA0=1 and sets the cluster group number and E password if that hasn't already been done.  Then you must run AUTOGEN  and reboot.)F o  Wrong cluster group number and/or password in CLUSTER_AUTHORIZE.DAT0 (this can be set using SYSMAN> CONFIGURATION SETE CLUSTER_AUTHORIZATION/GROUP_NUMBER=xxx/PASSWORD=yyyy, and must be set - the same on all system disks in the cluster).    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:31:01 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) + Subject: Re: Cluster communications on DS10 1 Message-ID: <pCgVa.1000$Ju1.278@news.cpqcorp.net>   i In article <8u8aiv86uefiiio9g2itii9lvop9lnl7r2@4ax.com>, Larry Schuldt <lschuldt@Rudenessdls.net> writes: D :I remember a post from a month or two ago.... Someone was trying toG :run SCS communications over a fast ethernet full duplex connection and G :couldn't get it to work. Was there ever a resolution to this issue? We  :have the same problem.      Um, in no particular order...      OpenVMS version?     Which Ethernet controller?   What ECO level? 0   SRM console or the LANCP negotiation settings?2   What are the negotiation settings on the switch?8   Have you perused the DE500 section of the OpenVMS FAQ?  B   For Gigabit Ethernet (Gbe) communications via DEGXA, please see 6   the OpenVMS Ask The Wizard topics (8435) and (8743).    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:22:35 GMT % From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com> + Subject: Re: Cluster communications on DS10 : Message-ID: <%LlVa.43446$7O4.940807@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>  < Keith Parris <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:cf15391e.0307281215.4b3df1a4@posting.google.com... ; > Larry Schuldt <lschuldt@Rudenessdls.net> wrote in message 4 news:<8u8aiv86uefiiio9g2itii9lvop9lnl7r2@4ax.com>...G > > I remember a post from a month or two ago.... Someone was trying to J > > run SCS communications over a fast ethernet full duplex connection andJ > > couldn't get it to work. Was there ever a resolution to this issue? We > > have the same problem. > 1 > Some other things that might possibly be wrong: F > o  NISCS_LOAD not set to 1 (Have you enabled SCS communications overF > the LAN using CLUSTER_CONFIG.COM?  That adds a line to MODPARAMS.DATE > for setting NISCS_LOAD_PEA0=1 and sets the cluster group number and G > password if that hasn't already been done.  Then you must run AUTOGEN  > and reboot.)H > o  Wrong cluster group number and/or password in CLUSTER_AUTHORIZE.DAT2 > (this can be set using SYSMAN> CONFIGURATION SETG > CLUSTER_AUTHORIZATION/GROUP_NUMBER=xxx/PASSWORD=yyyy, and must be set / > the same on all system disks in the cluster).   I For the DR guys, I have had DS10's (Standby DB box) clustered with ES45's I and or GS160 qbb(s).  My cluster traffic is running on a DE602 PCI NIC on I one of the PCI slots.  The Primary IP is on one of the internal NICS.  We L have 4 network ports installed in each Alphaserver.  Primary, Backup/DECNET,I Secondary(Future), and Cluster/Xover.  In a 2-node cluster, you can use a B direct connect  Xover cable to take this part out of the equation.  H Keeping in mind the information that Keith talks about above,   the onlyJ times I have had problems with forming/making a cluster was when the PVLAN- for the cluster traffic is not set correctly.   4 I use the following steps when making a new cluster.	 MC SYSMAN  SET ENV/CLUSTER  SET PROFILE/PRIV=ALL' CONFIG SET CLUSTER/GROUP=nnnn/PASS=xxxx   L Since I am using a common system disk located on the SAN, I only have to setJ this once per cluster prior to the cluster re-boot.  (No internal drives!)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:58:40 -0700 3 From: Robert Klute <robert_klute_removethis@hp.com> Y Subject: Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful    Performanc 8 Message-ID: <nb3biv8g6i6c4bsq2iqgrm2d2qbl59aa4v@4ax.com>  H On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:00:33 -0400, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote:   >Fred Kleinsorge wrote: N >> No.  Think of this as - once I've driven this road a few times, I generallyJ >> know it's layout and how to drive it at the fastest speed.  So feedbackJ >> driven optimization will make it faster when driving the normal route.  > L >Ok, please enlighten me. If the optimisations are done by the compiler, howN >can run-time feedback result in the executable getting smarter ? Does an .EXEM >execution generate a .FEEDBACK file and the compiler, the next time it runs, B >looks at that feedback file to help generate better executables ?  < Yes.  At least that is basically how HP's PBO (profile based optimization) works.     ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:16:10 -0400 * From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>W Subject: Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful Performance 2 Message-ID: <rpacnW_mT-I6D7iiU-KYvg@metrocast.net>  3 "jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 2 news:a9caiv8dtl04gqc8cd93ahoijafop3l1c1@4ax.com...J > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:36 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > wrote: >  > > 6 > >"jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message5 > >news:mj93ivspfl9uanv2lb1o95i093rn6f4lds@4ax.com... 4 > >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:07:34 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > >> wrote:  > >>* > >> >Sure there are:  I've provided them. > >> > >> You've provide some.  > > I > >More to the point, I've provided - and examined - all the numbers that J > >Compaq did, but instead of just waving them around ("Gee - $150 million > > ; > >>  How do you know that they are all the pertinent data?  > > L > >They were the data that Compaq used to try to make its case.  It's not my > >fault if they chose poorly. > F > Whatever numbers they chose to publish externally to summarize theirH > position is no indication of what numbers they actually have available
 > internally.   K *No* indication?  Surely you're not suggesting that their public statements = were 100% pure fabrications with no basis whatsoever in fact.   I Rather, what appears to have no basis is your suggestion that the numbers I Compaq has stated should be ignored because they don't happen to fit your K own preconceptions.  If you can't provide at least *some* backing for those J suggestions, I'd suggest that you shut up about them and try another tack.   >  > > H > >> What inside financial information do you have that nobody else has? > > B > >The only piece of 'inside' financial information I had was Rich
 Marcello'sH > >personal statement that VMS systems brought in $800 million in annual profitI > >(since his statement that they brought in $4 billion in annual revenue  was H > >corroborated elsewhere in public materials).  The rest, as noted many times L > >already, came directly from Compaq's public statements - and, once again, ifJ > >they failed to make public other information that would have made theirI > >financial case more solid that's hardly *my* fault (not that I see any @ > >reason to believe that any such 'other' information existed). > 4 > Yes, $800MM in annual profit.... but for how long?  * Not very long at all, given the Alphacide.     And at what additional > cost to continue?   J That cost was well-defined by Marcello and Winkler:  $150 million annuallyL for Alpha chip development, or $300 million annually when all related systemJ development was included.  Of course, nowhere nearly all of that was savedH by the Alphacide:  EV7 chip and server development continued, the serverI portion of EV7 development sufficed for EV8 as well (i.e., would not have H constituted much additional expense had EV8 continued), operating system= development continued, and some compiler development as well.   :   Again, I'm not privy to (and I'm certain that you aren'tJ > either) all of the financial analysis that they may have used to come to > their decision.   E The difference between us is that I've provided what information *is* J available while you've provided nothing but conjecture about why we should& ignore it (in other words, pure spin).   > I > There are many people who never believed that we made money on Alpha in  the H > first place.  I never saw the sources for their opinions and analysis,  H Funny how heavily you choose to emphasize them, then.  Ever consider theB possibility that they were simply as clueless as you appear to be?    but> > it was pretty open in some internal discussions.  So, if theK > externally-available information was all there is, why would these people , > continue to believe the complete opposite?  K Perhaps because they preferred to believe what they wished to regardless of > the available evidence, exactly as you appear to prefer to do.   ...   I > Now, how this plays with their previous statements of "commitment" made  for L > a very bad situation.  But expecting an open, public apology is just plain > silly, imho.  K It's not something I expect from such cretins, but that in no way makes the  lack of it acceptable.  ?   I'm sure that they discussed this directly with many of their I > key customers leadership, and it must have placated them enough to keep  > business going.   J Well, it seems to have kept *some* business going, but not enough to allowI HP's enterprise systems to return to anything like the profitability that H Compaq's used to enjoy.  In fact, last I knew they were still in the redB save for an accounting gimmick that moved some expenses elsewhere.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:57:19 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful Performance P ) Message-ID: <3F257206.DD43282B@istop.com>    Fred Kleinsorge wrote:L > No, the death of many software products was a sorry story that had less to' > do with Microsoft than you may think.   G In the case of all of the messaging and office products, which had been L Digital's great breat and butter generators (consider those running ALL-IN-1M always had complained about needing more CPU and more memory and paid lots of M maintenance etc etc). Those were cannabalised because Palmer decided to ditch L them in favour of a competitor's product. This, at a time where the ALL-IN-1L folks had developped a client-server ability for A1 to serve wintel PCs, and2 later web/tcpip stuff such as POP and IMAP access.  L Palmer chose not to compete against Microsoft in order to secure the "right"N to sell Microsoft products, a right which any store can obtain without sellingK it soul. And Digital didn't get any special favours from MS in exchange for M all the self sacrifice. Other vendors such as HP and Compaq got the same , if [ not better, treatment from Microsoft without them having to perform ritual self-sacrifices.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:00:33 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: D.H. Brown: EV7 AlphaServers Deliver Enhanced RAS and Powerful Performance P ) Message-ID: <3F2572C7.49C3850F@istop.com>    Fred Kleinsorge wrote:M > No.  Think of this as - once I've driven this road a few times, I generally I > know it's layout and how to drive it at the fastest speed.  So feedback I > driven optimization will make it faster when driving the normal route.    K Ok, please enlighten me. If the optimisations are done by the compiler, how M can run-time feedback result in the executable getting smarter ? Does an .EXE L execution generate a .FEEDBACK file and the compiler, the next time it runs,A looks at that feedback file to help generate better executables ?    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:37:43 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> 0 Subject: Re: David D. or anyone with an STK L700' Message-ID: <3F25DDF7.1096C7C9@fsi.net>    "David J. Dachtera" wrote: >  > "John N." wrote: > > M > > I don't know if they are still selling it or not, but they are supporting % > > it, and (usually) quite well too. F > > It will take more than hardware obsolescense to make us go through5 > > implementng a  new software library system again.  > > L > > So did you acknowledge that you ARE successfully using the STK L700 with0 > > VMS?  Are you using the SDLT 160/320 drives? > H > Yes - we are using the SDLT-320 drives supplied by StorageTek (Quantum > badged, not OVMS qualified). > I > We will be implementing some changes this weekend: the SCSI cables that C > connect the drive bulkead connections to the FC-SCSI devices (STK E > SN3400, essentially a CrossRoads device - HP NSRs are also rebadged C > CrossRoads kit) and the "Y-cables" that connect the drives to the ; > bulkhead (this allows hot-swap of the drives, allegedly).  > D > STK put out an ECO/FCO for these cables sometime in early July. IfH > you're experiencing parity errors like we are, this may have something > to do with it. > F > Our STK VAR (Datalink(.com)) suggested that our FC cables may be theG > wrong diameter, also. That'll be the next thing I suspect. I'm having J > one broken drive replaced and another that I get parity errors on. We'llH > see if the weekend changes have a positive impact here. If not, the FC" > cables will be my next suspects.  
 Follow-up:  E So far the new cables look promising. No additional tape drive errors F after almost twelve continuous running hours. (Some of our backups run2 circa. 18 hours for a nearly full 400+GBF volume.)  , Will watch for a while to see how it goes...   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:46:45 -0400 0 From: "Homer Simpson" <hsimpson@burnsenergy.com> Subject: Re: DSSI problem 9 Message-ID: <KjjVa.11403$1m.5042@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>   I Vacuum the whole thing out, clean contacts on all drives connected to the K dssi cable.  Reseat the cable on all drives about 3 times.  It will be good  for another 10 years.   ? "Thierry Dussuet" <thierry@squeeeez.no-ip.com> wrote in message * news:slrnbia1jk.gh.thierry@VENUS.Family... > Hello!L > I have a VAX 4000/300 here with 3 RF72 disks in it, as well as a TK70 tapeK > drive.  Everything went well until someday I realised it was quite dusty,  so IK > took one drive out to see if it was really that dusty - but it wasn't, so  I put F > it back in.  And now it doesn't see the disks anymore! All vanished, althoughL > the disks themselves have the green light on, and I hear them from time toJ > time.  The startup tests show no errors, either, and trying to boot from the  > system disk does not work. >  > >>>sh dev  > DSSI Bus 0 Node 6 (*)  >  > DSSI Bus 1 Node 7 (*)  > " > UQSSP Tape Controller 0 (774500) > -MUA0 (TK70) >  > Ethernet Adapter > -EZA0 (08-00-2B-16-E7-33)  > >>>  > H > They were on Bus 0.  Does anybody have a hint?  Something that I could have, > done wrong while putting the disk back in? > 	 > Thierry    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 19:00:50 -0700# From: dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley) % Subject: Re: duplicating system disks = Message-ID: <1ca82fc6.0307281800.6c6fb332@posting.google.com>   g moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote in message news:<bg37na$nli$1@pcls4.std.com>... ' > dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley) writes:  > E > >> They're fine with backing up the system disk while the system is $ > >> running with /ignore=interlock? > >>   > >> I don't think so.G > >I have used this before without problems, but I think a backup/image 3 > >does lock indexf and bitmap on the source drive.  > J > Have you _restored_ those backups?  Are the files corrupted, if you did? > Are you sure??3 They are image backups so they don't need a restore 0 I backup dka0: to dka100: then pull the disk out& and put it in dka0: of the new system.8 I don't think any files get corrupted, but if there are,8 they must be ones that we don't use, as the systems then' run in production without any problems.  Phil > I > BTW, it is not the files indexf and bitmap.sys you have to worry about. F > You have to worry about any files where it prints out the interlock  > warning..    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:53:04 GMT % From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com> % Subject: Re: duplicating system disks : Message-ID: <4skVa.43291$7O4.934305@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>  + Z <zarlenga@conan.ids.net> wrote in message ) news:vi92h09vvvkdfe@corp.supernews.com... & > Mike Naime <mnaime@kc.rr.com> wrote:J > : (BACKUP/IMAGE/IGNORE=INTER SYS$SYSDEVICE: {target disk})   This way, I > ... G > : Compaq/HP support is fine with this method since we have all of the  required > B > They're fine with backing up the system disk while the system is! > running with /ignore=interlock?  >  > I don't think so.   K Yep.  We had a discussion with our Platinum suport TAMS and the Engineering L group recently about Backup/ignore=interlock.  The DR folks where wanting toI know some specifics about file time stamps when using the backup command. G Upon recieving theanswer from engineering that you are probably talking I about.  I asked specifically about using it to CLONE an OS disk.  This is K not a prefered method for making a system backup, but it is fine for making D a CLONE of the OS where you are going to be changing all of the node5 specific data prior to bringing up a new system pack.   J I am not trying to make a backup for backup/restore purposes.  I am mainlyL looking for static files like installed OS patches and Licenses.  Stuff thatG is not changing on the system at the time that you make the CLONE image L backup.  You can do a similar copy by using the HSG80 CLONE utility.  But itK is not necessarily located in the HSG storage cabinet that you want to make L the new OS pack in.  So, without having to move drives between HSG80 storage" cabinets, I use the above command.  L When you are dealing with a 24x7 data center, this is your best option for a no-downtime backup.    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:04:11 GMT % From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com> % Subject: Re: duplicating system disks : Message-ID: <vCkVa.43295$7O4.934952@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>  B Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message" news:bg37na$nli$1@pcls4.std.com...' > dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley) writes:  > E > >> They're fine with backing up the system disk while the system is $ > >> running with /ignore=interlock? > >> > >> I don't think so.G > >I have used this before without problems, but I think a backup/image 3 > >does lock indexf and bitmap on the source drive.  > J > Have you _restored_ those backups?  Are the files corrupted, if you did? > Are you sure?? > I > BTW, it is not the files indexf and bitmap.sys you have to worry about. E > You have to worry about any files where it prints out the interlock  > warning..  > -- > -Mike   F To answer your first point.  Yes.  We have gone through the process of? restoring a production cluster from tape backups at a different G site/location.  We did not have the DBA's try to verify the data in the G Oracle database, but everything seemed to function correctly.   What my L management was looking for was the time involved in this process.  BasicallyK restoring from tape takes TOO LONG!  We now make an ORACLE RMAN backup to a J local backup drive, and then send it off to tape(s).  For the non Database3 stuff, it is images/incrementals to a backup drive.   E To respond to your second point.  Most of the files that give you the K interlock warning or system specific files that are not copied anyways, OR, A are over written when you configure the root for the new cluster.    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:25:14 GMT # From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) ' Subject: Re: DVD compatibility with VMS 0 Message-ID: <_wgVa.999$Ju1.845@news.cpqcorp.net>  s In article <3f25151b$1@news.uni-konstanz.de>, vaxinf@chclu.chemie.uni-konstanz.de (Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann) writes: < :cdrecord/cdwrite doesn't care about 512/2048 block jumpers.  M   But while the tool itself cares not about the blocking for its operations,  L   what is written out can sometimes care what the target blocking is.  Y'allM   will probably be seeing some indication of this within the SETBOOT-related  A   work that is expected to appear in a future release of OpenVMS.   N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comc   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:32:47 -0400n& From: "Island" <dbturner@islandco.com>+ Subject: DVD-RW and Heuser Hofmann Softwarer/ Message-ID: <viar69mbrfu2dc@news.supernews.com>a   Includes DVD-RW table-top SCSI Cable Ultra Wide 68Pin
 Power Cord 90 Day support   $489   Delivery: 7 Days 12 months hardware warranty    -- e David B Turner Island Computers US Corporationm 2700 Gregory St., Suite 180B Savannah GA 31404e Tel: 912 447 6622  Fax: 912 201 0402  Email: dbturner@hpaq.net http://www.hpaq.netl   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:25:39 -0400s, From: "David Turner" <dbturner@islandco.com>/ Subject: Re: DVD-RW and Heuser Hofmann Softwaren/ Message-ID: <vibg0sqd0les77@news.supernews.com>o    Oops - that is wrong information   Sorry    Will repost when ready   Davidu   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:19:08 GMTt# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) , Subject: Re: Elevate privileges in a program0 Message-ID: <grgVa.998$Ju1.901@news.cpqcorp.net>  f In article <bftgv8$j8q$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:  I :UWSSs are definitely the right way to go. (Exactly why Hoff continues toeI :persue his Nanny-State/Ferenheit-451 agenda of banning people from usingsK :UWSSs and in particular the MACRO compiler is beyond me! Certainly doesn'teG :bode well for how these facilities will be implemented on Itanium :-()v  L   Eh?  I would simply prefer to use the least hazardous and least-privilegedL   approach, lest I open a security hole or encourage someone to open a hole.M   Assigning privileges is something I have learned to handle with great care,mL   given unintended accesses and unintended consequences that can result.  IfL   I can reasonably solve a task with a subsystem identifier, I'd clearly notE   want to create and install an application with enhanced privileges.   J   This is not to say that UWSS operations are not useful and should not beK   used -- solely to indicate that the best tool for the job should be used.eL   Other tools that can provide or replace a UWSS can include a pseudo-deviceK   driver -- for kernel-mode operations at low IPL, the pseudo-device driver H   can provide useful capabilities and an API for users.  And privileged E   server processes and network communications are another approach.  P  L :Simply drop the /PROTECT and /NOSYSSHR qualifiers on your $LINK and you now? :have the ability to call whatever RTL you like. I believe it'stI :SECURESHRP.EXE if you want $GETUAI. That's the easy part. You are now atVL :your most vulnerable!!! It is up to you to protect your working-storage and@ :I/O channels and everything else from outer-mode corruption andB :exploitation. (See the COLLECT and PROTECT linker options bellow)  G   When assigning privileges via UWSS, the usual result is to exit from  F   the inner-mode code, and this leaves the system wide open -- if you E   stay in an inner-mode environment, you are also restricted on whichtE   RTL functions you can call.  (eg: None.)  You can call most system mF   services from inner-mode (and non-elevated IPL) code, though some ofA   the services can and do have mode-related calling restrictions.   H   As I tell folks, you must always expect any of your APIs to be probed.H   APIs that provide doorways to privileged-mode or privileged operationsE   or communications with privileged processes are obvious targets for H   this probing, of course.  This is less paranoia than it is pragmatism.  F :So now you've made sure that your memory is protected from a dodgy orH :mallicious user-mode pointers and all *your* channels are $ASSIGNed andL :$QIOed at EXEC mode but how can you vouch for $getuai or other RTL routine?J :How can you trust them to do the right thing? What if a hacker is writingI :$QIOs to a random channel selector seeing if he gets a result 'cos PRIVseM :were used to access SYSUAF but the channel was mistakenly open in USER mode?s/ :What if *they* forget to protect their memory?D ..  I   While a programmer has a comparatively small window with the design andaI   implementation and testing of security within an application, a system iG   cracker can spend an unlimited amount of time and effort probing the sI   resulting design. As such, I tend to be paranoid -- I've certainly seeniJ   kernel-mode code hacked, and I've seen enough folks spending non-trivial   efforts in the attempt.h  I   Put another way, I'd first prefer to secure my privileged code behind ahJ   process-level security "wall".  Sharing privileged and trusted code and F   unprivileged and untrusted code within the same process is, well, anF   interesting task -- mixed-trust environments are not trivial to codeG   correctly.  Within the UWSS, the device driver, and OpenVMS operating,F   system environments, the programmer writing the privileged-mode codeE   has to secure it behind the mode-related page protections -- and asdH   Richard correctly comments, anything that is shared cannot be trusted.  F   Again, given my preferences and my experience, I tend to prefer the I   biggest and most solid protective wall I can get between the privilegedhH   code and the untrusted user code.  The UWSS takes a little finesse andI   some experience to get right, and can create a huge hole if done wrong.    ..K :Anyway please search through the COV archives (search for blade guard) forbJ :other fruitless discussions on this subject. I have asked for guidence onL :dropping /PROTECT (but still being secure) hundreds of bloody times withoutK :any joy.  I even dragged myself across North London to a "Hints and Kinks"oI :session that supposed to discuss this stuff but the room was packed with3K :System Managers and not Developers and tha air-conditioning was off so youh :know what a hoot that was :-)  H   I've a prototype presentation session on writing secure code that I'veI   presented to an internal audience, it's certainly well beyond the Hintsn   and Kinks session I present.  L :I'm also about to post another UWSS example that let's an unprivileged user- :wait until a file is created in a directory!   G   We've had a few applications that have insinuated themselves into theoH   file locking that have busted over OpenVMS releases -- we (OpenVMS) doI   need to implement an API for this capability at some point, though this F   task is possible now using security alarms and the security-related F   mechanisms.  The resulting code is ugly, of course, but is possible &   using only the supported interfaces.  M :(Did you know that any user can do a $dir/fid on any file. I thought telling-M :you whether or not a file exists (if you don't have priv) was wrong? See, my>I :RTL with tell you the filename that I'm waiting for but if (when it getslL :created) you don't have priv to see it then your AST will fire and give youI :SS$_NOPRIV in the IOSB. But that sought of defeats the purpose don't youi :think?)  J   The filename itself is not in a protected namespace -- this is somethingJ   that the folks interested in NCSC-style system security reference in theI   NCSC "rainbow" books.   The file contents are protected.  But if a fileh=   should be named TheSuperSecretCodeWordIsFooBar.Txt, well...     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqLN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:54:47 -0400m* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>, Subject: Re: Elevate privileges in a program) Message-ID: <3F25B7C5.685B2104@istop.com>d   Hoff Hoffman wrote: J >   I've a prototype presentation session on writing secure code that I'veK >   presented to an internal audience, it's certainly well beyond the Hintsn  >   and Kinks session I present.  R Sounds like the perfect topic for a presentation in Sue's november VMS conference.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 18:24:18 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris) 1 Subject: Forbes cover story: HP Merger Successfuli= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307281724.6986b666@posting.google.com>   F The cover story for the August 11 issue of Forbes magazine details the success of the HP merger. 5 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0811/076_print.html  --- 
 "We Did It  D Carly Fiorina's boast: HP pulled off a complex merger and saved $3.5A billion. Her sales pitch: We can work this magic on your company.c  C Carleton S. Fiorina should take a little time out to celebrate. TherD chief executive of Hewlett-Packard has pulled off the biggest merger> in high-tech history, vanquishing her bitter nemesis, a son ofD cofounder William Hewlett. One year into the $19 billion purchase ofD Compaq Computer, she has cut $3.5 billion in annual costs--a billion/ dollars more and a year earlier than promised."   ? As Interex's InsideHP newsletter puts it: "The cover story patsMF Fiorina on the back and discusses her next challenges and how she will
 handle them."v   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:40:56 -0400v* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>5 Subject: Re: Forbes cover story: HP Merger Successful ) Message-ID: <3F25D09F.3AC2BB02@istop.com>.   Keith Parris wrote:eE > Carleton S. Fiorina should take a little time out to celebrate. The F > chief executive of Hewlett-Packard has pulled off the biggest merger7 > in high-tech history, vanquishing her bitter nemesis,-  L But she alienated a large segment of enterprise customers and has done zilchI to regain their trust. Since such customers don't feel "part" of HP, theyd/ couldn't care less if Carly has a bonus or not.e  N A merger ius far more than just cooking the books to please Wall Street CasinoK analysts. It is also integrating the customers of the purchased company and N making them trust you, feel comfortable inside the new company and wantuing to do business with you.-   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 18:44:42 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)u> Subject: Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 2003= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307281744.2284b847@posting.google.com>5  B "According to preliminary results released Friday by research firmB Gartner Dataquest, HP (NYSE:HPQ) is once again the No. 1 vendor ofE servers worldwide, with 29.5 percent unit market share for the secondt calendar quarter of 2003.(1)  D (1) Gartner Dataquest Alert, "Worldwide Server Shipments Show GrowthC in 2Q03", July 25, 2003, by Joseph Gonzales, Jeffrey Hewitt, AdrianbD O'Connell, Samina Malek, Karen Benson, Matthew Boon, Mataga Tadaakli and Lillian Alvarado."  9 http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2003/030728a.htmlc   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:55:47 -0400D* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>B Subject: Re: Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 2003( Message-ID: <3F25D418.4364E1F@istop.com>   Keith Parris wrote:b > D > "According to preliminary results released Friday by research firmD > Gartner Dataquest, HP (NYSE:HPQ) is once again the No. 1 vendor of8 > servers worldwide, with 29.5 percent unit market share  J If you remove windows machines, and compare only real servers, how does HP rank against IBM and Sun?e  I And if you remove real servers and compare only wintel boxes, how does HPG+ compare against Dell, IBM and gateway etc ?    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 23:03:24 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)yB Subject: Re: Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 20033 Message-ID: <ddPzV2wLL7vT@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  U In article <3F25D418.4364E1F@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:  > Keith Parris wrote:a >>  E >> "According to preliminary results released Friday by research firm E >> Gartner Dataquest, HP (NYSE:HPQ) is once again the No. 1 vendor ofn9 >> servers worldwide, with 29.5 percent unit market shareD > L > If you remove windows machines, and compare only real servers, how does HP > rank against IBM and Sun?l > K > And if you remove real servers and compare only wintel boxes, how does HPo- > compare against Dell, IBM and gateway etc ?i    6 	Oh I suppose you can debate a lot of things.  But the? 	one company that doesn't rely on Intel kit (those fake servers + 	you so cleverly allude to) is fading fast:t   http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BCAD48FC8%2D1EBF%2D4496%2DAC0F%2D4FB0FC869E24%7D  J H-P (HPQ: news, chart, profile) remained No. 1 in worldwide shipments withL 376,100 units and a 29.5 percent market share, up almost 16 percent from itsM year-ago totals. The Gartner figures also put H-P in first place in shipments G in the Europe, Middle East and Africa, Asia Pacific, and Latin American- regions.  M Dell (DELL: news, chart, profile) claimed second-place with 261,600 units and-O 20.5 percent of the worldwide market, a 33-percent rise over the second quarter I of 2002. Dell took the top spot in server shipment to the U.S. and Japan.-  O IBM (IBM: news, chart, profile) came in third with almost 200,000 shipments andnM 15.7 percent of the market, up 33.5 percent from a year ago. Sun MicrosystemslN (SUNW: news, chart, profile) kept its fourth-place position with 64,000 serverK shipments and a 5-percent stake. However, Sun's shipments fell 19.4 percentc from a year ago.   				Robu   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:37:59 -0400n* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>B Subject: Re: Gartner: HP is #1 in server units shipped for Q2 2003) Message-ID: <3F25FA11.2DF72F81@istop.com>n   Rob Young wrote:L > H-P (HPQ: news, chart, profile) remained No. 1 in worldwide shipments with0 > 376,100 units and a 29.5 percent market share,  O > 15.7 percent of the market, up 33.5 percent from a year ago. Sun MicrosystemsaP > (SUNW: news, chart, profile) kept its fourth-place position with 64,000 server" > shipments and a 5-percent stake.    L Of the 376,100 "servers" HP sold, if you remove the 8086 based machines, how many machines remain ?N (i.e. how many PA-Risc, Alpha and MIPS did HP sell compared to the 64k servers
 Sun sold ?  F One should really have a proper definition of the term "server" before comparing companies.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 18:30:29 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)(7 Subject: HP advertising focuses on building brand images= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307281730.1e94c109@posting.google.com>f  2 From Interex's InsideHP newsletter, July 29, 2003:  = 'In a concerted effort, HP will be spending at least half itsrA advertising budget to create a cohesive, branded image that holdsI> across all regions and product lines. "One Voice" is a projectD designed to unify the look of HP products, consolidate suppliers andD agencies and renegotiate prices to create consistency. "One Voice isD also aimed at HP employees themselves, who are increasingly asked toE look outside their individual divisions, and work to sell the company F as a whole, looking for added revenue, and building new products, like> expensive printing systems tied to HP data centers, that cross4 traditional lines of business," Forbes magazine saidD (www.forbes.com/2003/07/24/cz_qh_0725hpbrand.html). Allison Johnson,E senior vice-president for global brand and communications at HP, told C the magazine that in 2002, less than 10 percent of HP's advertising:? budget was focused on brand advertising. This year she said sheu? expects the company to spend about half its budget on branding,@F although HP will not say how big that budget is other than less than 5F percent of total revenue. About $400 million of that budget will go to@ push its image with consumers in a campaign called "you and HP,"* scheduled to begin appearing in the fall.'  ; HP's brand image is indeed improving.  InsideHP states: 'Int1 BusinessWeek's third annual look at global brands G (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_31/b3884157_mz046.htm)nB with Interbrand, a brand consultancy, HP grew 18 percent from last> year and ranked 12th among all global brands by dollar value.'   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:48:00 -0500e1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>H; Subject: Re: HP advertising focuses on building brand image-' Message-ID: <3F25E060.652F63AE@fsi.net>0   Keith Parris wrote:m > 4 > From Interex's InsideHP newsletter, July 29, 2003: > ? > 'In a concerted effort, HP will be spending at least half its C > advertising budget to create a cohesive, branded image that holdsl@ > across all regions and product lines. "One Voice" is a projectF > designed to unify the look of HP products, consolidate suppliers andF > agencies and renegotiate prices to create consistency. "One Voice isF > also aimed at HP employees themselves, who are increasingly asked toG > look outside their individual divisions, and work to sell the companybH > as a whole, looking for added revenue, and building new products, like@ > expensive printing systems tied to HP data centers, that cross" > traditional lines of business,"   D Once the "One Voice" has been achieved, what language will it speak?@ ...and will the combination of phonemes we spell as "OpenVMS" be included in that lexicon?a   --   David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/e   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:30:14 -0400o* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>; Subject: Re: HP advertising focuses on building brand imageg) Message-ID: <3F25F841.220ACD83@istop.com>1   "David J. Dachtera" wrote:F > Once the "One Voice" has been achieved, what language will it speak?B > ...and will the combination of phonemes we spell as "OpenVMS" be > included in that lexicon?o  M In fairness to HP, the current crop of TV ads which are product agnostic, are J good for HP's image. The one where a mouse pointer drags a criminal from a1 restaurant to the police van is even imaginative.r  K But in the case of the products HP acquired such as VMS, HP needs to go oneiM extra step to make us feel part of the HP family. And that requires an effortsL from Carly downwards to make us feel included. So far, they have gone out of# their way to make us feel excluded.    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 18:49:32 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)lL Subject: HP ProLiant Servers Rank No. 1 in U.S. Customer Satisfaction Report= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307281749.4af7d75e@posting.google.com>n  E 'HP (NYSE:HPQ) ranked No. 1 in overall customer satisfaction score ina> the Intel-based server market according to a recent study from= industry advisory firm Technology Business Research (TBR).(1)y ... ? According to the server study, one key element of the growth int= customer satisfaction for HP industry-standard servers can belC attributed to customers placing more importance and value on serveroF management capabilities. In addition, HP gained strength in out-of-boxF quality, technical support and ease of installation and configuration,E and it maintained a strong reputation for solid hardware reliability.f ... A (1) "Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Survey, D Intel-based Servers - Wave I 2003," conducted by Technology Business# Research, published July 11, 2003.'   9 http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2003/030722b.htmlt   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 14:17:38 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)b4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense3 Message-ID: <uzZbmpaVqjLj@eisner.encompasserve.org>u  V In article <3F2554CF.4F662D26@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > jlsue wrote:G >> Cray is a very niche player.  Not too many businesses go to them for ( >> general-purpose server-class systems. >>  N >> If they're planning to use AMD's cpus, that's fine with me.  But the market) >> penetration will be very minimal, imo.y > J > Same argument could be made for why Intel spent so much to subsidize theN > porting of VMS to IA64. Niche market. nobody will hear about it. But it willN > just add to the list of niche systems that can run on IA64 to make IA64 look! > more popular than it really is.t > P > The thing about Cray is that if they win some supercomputer contract, whateverJ > chip they are using will get lots of visibility and "glory" even if suchN > contract is small (in terms of numbers). And that would help give AMD's chipC > more credibility helping to gain more system makers as customers.t    > 	Cray is a niche.  A flea on a camel in a sense.  Projected to> 	do $200 million in revs this year.  VMS does $2-4 billion per@ 	year.  VMS is a niche within HP - a $70 billion dollar company.  ? 	And yeah, the slashdotters and ACE's hardware will all be in an? 	drool on the next win Cray gets.  But the market segment is a t 	spec/dot/smidgen.   				Roba   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:53:18 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense) Message-ID: <3F257115.F9F8CAC1@istop.com>u   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:F > Hmmm.   Did the Cray based on Alpha's ignite a wave of Alpha buying?  N Of course not. Cray stuff adds a little to the core marketing. But if the coreH marketing is 0, no matter what percentage to add to it, it remains at 0.  K Of course, Digital could have leveraged the use of Alphas in Cray machines.yX But Digital chose not to compete and let its Alpha remain hidden, anonymous, unmarketed.  N Had Alpha been owned by Sun, you bet your ass that Sun would have marketed theK hell out of the chip and it would have had no problems destroying Intel and L its slow/bloated attempts at 64 bit with its still-in-the-future IA64 thing.  G Alpha's problem is that Digital and then Compaq did not want to competeNK against Intel. You'll note that even under Digital, there had been plans toa1 port Tru64 to IA64, but VMS was staying on Alpha.s   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:04:59 -0400"* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense) Message-ID: <3F2581DD.2DBD6648@istop.com>r   Rob Young wrote:H >         And yeah, the slashdotters and ACE's hardware will all be in aG >         drool on the next win Cray gets.  But the market segment is af >         spec/dot/smidgen.     L No, you keep missing the point. It isn't Cray who will benefit from whateverL choice they make. It is the chip manufacturer who will gain a marketing edge= by able to claim that cray supercomputers run on their chips.   P It is all about marketing. It is all about marketing. It is all about marketing.  L You'd think that the Digital/Compaq/HP apoligists would have learned this byJ now. Two companies have faltered due to their lack of marketing of VMS andJ Alpha. How many more need to falter before these apologists start to learn their lesson ?   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 15:54:29 -0500+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense3 Message-ID: <uI28TqRaWYYl@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <3F2581DD.2DBD6648@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:I >>         And yeah, the slashdotters and ACE's hardware will all be in adH >>         drool on the next win Cray gets.  But the market segment is a >>         spec/dot/smidgen. >  > N > No, you keep missing the point. It isn't Cray who will benefit from whateverN > choice they make. It is the chip manufacturer who will gain a marketing edge? > by able to claim that cray supercomputers run on their chips.n > R > It is all about marketing. It is all about marketing. It is all about marketing. > N > You'd think that the Digital/Compaq/HP apoligists would have learned this byL > now. Two companies have faltered due to their lack of marketing of VMS andL > Alpha. How many more need to falter before these apologists start to learn > their lesson ?  G 	HP and IBM got to $70 billion plus corporations somehow.  I'm assumingIA 	they have done some marketing.  To trot out Cray as some sort of B 	paradigm of marketing success - that is a joke right?  After all,D 	they have been declining for years.  We are all waiting for Opteron9 	to take off.  We'll no doubt be waiting a year from now.    				Rob    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:06:33 GMT 3 From: "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.openvms.org>D4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense? Message-ID: <tfgVa.297923$_w.11900959@twister.southeast.rr.com>m  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messaget# news:3F2554CF.4F662D26@istop.com...e > jlsue wrote:H > > Cray is a very niche player.  Not too many businesses go to them for) > > general-purpose server-class systems.e > >kH > > If they're planning to use AMD's cpus, that's fine with me.  But the market* > > penetration will be very minimal, imo. >oJ > Same argument could be made for why Intel spent so much to subsidize theI > porting of VMS to IA64. Niche market. nobody will hear about it. But it. willI > just add to the list of niche systems that can run on IA64 to make IA64  look! > more popular than it really is.e   [snip]  I Did they or didn't they subsidize?  You made that statement like you knewu what you were talking about.   Ken    -- Kenneth Farmer  <><t  ; OpenVMS:  http://www.OpenVMS.org  |  http://dcl.OpenVMS.orgs= Unix:  http://www.EnterpriseUnix.org  |  http://www.Tru64.org B Linux:  http://www.EnterpriseLinux.org  |  http://www.LinuxHPC.org   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:10:59 -0400s* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense2 Message-ID: <9GudnZKhj_rsDLiiXTWJhg@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:uI28TqRaWYYl@eisner.encompasserve.org...t4 > In article <3F2581DD.2DBD6648@istop.com>, JF Mezei# <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:m > > Rob Young wrote:K > >>         And yeah, the slashdotters and ACE's hardware will all be in atJ > >>         drool on the next win Cray gets.  But the market segment is a > >>         spec/dot/smidgen. > >w > > G > > No, you keep missing the point. It isn't Cray who will benefit from  whateverK > > choice they make. It is the chip manufacturer who will gain a marketing  edgeA > > by able to claim that cray supercomputers run on their chips.e > >nI > > It is all about marketing. It is all about marketing. It is all abouti
 marketing. > > H > > You'd think that the Digital/Compaq/HP apoligists would have learned this byyJ > > now. Two companies have faltered due to their lack of marketing of VMS andaH > > Alpha. How many more need to falter before these apologists start to learn  > > their lesson ? > : > HP and IBM got to $70 billion plus corporations somehow.  L IBM grew there (actually, to more like $90 billion IIRC).  cHumPaq shrank toL a $70 billion company from combined HP/Compaq revenues of something like $88 billion.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:38:19 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense) Message-ID: <3F25B3EA.14204494@istop.com>    Rob Young wrote:B >         HP and IBM got to $70 billion plus corporations somehow.  I And Digital used to be bigger than HP, Compaq, Dell. Digital is now dead.   J >         they have done some marketing.  To trot out Cray as some sort of@ >         paradigm of marketing success - that is a joke right?   N Again, it isn't Cray that will market Opteron (should it choose that chip). ItM is AMD who would use Cray as a "poster boy"  in their advertising.  Just likeaN Bombardier capitalised on its supplying skidoos for the last James Bond film. K Those skidoos didn't appear more than 15 seconds on the movie and one neveriM saw the Bombardier logo or brand name, yet, Bombardier used those appearances@ in its own advertising.e  G Digital had plenty of opportunities to market Alpha. They had plenty of.K opportunities to pitch Alpha against Intel. They chose not to. And now both  Digital and Alpha are dead.p   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:42:30 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>4 Subject: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense) Message-ID: <3F25B4E4.43E8AF55@istop.com>    Kenneth Farmer wrote:oK > Did they or didn't they subsidize?  You made that statement like you knewo > what you were talking about. >   J Unless they were hidden by Compaq/HP, look at the announcements of June 25J 2001. Compaq made it clear that there was help from Intel to help with theM port of VMS and Tandem and at the time Tru64, but wouldn't disclose the exact  terms of the agreement.o   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 14:11:16 -07001 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)eY Subject: Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World:  Why Alpp= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0307281311.33e068e5@posting.google.com>f  [ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<3F255E62.88D64BD7@istop.com>...tJ > Sun is and was able to make its own chip and be quite succesful with it.  C Sun's current level of success and future viability is a subject of A debate at present.  Gartner lowered their vendor rating on Sun in,Y April to "Caution" (http://www4.gartner.com/1_researchanalysis/vendor_rating/vr_sun.jsp), ; and recently raised their vendor rating on HP to "Positive"sM (http://www4.gartner.com/1_researchanalysis/vendor_rating/vr_hpcompaq2.html).    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:50:44 GMTu# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> Y Subject: Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why AlphdG Message-ID: <o8fVa.75503$vz%.7652@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>   3 "jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message'2 news:6eeaiv03sf3akkc0ghroe0b534vtohilr0@4ax.com...A > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:09:10 GMT, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>t wrote: >  > >v= > >I think that many of the complaints and concerns about the 	 Alphacideo  > >stem from a few basic issues: > >eA > >1) The feeling that Compaq was 'two-faced' about the future ofe Alpha - C > >cheerfully promoting the future of Alpha to all until the day ofm thes! > >announcement on June 25, 2001.a >tE > I don't disagree with the problems that this has caused... but that  was 2  > years ago.  > Customers have long memories...especially on matters of trust.        A > >2) That all public documents from Compaq until the date of thelC > >announcement indicated a substanital chip performance and systemrB > >advantage for Alpha over IA64 for as far out as any foreseeable time) > >horizon could be reasonably predicted.v >iE > But chip performance is only one metric that makes for a successful ; > business.  When they say that it would be better than then competition, itaF > needed to be MUCH better than the competition to have real impact to growD > the business.  During the huge market boom we weren't able to grow thehF > business for Alpha... in a downturn they could only expect it to get hitR > worse. >wB > And just going by recollections of Sun and IBM FUD against Alpha
 just prior; > to all that, it hadn't enjoyed all that much of a lead inf performance inA > the 2 years or so leading up to June 25th.  Sure, it'd leapfrog_5 > competition, but was it enough to sustain business?5  F Let's see....Tru64 was the fastest growing unix in that period...whichC other processor family did it run on? How much advertising was done4D for VMS/Tru64/Alpha during that period? If Compaq had spent only the> *average*, or even matched the *lowest* advertising /marketingE expenditures of what IBM/HP/Sun spent on advertising their enterpriseoC servers and os products during that period, Compaq would have spentpF considerably more than it did. If the advertising/marketing arguementsE for IBM/HP/Sun products were so compelling (not) then simply being ini< the game to be heard above the 'noise' would have benefitted VMS/Tru64/Alpha.      D > >3) A stated 25-year minimum life span for Alpha (whether that was fromC > >the date somebody first thought of an Alpha-like architecture in- 1961> > >;-)  or from the date of first-ship in 1992 can be argued). >nD > So what?  The chip certainly had that capability, but the business didn't.gB > And at the time that Alpha was starting up, nobody expected that businessD > critical computing would be served by so many cheap Intel systems. NotaD > that this was the right thing for businesses to do - these systemsD > certainly cause them multiple headaches - but most of the business world9? > seems to be controlled by bean counters, not technical gurus./  C The same clueless bean counters who choose to continue to advertise0 money-losing PeeCee's.    = > >4) That the manner in which the announcement was done, ie.e
 everythingE > >you've told your bosses about Alpha based on Compaq's committmentst toE > >you is now null and void and one now looks like a total asshole to-F > >your organization - kiss any chance of promotion, or bonus, or evenE > >having a job tomorrow goodbye - your personal credibility is shot.a >o@ > Yep.  Big problem.  Not that cpq was responsible for the idiot
 managementD > and how they reacted.  The fact is that even since that time there haveD > been significant improvements, and one's management could continue theiruC > plans for quite a long time and still reap the benefits.  If theye panicked< > and reacted adversely, it's more their problem, not CPQ's.  B CPQ planted the FUD. They are just as much to blame. I have seen a= good number of large organizations that would have let CompaqhC non-intel gear in their door pre-June 25/01 close their door to theu idea.l    A > We still have some significant orders for AlphaServer systems -h runningeF > OpenVMS, and also lots of them for Tru64.  Apparently there are some coolerE > heads who realize that the lifespan of their systems is well withinh thebE > range of supportability, and they're getting new systems even todayl based  > on this "dead" technology.        C > >5) That there isn't any indication in the commercial market even  today > > >that uptake of IA64 is approaching any kind of commercially
 successfulF > >volumes - which appears to negate any statements about lower costs. >vC > That is not at all a reasonable conclusion.  IA64 is NOT a mature  productrF > yet.  Sure, it's late - much later than previous releases - but it's stilleD > very early in it's lifecycle.  Commercial success for most systems isn't/F > graded until they have a few years of production-grade systems built on > them.   A You forget that the day something is labelled as 'mature' it alsoG becomes 'legacy'.a      D > >6) The sudden impact the announcement had on sales of Alpha & VMSE > >which in the minds of many customers created a very real threat tor the F > >survival of VMS, notwithstanding the greasy similitudes of Capellas toD > >the contrary. In other words, FUD of Comapq's own creation due to: > >distrust of the organization and the senior management. > >i >oD > Hokay.... now it's two years later, re-stated AlphaServer roadmaps aredC > being implemented as planned, customers can still get the systemsm	 they needmC > (and many are), and the IA64 port is going very well.  Customer's  see thatC > they'll be able to move from alpha to IA64 if/when they determineI it'sB > best..  Much of the FUD spread about what CPQ/HPQ intended to do to/withvF > VMS have proven to be false ("The port of OpenVMS to IA64 will never
 > occur").    D Again you forget that first impressions are often the only ones that matter.e  E If what you are saying is that HP doesn't want those organizations asmE customers...fine.  But where's the advertising to replace those ones?aF You don't grow a business by having ever fewer and fewer customers and installed systems.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:55:50 -0400 * 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: <IrOcnTNDVY1uBriiXTWJhg@metrocast.net>  3 "jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 2 news:jadaiv4hhf8670qq0n273tj6k4v7snvqnt@4ax.com...J > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:25:50 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > wrote: >i > >r6 > >"jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message5 > >news:cbb3ivg2tfbquv39ustoo7oojqg55sel4t@4ax.com... 4 > >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:27:52 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > >> wrote:i > >> > > >>J > >> I'm working with many, many customers, and though nobody was entirely > >happy* > >> about this, almost all have moved on. > >aJ > >Many to other vendors - though you're probably not 'working with' those > >particular people any more. >eE > In which case, they've moved on... which has been my point exactly.t  H No:  if you'll reexamine your statement quoted above, it referred to the: customers you *continue* to work with, not those who left.  - > They've got nothing to gripe about anymore.o  H I wouldn't be too sure.  Just because they've taken steps to ensure thatL they won't get screwed *again* doesn't necessarily mean that they don't feelE they may have a bit of a score left to settle about the screwing theyaJ already got:  they're just less likely to try to settle that score here in c.o.v.   >  > >>J > >> Making predictions about supposed future behavior is nothing but FUD, no% > >> matter how you like to couch it.  > >g > > I > >Claiming that past behavior should not be considered in dealing with a I > >company is just plain stupid.  Such a claim coming from an employee ofe that= > >company might be considered something even less admirable.e >yJ > That's not what I'm claiming, of course.  Saying you're skeptical is oneI > the thing, but making grand claims about future failures is an entirelyD > different one.  H Would you care to cite *any* specific instance in which I've made such aL claim?  My intention has been to warn of the distinct possibility of similarG future treachery, not to in any way guarantee it (I wouldn't presume tok6 guarantee *anything* about the behavior of such scum).   >eE > The basic fact is that NOTHING that HPQ can do will make you happy.n  K Of course there are things that HP *could* do that would make me (and quitesK a few others here, from what they've said) happy, and I've listed them moreV
 than once.     YoulK > insincerely claim something about wanting an apology... which is merely abC > convenient excuse to never change your mind since you know that's 
 > impossible.c  I I guess you're either a moron or just another apologist scumbag.  There'seG nothing insincere about what I've said, nor anything 'impossible' abouthL wishing for management decent (and strong) enough to admit and apologize for past errors.   >w > >eD > >  And if you're proved to be right, I'd even give you the "I told
 > >> you so".a > >iK > >I don't choose to wait around to be proved right yet again:  I choose tot try   > >to force a different outcome. >o > This is utter hogwash.  J You're awfully cavalier about presuming to understand my motivations.  ButK then you don't seem very sharp about understanding much of anything else ino this discussion either.e  2   If you were trying to force a different outcome,8 > you wouldn't waste your time writing diatribes in cov.  E As I've said already, if I thought it were a waste of time I wouldn't J bother.  But I'm also not sufficiently motivated to devote much time to it+ outside the venues which I frequent anyway.i     Nobody in here? > believes that something written here will change the company.g  L There was certainly a time when that was not true.  Marcello was reported toH keep an eye out here, for example - and quite a few people here believedK that working *with* him was the best chance to get VMS's visibility raised.   I It is true, however, that the likelihood of affecting corporate attitudescH took a major dip when the acquisition by HP was announced.  Before then,D with Alpha revenues tanking after the Alphacide there seemed to be aI significant chance that Curly's incompetent management would cause him to H get the boot - and that for a CEO teetering on the edge relatively minorL pressures might have larger than normal effects.  Since then, it's been moreG a matter of attempting to ensure that cHumPaq continues to pay the fullgL price for its actions and leaving it up to them to decide whether that price warrants a change in attitude.   >p > >w > >>I > >> It's the constant pounding, and using that to drive home that nobody  can: > >bel! > >> trusted anymore, so why try,3 > >iC > >I've never claimed that *nobody* could be trusted, just cHumPaq.a > >n) > >> that makes the effort so much waste.o > >bL > >If *I* thought it were a waste, I wouldn't waste my time on it.  The factL > >that the Alphacide appears to have cost cHumPaq a *net* loss in profit ofI > >hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and the likelihood that this, lossL > >would have been far less if they had been allowed to lead their customersL > >like sheep without any opposition, makes me feel that the effort has been > >worthwhile. >nI > What?  You think your writing in here had anything to do with all that?v	 > Really?-  I Of course:  perhaps you should consult a dictionary for the definition ofz 'anything'.p  H If even a single customer has been lost as a result, that's 'something'.L But I suspect it's considerably more than that.  Compaq and its cronies wereL set up to roll the customer base into acceptance of the unacceptable, and ifJ a relatively small number of people had not stood up and called them on itI here they might have succeeded far more than they did.  So while the vasteL majority of something like $1 billion in lost profit so far is likely due toL things like independent customer reaction (not *all* of them were sheep) andJ the general economic climate, even a fairly small percentage of $1 billion is enough to feel good about.    >i > >>K > >> And the "consequences" that would befall them in this free-market is a I > >> significant loss of customers.  That hasn't happened, so maybe, just 	 > >maybe,- > >> there's more to the story.J > >0H > >Let's see:  VMS systems went from $4 billion in annual revenue (June, 2000K > >statement by Rich Marcello, repeated in a March, 2001 slide presentation3E > >*well* after the dot-com boom started going bust - and the limiteduF > >information in the quarterly reports from Compaq corroborated VMS'sG > >resilience in the face of that bust right up to the Alphacide) to $2i billionsE > >in annual revenue (December, 2001 figure in a Compaq response to au Gartner,H > >comment).  And that's for a system that *was* planned to be ported toD > >Itanic, so one can hardly imagine that Tru64 revenues ($3 billion annually* > >prior to the Alphacide) did any better. > >"K > >Even recently, VMS system revenues were reportedly stated by Mark Gorham- toK > >be only $2.5 - $3 billion, with $500 million annual profit (vs. the $800e? > >million Marcello quoted).  And Mark is hardly likely to haveu
 *under*statedr > >the figures.- > >3H > >No 'significant loss of customers'?  Bullshit.  When you consider how largerI > >a percentage of the remaining system revenue likely came from on-goingPL > >service agreements for equipment no one was about to throw away before itL > >required an upgrade rather than new-equipment purchases, the loss becomes > >even more staggering. > >I >aL > Of course, these are only "obvioius" if you completely ignore the downturn5 > that was beginning in Nov 2000 (according to some),   K One need not ignore that, only recognize that (again, according not only tonE Compaq's public presentations through March and May, 2001, but to itseI quarterly statements through June, 2001) VMS was relatively unaffected byrJ the dot-com bust (just as it had been relatively unaffected by the dot-com boom) - until the Alphacide.    and became an avalanche > after the 9/11 attacks.s  G IIRC NSK sales continued robustly - and may even have increased - after I 9/11.  VMS's could have as well, and for very much the same reasons - had  the Alphacide not occurred.y  -   The complete shutdown of the airlines alone G > destroyed lots of companies' business (consulting, for example).  ThevH > entire market went way south, and it's not surprising at all that some< > areas would see worse hits than others in uncertain times. >eJ > Your analysis is incomplete if it ignores these and only quotes straight
 > numbers.  I As noted above, my analysis in no way ignored those events.  By contrast,cC you don't appear to have anything to say that remotely qualifies asC% 'analysis' in even the loosest sense.9   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:20:50 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>Y Subject: Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alphr, Message-ID: <3F2593B2.4090406@tsoft-inc.com>   jlsue wrote:  J > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:25:50 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> > wrote:  I >>Many to other vendors - though you're probably not 'working with' those  >>particular people any more.n >>E > In which case, they've moved on... which has been my point exactly.a- > They've got nothing to gripe about anymore.a    N That's not necessarily accurate.  What if they ported to another system based P upon what they saw as a massive screw-up by Compaq, and felt that they could no Q longer trust Compaq?  What if the cost of the port was significant?  What if the  O cost of the port put them out of business?  (What's that you say?  They're out -O of business and therefore "They've got nothing to gripe about anymore.")  What eI if whatever they've moved to is not as good a solution as their previous dP solution?  The issue was and still is, moving to another solution isn't easy or E cheap, and COMPAQ DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE COST TO THE CUSTOMERS!h  O How about I empty your bank account, with nothing unfavorable to me?  How long  - will you remember it in an unfavorable light?m      > K >>>Making predictions about supposed future behavior is nothing but FUD, no # >>>matter how you like to couch it.     N You've got a valid point.  However IA-64 doesn't have a good past, and making O predictions based upon past behavior isn't just a time honored tradition, it's t actually kind of smart.?  H >>Claiming that past behavior should not be considered in dealing with aM >>company is just plain stupid.  Such a claim coming from an employee of that3< >>company might be considered something even less admirable. >> > J > That's not what I'm claiming, of course.  Saying you're skeptical is oneI > the thing, but making grand claims about future failures is an entirelyr > different one.    P I've not seen 'grand claims'.  I've seen skepticism based upon past performance.    J > The basic fact is that NOTHING that HPQ can do will make you happy.  YouK > insincerely claim something about wanting an apology... which is merely anC > convenient excuse to never change your mind since you know that'ss
 > impossible.o    O Actually Bill doesn't want an apology.  He wants an apology to those 'wronged' t
 by Compaq.  P Further, not speaking for Bill, but there is something that could make me a bit N happier.  When the last VAXs were discontinued, there just wasn't any options M for those who could quite happily continue to use VAX systems.  Not everyone wP needs the latest and fastest.  Further, the last 4-5 years after CPU production N was shut down, Digital really screwed those who bought MicroVAX 3100 model 96 O and model 98 systems.  Something like $37K, while a decent Alpha sold for $18K.t  P How about continuing to manufacture Alphas as long as people will buy them, and M at some reasonable price?  Read reasonable as priced similar to systems with hN similar capabilities.  There will not be any R&D involved, just continuing to O churn out chips to the last few specs, and systems that use current and decent nM parts.  How about continuing to provide currently designed Alphas as long as t customers provide a demand?d  M I wouldn't mind process shrinks, and the resulting speed bumps.  But most of 31 all, don't leave customers staring at a dead end.n    B >> And if you're proved to be right, I'd even give you the "I told >> >>>you so".o >>>vN >>I don't choose to wait around to be proved right yet again:  I choose to try >>to force a different outcome.e >> > J > This is utter hogwash.  If you were trying to force a different outcome,H > you wouldn't waste your time writing diatribes in cov.  Nobody in here@ > believes that something written here will change the company.     O Maybe that is a major part of the problem.  Gee, you should know this, but for a! those with short attention spans:l    1) The customer is always right.  + 2) When the customer is wrong, refer to #1.n  Q There are other communication paths, and quite possibly some better than others, i6 but to just dismiss a communication path is a problem.    K >>>It's the constant pounding, and using that to drive home that nobody cand >>>a >>be >> >>>trusted anymore, so why try,  >>>aB >>I've never claimed that *nobody* could be trusted, just cHumPaq. >> >>' >>>that makes the effort so much waste.e >>>hK >>If *I* thought it were a waste, I wouldn't waste my time on it.  The fact K >>that the Alphacide appears to have cost cHumPaq a *net* loss in profit ofeM >>hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and the likelihood that this lossrK >>would have been far less if they had been allowed to lead their customers K >>like sheep without any opposition, makes me feel that the effort has been-
 >>worthwhile.2 >> > I > What?  You think your writing in here had anything to do with all that?:	 > Really?s    J No, many customers can think for themselves.  Seems many came to the same : conclusion.  Are you claiming that all of them were wrong?    I >>>And the "consequences" that would befall them in this free-market is aoG >>>significant loss of customers.  That hasn't happened, so maybe, justs >>>H >>maybe, >> >>>there's more to the story.c >>>oL >>Let's see:  VMS systems went from $4 billion in annual revenue (June, 2000J >>statement by Rich Marcello, repeated in a March, 2001 slide presentationD >>*well* after the dot-com boom started going bust - and the limitedE >>information in the quarterly reports from Compaq corroborated VMS'srN >>resilience in the face of that bust right up to the Alphacide) to $2 billionL >>in annual revenue (December, 2001 figure in a Compaq response to a GartnerG >>comment).  And that's for a system that *was* planned to be ported to L >>Itanic, so one can hardly imagine that Tru64 revenues ($3 billion annually) >>prior to the Alphacide) did any better.4 >>M >>Even recently, VMS system revenues were reportedly stated by Mark Gorham toiJ >>be only $2.5 - $3 billion, with $500 million annual profit (vs. the $800L >>million Marcello quoted).  And Mark is hardly likely to have *under*stated >>the figures. >>M >>No 'significant loss of customers'?  Bullshit.  When you consider how largesH >>a percentage of the remaining system revenue likely came from on-goingK >>service agreements for equipment no one was about to throw away before iteK >>required an upgrade rather than new-equipment purchases, the loss becomeso >>even more staggering.t >> >> > L > Of course, these are only "obvioius" if you completely ignore the downturnM > that was beginning in Nov 2000 (according to some), and became an avalanche F > after the 9/11 attacks.  The complete shutdown of the airlines aloneG > destroyed lots of companies' business (consulting, for example).  The-H > entire market went way south, and it's not surprising at all that some< > areas would see worse hits than others in uncertain times. > J > Your analysis is incomplete if it ignores these and only quotes straight
 > numbers.    N There's also the good performance by distributed clusters of VMS systems that Q came out of 9-11, and the possible result of increased business by those who saw gI a better product save company's data, and more.  Then again, there was a MT significant lack of shouting to the world how well VMS performed in a hostile event.  M The country, and the world, didn't shut down after 9-11.  For sure 1/2 of it tJ didn't shut down, so the VMS loss was much larger proportionally than the M economic downturn.  Be a bit careful with your choices of supporting events, 6 they might turn on you.a     Dave     --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:30:09 -0400e* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>Y Subject: Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alphr2 Message-ID: <or-cneg_iJljPriiXTWJjA@metrocast.net>  L JF and John have done a good job of responding to most of this post, so I'll5 just fill in a couple of holes and add some emphasis:e  3 "jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message-2 news:6eeaiv03sf3akkc0ghroe0b534vtohilr0@4ax.com...H > On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:09:10 GMT, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote:   ...W  A > >2) That all public documents from Compaq until the date of themC > >announcement indicated a substanital chip performance and system G > >advantage for Alpha over IA64 for as far out as any foreseeable time ) > >horizon could be reasonably predicted.k >nE > But chip performance is only one metric that makes for a successfulcK > business.  When they say that it would be better than the competition, it K > needed to be MUCH better than the competition to have real impact to growrH > the business.  During the huge market boom we weren't able to grow theJ > business for Alpha... in a downturn they could only expect it to get hit > worse.  J Utter crap (since John was too polite to characterize it thus).  The Tru64E business was growing at a 30% annual rate (far faster than its largertG competition) at the end of the dot-com boom, *despite* Compaq's neglect L (though Tru64 wasn't neglected as much as VMS was - and even VMS was growingK modestly during that period with no marketing whatsoever).  And while Tru64zJ offered some features that other Unixes lacked, its popularity undoubtedlyJ was in at least large part due to the performance that Alpha provided (and# that Tru64 took full advantage of).d  L As already noted elsewhere, the Alpha business was *not* hit hard by the endF of that boom:  it only disintegrated when the Alphacide was announced.L Considering that a full 2 years later Itanic sales still don't even registerL on anyone's radar screen (and thus hardly would have affected Alpha by now -J whether they *ever* would have remains conjectural), with *any* reasonableL support Alpha systems could have been riding very high right now (far higherJ than they did while they were nearly single-handedly keeping Compaq afloat< back in Y2K despite Compaq's lack of appreciation for them).   ....  I > >3) A stated 25-year minimum life span for Alpha (whether that was fromeH > >the date somebody first thought of an Alpha-like architecture in 1961> > >;-)  or from the date of first-ship in 1992 can be argued). >oL > So what?  The chip certainly had that capability, but the business didn't.   Once again:  utter crap.   ...2  D > >6) The sudden impact the announcement had on sales of Alpha & VMSI > >which in the minds of many customers created a very real threat to the I > >survival of VMS, notwithstanding the greasy similitudes of Capellas toeD > >the contrary. In other words, FUD of Comapq's own creation due to: > >distrust of the organization and the senior management. > >i >tH > Hokay.... now it's two years later, re-stated AlphaServer roadmaps are > being implemented as planned,p  K No, they are not.  EV7 was slipped (for no stated reason that I'm aware of:rK the obvious suspicion is that HP didn't want it to over-shadow the McKinley/G launch) from Q3, 2002 (the stated date as of January, 2002 - well afterrG testing and verification after the June, 2002 first silicon should have I reduced surprises to a minimum) to January, 2003, and shipped at slightlynH lower than planned clock speed.  EV79 was then gutted:  slipped from Q1,K 2004 to late 2004, clock speed cut back from 1.6 - 1.7 GHz to 1.45 GHz, andrK on-chip cache reduced to EV7's 1.75 MB from the 3 MB that had been planned.   .  customers can still get the systems they needL > (and many are), and the IA64 port is going very well.  Customer's see thatH > they'll be able to move from alpha to IA64 if/when they determine it's > best..  H That hardly addresses those who didn't want to have to migrate *at all*.G And the marginalization of EV7 and EV79 puts pressure even on those whomF might have been happy had the restated roadmaps actually been honored.  B   Much of the FUD spread about what CPQ/HPQ intended to do to/withF > VMS have proven to be false ("The port of OpenVMS to IA64 will never
 > occur").  G To be technically correct, that assertion will not be proven until someeL customer has actually purchased VMS V8.2.  But what may be more important toG many customers is whether any significant VMS development will continuen *after* that point.h   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:33:26 -0400y* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>Y Subject: Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alph ) Message-ID: <3F255E62.88D64BD7@istop.com>u   jlsue wrote:K > business.  When they say that it would be better than the competition, it K > needed to be MUCH better than the competition to have real impact to growwH > the business.  During the huge market boom we weren't able to grow theJ > business for Alpha... in a downturn they could only expect it to get hit > worse.  L Sun is and was able to make its own chip and be quite succesful with it. HowI come Digital failed with all its products ? Could it be MARKETING ???????Y Could it be MICROSOFT ?r  K Digital performed harakiri to show Bill Gates it really wanted to help BillaR Gates. Unfortunatly, it killed itself in doing so and couldn't help Gates anymore.  M Compaq had no intentions of taking Digital products and leveraging their trueeD potential. It just wanted to be a Wintel company like it used to be.  M > And just going by recollections of Sun and IBM FUD against Alpha just prior  > to all that,  L Easy FUD when a product's owner doesn't want to defend that product, doesn't= market it and makes sure it is priced to prevent its success.   = > it hadn't enjoyed all that much of a lead in performance in A > the 2 years or so leading up to June 25th.  Sure, it'd leapfrog 5 > competition, but was it enough to sustain business?D  N Consider that as soon as Curly became the puppet at the top of Compaq, Alpha'sM future was sealed. Remember that prior to the murder of Alpha, there had alsooL been discussions about killing VMS, and we can thank Marcello for preventingN that and even getting a short-lived "renaissance" where VMS was allowed a tinyL bit of marketing. And that tiny bit of markleting gave VMS a growth spurt toJ nearly 10%. You'd think that the top management would have said "WOW, withI just a token amount of marketing, we can grow this profitable products by1B almost 10%, we should add more marketing and make tons of money".   N BUT NO ! As soon as they saw the potential for VMS, they stopped the marketingL and VMS went back to the basement and not long after, they tried to drown it when they murdered Alpha.s  L Excuse me, but it seems to blatantly obvious to me: Compaq wasn't interestedI in Digital products and it did everything it could to "gently" get rid ofi them.   L > So what?  The chip certainly had that capability, but the business didn't.  J FALSE.  Compaq had a 64 bit that had proven itself, was working, and wouldK cost far less to develop than Intel's bloated untested designs.  But CompaquK decided NOT to leverage that potential and kill it in order to preserve itso relationship with Intel.  H Had Pfeiffer stayed at Compaq, I suspect Intel would have sweated plentyL because Pfeiffer could have pushed Alpha into mainstream and that would haveH effectively killed IA64 which was still years away from running a simple "Hello World" program.  F It would be extremely interesting to look back to see if Intel had anyN influence in the selection of the Curly puppet and once selected, if Intel had6 any influence on the manipulation of the Curly puppet.  H When you think about it, Intel had a hell of a lot to lose with Pfeiffer staying on-board.   K > And at the time that Alpha was starting up, nobody expected that businesshD > critical computing would be served by so many cheap Intel systems.  L Digital refused to consider wintel competition. But even in the early 1990s,L everyone else saw Wintel as serious competition. As a matter of fact, when IK justified the purchase of a microvax II to perform bank security statistics-J for all of canada, some folks suggested I go with a PC since PCs were justL starting to have large enough disk drives.  (that MV II also gave the officeK word processing, but that could also have been done on PCs even in the 19871 time frame).  E it is only the folks inside of Digital who were blinded to the wintel I competition and who kept insisting that DEC's C compiler was so much morewH powerful than Microsoft's that it still commanded a $6000 price when the microsoft one was around $400.  M Consider American Airlines. When a small upstart airline started to offer lowoN cost service from Dallas (love field), American immediatly started a competingN service even if it costed AA lots of money. It didn't take long for AA to kill Legend.   N When you see a cancer start to grow, it is best to attack it right away before it grows too much. 2N By refusing to see the wintel as a cancer, Digital allowed Wintel to take over8 the world and the idiots then proceeded to even help it.  l  K > That is not at all a reasonable conclusion.  IA64 is NOT a mature products > yet.  L Well, make up your mind. Is it ready for prime time or not ? And if not, howC come they murdered Alpha before IA64 was mature enough to run VMS ?   H > Hokay.... now it's two years later, re-stated AlphaServer roadmaps are > being implemented as planned,l  H As planned ? Not sure about that. How about the rumours that EV7 is muchL slower than it could have been ?  If IA64 were so great, HP/Compaq would notI have had to slow down Alpha and would have given it its last real days of5J glory. Oops, that would have destroyed their arguments that Alpha couldn't keep up with IA64.  H > they'll be able to move from alpha to IA64 if/when they determine it's
 > best..    L But the lack of marketing of VMS is still THE major problem. The forced moveN to an unwanted chip is just forcing customers to rethink their VMS investment,I at the very time you don't want them to do that. When you rethink you VMSnB infrastructure and you see HP excluding VMS from all its strategicK documents/speeches etc (ok, except the last one), then you really wonder ift& VMS has a future inside its new owner.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:09:11 -0400i# From: "Dan Allen" <dallen@nist.gov> Y Subject: RE: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alph : Message-ID: <JFEPKAPBPMDFDBOIANGDOEKBDLAA.dallen@nist.gov>   > -----Original Message-----3 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com]t% > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:33 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.CompH > Subject: Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re:I > HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense) Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense)a  > Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense) >  >  > jlsue wrote:M > > business.  When they say that it would be better than the competition, it M > > needed to be MUCH better than the competition to have real impact to growiJ > > the business.  During the huge market boom we weren't able to grow theL > > business for Alpha... in a downturn they could only expect it to get hit
 > > worse. > N > Sun is and was able to make its own chip and be quite succesful with it. HowK > come Digital failed with all its products ? Could it be MARKETING ???????' > Could it be MICROSOFT ?/ >6  H 	Jesus Christ - what crap. Digital had a tremendously successful line ofL 	products for years - PDP, VAX and VMS revolutionized the way people thoughtO 	about computing. Sun's had their run and now they're taking it on the chin the 0 	same way Digital did for much the same reasons:  C 	1) Some snake oil OS (M$) and cheap hardware is eating their lunch I 	2) Their proprietary OS/HW is being wolloped by a new "free" open-source 8          non-proprietary OS (Linux) and cheap HW (Intel)H 	3) They are no longer inexpensive and most importantly no longer "cool"  M > Digital performed harakiri to show Bill Gates it really wanted to help BilleT > Gates. Unfortunatly, it killed itself in doing so and couldn't help Gates anymore. >nJ 	Digital had one foot in the grave long before BG/MS came along. They just 	helped things along.o    	Dan  O > Compaq had no intentions of taking Digital products and leveraging their true F > potential. It just wanted to be a Wintel company like it used to be. > O > > And just going by recollections of Sun and IBM FUD against Alpha just prior  > > to all that, > N > Easy FUD when a product's owner doesn't want to defend that product, doesn't? > market it and makes sure it is priced to prevent its success.  > ? > > it hadn't enjoyed all that much of a lead in performance intC > > the 2 years or so leading up to June 25th.  Sure, it'd leapfrogo7 > > competition, but was it enough to sustain business?e > P > Consider that as soon as Curly became the puppet at the top of Compaq, Alpha'sO > future was sealed. Remember that prior to the murder of Alpha, there had alsogN > been discussions about killing VMS, and we can thank Marcello for preventingP > that and even getting a short-lived "renaissance" where VMS was allowed a tinyN > bit of marketing. And that tiny bit of markleting gave VMS a growth spurt toL > nearly 10%. You'd think that the top management would have said "WOW, withK > just a token amount of marketing, we can grow this profitable products bygD > almost 10%, we should add more marketing and make tons of money".  > P > BUT NO ! As soon as they saw the potential for VMS, they stopped the marketingN > and VMS went back to the basement and not long after, they tried to drown it > when they murdered Alpha.a > N > Excuse me, but it seems to blatantly obvious to me: Compaq wasn't interestedK > in Digital products and it did everything it could to "gently" get rid ofa > them.  > N > > So what?  The chip certainly had that capability, but the business didn't. > L > FALSE.  Compaq had a 64 bit that had proven itself, was working, and wouldM > cost far less to develop than Intel's bloated untested designs.  But Compaq'M > decided NOT to leverage that potential and kill it in order to preserve itse > relationship with Intel. > J > Had Pfeiffer stayed at Compaq, I suspect Intel would have sweated plentyN > because Pfeiffer could have pushed Alpha into mainstream and that would haveJ > effectively killed IA64 which was still years away from running a simple > "Hello World" program. > H > It would be extremely interesting to look back to see if Intel had anyP > influence in the selection of the Curly puppet and once selected, if Intel had8 > any influence on the manipulation of the Curly puppet. > J > When you think about it, Intel had a hell of a lot to lose with Pfeiffer > staying on-board.4 > M > > And at the time that Alpha was starting up, nobody expected that business F > > critical computing would be served by so many cheap Intel systems. > N > Digital refused to consider wintel competition. But even in the early 1990s,N > everyone else saw Wintel as serious competition. As a matter of fact, when IM > justified the purchase of a microvax II to perform bank security statisticstL > for all of canada, some folks suggested I go with a PC since PCs were justN > starting to have large enough disk drives.  (that MV II also gave the officeM > word processing, but that could also have been done on PCs even in the 1987u > time frame). > G > it is only the folks inside of Digital who were blinded to the wintelsK > competition and who kept insisting that DEC's C compiler was so much moreaJ > powerful than Microsoft's that it still commanded a $6000 price when the  > microsoft one was around $400. > O > Consider American Airlines. When a small upstart airline started to offer lowzP > cost service from Dallas (love field), American immediatly started a competingP > service even if it costed AA lots of money. It didn't take long for AA to kill
 > Legend.  > P > When you see a cancer start to grow, it is best to attack it right away before > it grows too much.  P > By refusing to see the wintel as a cancer, Digital allowed Wintel to take over: > the world and the idiots then proceeded to even help it. >  y > M > > That is not at all a reasonable conclusion.  IA64 is NOT a mature product  > > yet. > N > Well, make up your mind. Is it ready for prime time or not ? And if not, howE > come they murdered Alpha before IA64 was mature enough to run VMS ?i > J > > Hokay.... now it's two years later, re-stated AlphaServer roadmaps are! > > being implemented as planned,w > J > As planned ? Not sure about that. How about the rumours that EV7 is muchN > slower than it could have been ?  If IA64 were so great, HP/Compaq would notK > have had to slow down Alpha and would have given it its last real days of L > glory. Oops, that would have destroyed their arguments that Alpha couldn't > keep up with IA64. > J > > they'll be able to move from alpha to IA64 if/when they determine it's > > best..   > N > But the lack of marketing of VMS is still THE major problem. The forced moveP > to an unwanted chip is just forcing customers to rethink their VMS investment,K > at the very time you don't want them to do that. When you rethink you VMStD > infrastructure and you see HP excluding VMS from all its strategicM > documents/speeches etc (ok, except the last one), then you really wonder ifh( > VMS has a future inside its new owner. >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:57:56 -0400r% From: "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>n; Subject: Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itanium / Message-ID: <viap0s1emhad65@news.supernews.com>a  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message*# news:3F24B222.FD15C41B@istop.com...  > sms@antinode.org wrote:tK > >    You wrote "[...] take that same 5% and raise it to the second power,cJ > > it becomes 25%".  This is simply wrong, whether you believe it or not.B > > When you were (properly) corrected, you reasserted this error. >s- > 5% of 5% is indeed 0.0025   ( 0.05 * 0.05 )  >tF > However, in the Dacthera context, if , in a group of 100, you have 5 personstF > who each tell a secret to another 5 persons, you will end up with 25 people > knowing the secret.   > But that isn't "5% raised to the second power",  it's .05 * 5.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:13:15 -0500i. From: Larry Schuldt <lschuldt@Rudenessdls.net>; Subject: Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itaniumt8 Message-ID: <cqpaiv0nt76m5aujm1jbt6uj21dmv34vru@4ax.com>  C On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:57:56 -0400, "John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com>u wrote:  8 >"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message$ >news:3F24B222.FD15C41B@istop.com... >> sms@antinode.org wrote:G >> However, in the Dacthera context, if , in a group of 100, you have 5t >personsG >> who each tell a secret to another 5 persons, you will end up with 25m >peoplet >> knowing the secret. >u  C This is wrong also. You now have 30 persons knowing the secret. YouvF have 25 new people (this assumes that no two people tell the secret to; the same person, causing a duplication) and the original 5.  -- e= To reply by e-mail, be polite. Rudeness will get you nowhere.e   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:04:29 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>; Subject: Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itaniumw) Message-ID: <3F2573B3.32165846@istop.com>e   Larry Schuldt wrote:E > This is wrong also. You now have 30 persons knowing the secret. YouhH > have 25 new people (this assumes that no two people tell the secret to= > the same person, causing a duplication) and the original 5.r    G Well, I was expecting everyone would know that the example occured in a K psychiatric hospital where each individual would repeat the secret 5 times, N except that the first time they repeat it, they tell it to themselves in front
 of a mirror).t   :-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:32:27 -0500h1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>e; Subject: Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itaniuml' Message-ID: <3F25DCBB.DEB0C343@fsi.net>t   sms@antinode.org wrote:h > E >    Please pardon this waste of group space.  Private e-mail failed.   ' Guess the obvious escapes some folks...e   > [snip]D >    5 (an integer) is different from 5% (a proper fraction).  1% isH > 1/100, not x/100.  (x% is x/100.)  Yes, if you change the problem, you' > can expect to get a different answer.e > I >    You wrote "[...] take that same 5% and raise it to the second power,r > it becomes 25%". h  G I also wrote: "The error I originally made was saying 5%**3, which doesl9 not match the pennies example. That would be (5**3)/100."u  ) What part of that did you not understand?h  6 > This is simply wrong, whether you believe it or not.  H Which is why I issued that statement. What I believe does not enter into this.n   > When you were (e   ..im..1 > properly) corrected, you reasserted this error.t  
 Try again.  E >    Perhaps the group would benifit if you confined your superfluoustI > and/or mistaken contributions toa maximum of, say, one per day, insteadeJ > of more than one per topic.  I know _I_ would appreciate such restraint.  G ...which is rather a shame that you're so self-... I dunno, "righteous")G doesn't feel right, "assured" is not really what I wanted to say, and Ib# don't have the word I really want.    D Perhaps if you would open yourself up to the possibility that others" express themselves differently...?   -- f David J. Dachteraa dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/m   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:33:20 -0500r1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>e; Subject: Re: Migrate obsolete VAX/VMS SW to OpenVMS Itaniume' Message-ID: <3F25DCF0.68C846E1@fsi.net>t   John Vottero wrote:t > 9 > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messagee% > news:3F24B222.FD15C41B@istop.com...u > > sms@antinode.org wrote:gM > > >    You wrote "[...] take that same 5% and raise it to the second power, L > > > it becomes 25%".  This is simply wrong, whether you believe it or not.D > > > When you were (properly) corrected, you reasserted this error. > >t/ > > 5% of 5% is indeed 0.0025   ( 0.05 * 0.05 )  > >rH > > However, in the Dacthera context, if , in a group of 100, you have 5	 > persons H > > who each tell a secret to another 5 persons, you will end up with 25 > people > > knowing the secret.r > @ > But that isn't "5% raised to the second power",  it's .05 * 5.  , Another one didn't read the subsequent post.   -- f David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systemsc http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/r   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:40:19 +0000 (UTC) $ From: THIS$THAT <nobody@spamcop.net> Subject: Model Update Plan. Message-ID: <bg48oj$eh$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>  ? To update or not to update, that is the question.  The cdrecordr> thread about what PCSI will and won't save, and the differenceA between the un-rebooted, patched, OS and what's on disk, worries.   ? If there's a wrong way to carry out an update, I'm sure I wouldt< find it.  If something can go wrong it will.  Anyone care to5 share their update plan as a possible model solution?a   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:18:49 +0000 (UTC)b7 From: hamilton@Encompasserve.org (Bradford J. Hamilton)s Subject: Re: Model Update Plan. Message-ID: <bg4b0p$t1$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>  U In article <bg48oj$eh$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>, THIS$THAT <nobody@spamcop.net> writes:n@ !To update or not to update, that is the question.  The cdrecord? !thread about what PCSI will and won't save, and the differenceoB !between the un-rebooted, patched, OS and what's on disk, worries. ! @ !If there's a wrong way to carry out an update, I'm sure I would= !find it.  If something can go wrong it will.  Anyone care ton6 !share their update plan as a possible model solution?  : I've not had a problem yet using the following "solution":  L - Backup your system disk before the "update" (Standalone Backup is best, of	   course)0  J - Perform the update, using the "new" PCSI qualifiers discussed elsewhere.  K Of course, the only update I've performed using the "new" qualifiers is the9O latest UPDATE for V7.3-1: I haven't had to back it out yet, so I can't tell you0N that the "back out" functionality works properly.  I would, however, trust VMSH Engineering to have tested out the new functionality sufficiently before releasing it into the wild.	:-)e  M Prior to the new functionality, I have had no issues using the backup/installoL cycle mentioned above - I only had to back out once, and the restore worked A like a charm (even though I had not used Standalone Backup - YMMVp considerably).     ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:28:05 +0000 (UTC)t! From: "Code Monkey" <me@here.com>p Subject: MSA1000/ Message-ID: <bg410j$fc4$1@titan.btinternet.com>b  H Anybody know when the MSA1000 will be officially supported on OpenVMS ??  7 I keep hearing dates, but these come and go............   H Does anybody know anything official ??  Reason I ask is because I reallyL want to get one for a new project, but am currently playing the waiting game (and getting bored of it).   Cheers,o   C.M    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:43:06 -0700i( From: Alan Frisbie <Abuse@NelsonUSA.com> Subject: Re: MSA1000, Message-ID: <3F258ADA.7070404@NelsonUSA.com>   Code Monkey wrote:J > Anybody know when the MSA1000 will be officially supported on OpenVMS ?? > 9 > I keep hearing dates, but these come and go............r > J > Does anybody know anything official ??  Reason I ask is because I reallyN > want to get one for a new project, but am currently playing the waiting game > (and getting bored of it).  @ Likewise!   One question I have is whether there is a controller? that is compatible with the AlphaServer 1000A.   We're going toi> eventually get an ES4x, but I can squeeze an MSA1000 into this= year's budget if I can make it work on the 1000A.   This will B actually make it easier to justify the ES4x on next year's budget!   Alan   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:06:20 GMTa- From: "John E. Malmberg" <wb8tyw@qsl.network>l Subject: Re: MSA1000; Message-ID: <MwlVa.5020$gn6.921679@news1.news.adelphia.net>o   Alan Frisbie wrote:  > Code Monkey wrote: > K >> Anybody know when the MSA1000 will be officially supported on OpenVMS ??  >>: >> I keep hearing dates, but these come and go............ >>K >> Does anybody know anything official ??  Reason I ask is because I reallysC >> want to get one for a new project, but am currently playing the l >> waiting gameo >> (and getting bored of it).  > B > Likewise!   One question I have is whether there is a controllerA > that is compatible with the AlphaServer 1000A.   We're going toh@ > eventually get an ES4x, but I can squeeze an MSA1000 into this? > year's budget if I can make it work on the 1000A.   This willtD > actually make it easier to justify the ES4x on next year's budget!  % I can not say anything official here.a  A Support for the MSA1000 has been delayed, but it is still a high  H priority.  I am hoping that there will be an official announcement soon  that you all will like.a  H I am not aware of what Fibre Channel Adapters that an AlphaServer 1000A 
 will support.a  D The MSA1000 when support is released should work with any supported  Fibre Channel Adapter.   -Johnb wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Onlyo   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:57:45 GMTd% From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com>s Subject: Re: MSA1000: Message-ID: <JolVa.43436$7O4.938922@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>  3 Alan Frisbie <Abuse@NelsonUSA.com> wrote in messageh& news:3F258ADA.7070404@NelsonUSA.com... > Code Monkey wrote:L > > Anybody know when the MSA1000 will be officially supported on OpenVMS ?? > > ; > > I keep hearing dates, but these come and go............y > > L > > Does anybody know anything official ??  Reason I ask is because I reallyK > > want to get one for a new project, but am currently playing the waiting  game > > (and getting bored of it). > B > Likewise!   One question I have is whether there is a controllerA > that is compatible with the AlphaServer 1000A.   We're going to @ > eventually get an ES4x, but I can squeeze an MSA1000 into this? > year's budget if I can make it work on the 1000A.   This willoD > actually make it easier to justify the ES4x on next year's budget! >s > Alan >   H I have 2 MSA1000's in my data center, and 4 still in boxes waiting to beJ racked.  The windows guys have one running with little or no problems on aJ single pathed directly attached fibre connection.  I have not taken enoughD time to really try to set this up with VMS in a SAN environment.  MyJ Platinum support TAM still owes me docs on how to use it with VMS.  We gotL the initial "Sure, It works with VMS" from the sales folks.  But upon askingK for more specific info on setting it up, we where told by the support folksoF to hurry up and wait. It has a serial interface port on the front thatI allows you to use CLI commands that are similar to the HSx commands.  Thel5 disk id's and structures are different from the HSx'st  L From what I have seen/researched, It functions kinda like a baby HSG80.  YouJ can only get 3 shelves, and 4 channels for building raidsets.  This is notK bad if you do not need to have more than a 4-drive raidset.  Or just want alL bunch of mirrorsets.  It has a sparing capability like the HSG's.  I believeH that it uses the same expansion storage shelves (Part Number) as the EMAL style HSG's.  A SCSI 3 shelf with 14 drive slots.  I did not verify the partA number, but it looks identical to the storage shelves in the HSG.h  J The MSA1000 uses 2GIG fibre connections.   You will want to purchase the 2J GIG HBA's and cables.  I'd be more worried about if the HBA's will work inL the 1000A  IF you get the PCI-X adapters for say an ES-47, they may not work in the PCI slots in the 1000A.  G I'll post later if I get the MSA1000 working on one of my alphaservers.r     Alan:yH I would suggest that you get an HSG80 (MA8000/EMA12000, EMA16000) if youE really want something that has a proven functionality record with VMShJ systems.  The MA8000 sounds like a similar configuration to the MSA1000 (3F 14 bay shelves)  But your expansion and configuration options are muchF simpler, and  you do not NEED the SAN appliance that the EVA requires.  L I'm not personally familiar with the ma8000 config.  We have been purchasingH the T-5 storage configurations.  2 - cabinets, 24 - storage shelves, 4 -, storage controllers,  336 disk drives(84x4).     Mike   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:45:34 GMTi# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)e) Subject: Re: NEWBIE: DECWindows Bit Depths0 Message-ID: <OXfVa.995$Ju1.463@news.cpqcorp.net>  b In article <bfsu0q$2n6$2@pcls4.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:& :hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) writes: : d :>In article <bfs881$s2l$1@pcls4.std.com>, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:J :>:Semi-related:  What is the highest resolution now available on VMS, and  :>:what card supports that size? : E :>  The HP 3X-PBXGG-AB (Radeon 7500) AGP card, AFAIK, at 2048 x 1536?e :dI :>    http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/products/graphics/radeon.htmle :TJ :I don't see VMS there anywhere so I figure it's not supported (and won't  :work -- no driver)  t  G   I've passed along the update to the folks maintaining the abovelisted    Radeon 7500 webpage.  E   For the OpenVMS drivers for this, see the (wrapped-for-length) URL:n  8     ftp://ftp.service.digital.com/public/vms/axp/v7.3-1/0       dec-axpvms-vms731_graphics-v0200--4.README  @   has notes on the PCI and AGP drivers for OpenVMS Alpha V7.3-1.  E   The supported Radeon 7500 AGP card is 3X-PBXGG-AB, and the PCI card D   is 3X-PBXGG-AA.  (Other Radeon 7500 controllers from other sourcesC   are not likely to be considered supported.)  Specifically for the C   PCI variant, please see the README above -- AFAIK, PCI testing iss)   underway, and AGP support is ready now.s  % :Anyway, forgot there are AGP alphas.l  6   Which particular Alpha system is involved with this?   :I'm looking for PCI.e  C   Other PCI graphics details were posted in my previous reply.  But C   again, different Alpha systems can have differing support for theb/   available graphics controller configurations.k  N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faqaN  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.comf   ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:04:04 +0000 (UTC)o7 From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) ) Subject: Re: NEWBIE: DECWindows Bit Depthe( Message-ID: <bg4kmk$q16$1@pcls4.std.com>  % hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) writes:h  F >  The supported Radeon 7500 AGP card is 3X-PBXGG-AB, and the PCI cardE >  is 3X-PBXGG-AA.  (Other Radeon 7500 controllers from other sourcesuD >  are not likely to be considered supported.)  Specifically for theD >  PCI variant, please see the README above -- AFAIK, PCI testing is* >  underway, and AGP support is ready now.  & >:Anyway, forgot there are AGP alphas.  7 >  Which particular Alpha system is involved with this?n   >:I'm looking for PCI.  G I'm gathering bits for my new "workstation" - a Alpha 4100 box with two I 533 MHz CPUs (EV56, I believe) - maybe more CPUs if they show up on Ebay.kF It will be a hobbyist license system and I'm not really worried about $ running unsupported devices so much.   -- 4 -Mikeu   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:54:00 GMT*% From: "Mike Naime" <mnaime@kc.rr.com>  Subject: Re: OpenVms Backuph: Message-ID: <I5nVa.43473$7O4.945732@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>  + <david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk> wrote in messagen% news:bflqt5$8g7$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk... J > In article <OQtTa.36387$8g6.500700@news1.news.adelphia.net>, "Mark Buda"  <buda_NO@SPAM.yahoo.com> writes:> > >"Brian Tillman" <Tillman@sparkingwire.com> wrote in message! > >news:3f1d91ae$1@news.si.com... J > >> >More common is an inconsistent or completely invalid (unusable) data > >file. > >>K > >> But the files susceptible to being inconsistent are quite rare (unlessf anJ > >> Oracle or other database system is involved) and those that do happen are J > >> easily remedied simply by recreating the file (like the queue manager > >> files). > >w@ > >I have seen inconsistent files more times than I like to say. > > : > >SYSUAF and other files have been corrupted in the past. > >  >oK > I've been backing up and restoring the system disk with /ignore=interlock  foreK > 15 odd years. Have lost the queue manager files on a couple of occasions.s* > Have never had any problems with sysuaf. > C > Obviously you pick a relatively quiescent time to do your backup.oE > I could probably corrupt the sysuaf if I chose to backup it up whentL > simultaneously bulk loading 8000 students - hence I don't tend to do that. >d > I > Oracle is a whole different ballgame. It plays fast and loose bypassingf RMSh" > in order to improve performance. >a >iK > >If you are backing up an active indexed file with /ignore=interlock, youJ arey7 > >playing with fire and your companies data integrity.J > >2I > >When you need that critical file and have to call CSC to ask for help,  thinknE > >about it, was it worth it to have your system down for 12-24 hoursg becausel* > >you did not back up the data correctly? > >t > >Don't play with fire. > >5 >zB > The officially sanctioned method of doing a standalone backup is impossible for7 > most companies nowadays when 24x7 uptime is required.dH > Hence you are forced to either use /ignore=interlock or to muck aroundH > dismounting and remounting shadowsets - which since the shadowsets are there K > for resilience probably means you need to have each volume comprising a 3n disk > shadowset. >fJ > This is why I was so disappointed when Compaq dropped development of theJ > software which would have allowed you to take a consistent snapshot of a disk  > which could then be backed up.G > They produced the product for NT. They have something very similar inc Tru64 H > with the ADvFS cloning facility but they decided to cancel it for VMS. >u   Dave:s  K Have you looked at the EVA?  It has a snapshot capability that we are usings for our enterprise backups.M   Mike     > David Webb > VMS and Unix team leader > CCSS > Middlesex University >- >- >  > >mark, > >u > >3   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:34:52 -0400I* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>/ Subject: OT: Rolling Stones permanently stained2) Message-ID: <3F25CF33.8CB1B0E9@istop.com>   K This week, the Rolling Stones are holding a benefit concert to help rebuild + the devastated Toronto economy due to Sars.   L They are also plastering the media with ads, and the one song that they keep@ on using is the Microsoft "Start me up". (Remember Windows 95 ?)  K It is interesting how much damage the Rolling Stones did to themselves whenwM they allowed Gates to use that song since 8 years later. Hearing that song isoM still a major irritant to me. I would certaintly avoid their concerts if theyfQ were to play that song. They should have burried it after the Microsoft campaign.l   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:57:18 -0400h  From: John Santos <JOHN@egh.com>3 Subject: Re: OT: Rolling Stones permanently stainedu5 Message-ID: <1030728235613.1344A-100000@Ives.egh.com>   $ On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JF Mezei wrote:  M > This week, the Rolling Stones are holding a benefit concert to help rebuild'- > the devastated Toronto economy due to Sars.e > N > They are also plastering the media with ads, and the one song that they keepB > on using is the Microsoft "Start me up". (Remember Windows 95 ?) > M > It is interesting how much damage the Rolling Stones did to themselves whenhO > they allowed Gates to use that song since 8 years later. Hearing that song is O > still a major irritant to me. I would certaintly avoid their concerts if theylS > were to play that song. They should have burried it after the Microsoft campaign.o  	 Hey, JF -   H Listen to the lyrics - especially the chorus "You make a grown man cry!"   :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)h   --   John Santost Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:32:13 GMTn# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>i+ Subject: Re: Packed decimal arithmetic in C G Message-ID: <xDgVa.76115$vz%.8176@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>t  6 "Paul Sture" <p_sture@elias.decus.ch> wrote in message# news:bjR2qH1EGMrg@elias.decus.ch...g4 > In article <3F22D195.32D39DAF@istop.com>, JF Mezei# <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes:a > > Paul Sture wrote:oE > >> Why are Norway and Denmark  only given to 3 significant figures,u whereg > >> the rest are 5 or 6?  > >oF > > Is it possible that those two countries don't have a free floating currencyC > > and that their currency excange rates are set by government, in  which case, & > > they would have fewer decimals.  ? >s! > Didn't think of that. I'll ask.l    7 Can also be quoting convention for a particular market.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:10:30 -0700w* From: Alan Frisbie <Abuse@Flying-Disk.com>$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates. Message-ID: <3F256716.9030308@Flying-Disk.com>   Al Kossow wrote:F >>By the way, RSX-15 was released late 1970, then was ported to the 11 >>as RSX-11D (Hank Krejci).     A > I've just scanned a 1971 version of the RSX-15 reference manuala> > www.spies.com/aek/pdf/dec/pdp15/DEC-15-GRQA-D_RSX15_1971.pdf > > > Do you happen to know where what the roots of the RSX design< > came from ? It doesn't seem to come from any DEC operating > system from the 60's.s  A I have a copy of the RSX-11M Working Design Document (autographedd@ by Dave Cutler).   I have been meaning to scan it for quite some? time now.   If I don't get it done in the next few weeks, woulde someone please bug me about it?t  A (I might not have the title exactly right, but you get the idea.)v  : I also have a similar, but *much* larger document for VMS.   Thanks,  Alan   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:11:43 -0400d) From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>o$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates0 Message-ID: <fgqdnTQ_wLPoHriiXTWJjQ@comcast.com>   Thomas Dickey wrote:@ > In comp.os.vms Glenn Everhart <Everhart-nospam@gce.com> wrote:K >>Back then of course you'd spend a few thou to buy 16K words (16 bits) of iK >>memory. It was common to refer to memory as "core" back then, whether it rH >>was made of MOS or ferrite, so pervasive had core become for a while. - > perhaps you did (or recall people who did).o, > I didn't, and did not know anyone who did.  ; Glenn's right; "main" memory was often termed "core" memorye9 regardless of the technology used.  After all, "core" hasr< more than one meaning and the non-ferrite one fit very well.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:47:59 -0700n From: aek@spies.com (Al Kossow)h$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates< Message-ID: <aek-2807031347590001@il0502a-dhcp234.apple.com>  < In article <g11Va.162679$ye4.109589@sccrnsc01>, "Dan Brevik" <d.brevik@comcast.net> wrote:?  B > RSX did not come from a DEC operating system, as you observed.  ? > It's intellectual precedants were a realtime executive writene/ > by John Neblett (now retired in Ashville, NC)sF > for the RW-300 process control computer.  Thence to "The SynchronousG > Executive" by me about 1963 for the TRW-330 process control computer.HD > Then I headed the project to write "Ops Control" for the BR-340 in > 1964  (Dupont loved it).  . A photo and general description of the TRW 340! can be found on Ed Thelen's site:h3 http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/BRL64-t.html#TRW-3404   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:16:52 GMTV, From: cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy)$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates$ Message-ID: <ulluie4ho.fsf@dtpq.com>  I >>>>> On 28 Jul 2003 07:38:32 -0700, Patrick Scheible ("Patrick") writes:M  ;  Patrick> Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> writes:rB  >> In comp.os.vms Glenn Everhart <Everhart-nospam@gce.com> wrote:  >> O  >> > Back then of course you'd spend a few thou to buy 16K words (16 bits) of -O  >> > memory. It was common to refer to memory as "core" back then, whether it  L  >> > was made of MOS or ferrite, so pervasive had core become for a while.   >> /  >> perhaps you did (or recall people who did).A.  >> I didn't, and did not know anyone who did.  J  Patrick> Just another datapoint, but calling memory "core" whether it wasO  Patrick> actual core or RAM was common where I was, silicon valley in the lateyN  Patrick> 1970s.  You can also see the remains of this usage today in the Unix  Patrick> core files.M  F RAM...that's disk, right?  (As opposed to the sequential access memory provided by magnetic tape.)a   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:44:25 GMTt' From: John Sauter <J_Sauter@Empire.Net>c$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates8 Message-ID: <f8nbivohatodf2p3ac7tdjoigir7ac8uc5@4ax.com>  - cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:x  F RAM...that's disk, right?  (As opposed to the sequential access memory provided by magnetic tape.)i   John Sauter responded:  9 No, RAM means memory whose access time does not depend on'B the address of the previously accessed location.  Neither disk nor3 tape qualify, but core and semiconductor memory do.o  C Before the invention of core, computer memory was often implementedtC using a disk.  When an instruction completed its execution, the CPU F would wait until the address of the next instruction rotated around toC the read head so it could fetch that instruction.  This wasted timep@ could be avoided by placing instructions in memory such that theC next instruction was about to reach the read head when the previous B instruction was completed.  It was before my time, but I have been= told that the IBM 650 had an assembler called SOAP that wouldpC do this optimization for you.  I count SOAP as the first high-leveln computer language.  8 The invention of core memory made SOAP (and the IBM 650)	 obsolete..%     John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)    ------------------------------  + Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:57:06 +0000 (UTC)r. From: dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca (David Evans)$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates/ Message-ID: <bg4nq2$ij0$1@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca>F  8 In article <f8nbivohatodf2p3ac7tdjoigir7ac8uc5@4ax.com>,) John Sauter  <J_Sauter@Empire.Net> wrote:e >d: >No, RAM means memory whose access time does not depend onC >the address of the previously accessed location.  Neither disk nor 4 >tape qualify, but core and semiconductor memory do. >n  F   Though of course things became more complex with systems like "saticD column DRAM" where you could fetch stuff from within the same columnF without doing another CAS cycle.  As happens so often the expansion of8 "RAM" has little meaning compared to the acronym itself.   -- sM David Evans          (NeXTMail/MIME OK)             dfevans@bbcr.uwaterloo.caeM Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie     http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/rM University of Waterloo         "Default is the value selected by the composer%M Ontario, Canada           overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manualn   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:16:21 -0500%+ From: "John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>o$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates- Message-ID: <bg4u81$spn@library1.airnews.net>e   Yeah.g  I I spent some time programming a TI 320C80 image processor that had static C column DRAM on the board.  You were strongly advised to design youraI processing kernels so they worked on ROWS of pixels, rather than columns,tK because accessing a ROW of data, to pull it into the on-chip RAM banks, was % a LOT faster than accessing a column.   ; "David Evans" <dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in messaget) news:bg4nq2$ij0$1@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca... : > In article <f8nbivohatodf2p3ac7tdjoigir7ac8uc5@4ax.com>,+ > John Sauter  <J_Sauter@Empire.Net> wrote:  > >p< > >No, RAM means memory whose access time does not depend onE > >the address of the previously accessed location.  Neither disk nord6 > >tape qualify, but core and semiconductor memory do. > >p >iH >   Though of course things became more complex with systems like "saticF > column DRAM" where you could fetch stuff from within the same columnH > without doing another CAS cycle.  As happens so often the expansion of: > "RAM" has little meaning compared to the acronym itself. >  > --) > David Evans          (NeXTMail/MIME OK)  dfevans@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca ( > Ph.D. Candidate, Computer/Synth Junkie" http://bbcr.uwaterloo.ca/~dfevans/F > University of Waterloo         "Default is the value selected by the composerH > Ontario, Canada           overridden by your command." - Roland TR-707 Manual   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:25:00 GMTi, From: cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy)$ Subject: Re: PDP-11 OS Release Dates$ Message-ID: <uadaym02s.fsf@dtpq.com>  D >>>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 02:44:25 GMT, John Sauter ("John") writes:  4  John> cstacy@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote:M  John> RAM...that's disk, right?  (As opposed to the sequential access memory "  John> provided by magnetic tape.)    John> John Sauter responded:e  @  John> No, RAM means memory whose access time does not depend onI  John> the address of the previously accessed location.  Neither disk nors:  John> tape qualify, but core and semiconductor memory do.  >  John> Before the invention of core, computer memory was oftenC  John> implemented using a disk.  When an instruction completed itsaB  John> execution, the CPU would wait until the address of the nextD  John> instruction rotated around to the read head so it could fetch  John> that instruction.  I Could you provide some references to your claim that disk preceeded core?a  > As far as I know, the first hard disk was IBM's RAMAC in 1956,; but magnetic core memory was invented by Forrester in 1949,c6 and IBM was selling their model 737 core unit in 1954.  A I was making a joke, but when I was learning to program in 1973,  ? the term "random access" definitely referred to the opposite of > sequential access.   The machines I used had core memory, disk> drives, and tape drives (and punched cards and line printers).   ------------------------------  + Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:42:39 +0000 (UTC)r$ From: THIS$THAT <nospam@spamcop.net>- Subject: Re: Terminate with extreme prejudicea/ Message-ID: <bg45cf$v8l$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>   L Early one morning, Mon, 28 Jul 2003 04:23:59 GMT, John Gemignani, Jr. wrote: >p2 >"THIS$THAT" <nospam@spamcop.net> wrote in message* >news:bfkbr9$m18$1@grandcanyon.binc.net... >> Hoff replied:E >> >In article <bfk10j$j7h$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>, THIS$THAT writes:I >> >F >> >:How do you terminate a VMS process with extreme prejudice, or forA >> >:that matter a Solaris one (other than rebooting both boxes)?l >> >G >> >  Assuming restarting TCP/IP Services does not clear this -- and itt' >> >  probably won't -- reboot the box.  >>> >> No, shutting it down using the tcpipconfig menu is what was@ >> tried originally but tcpip$nfs_shutdown.com hung in TCPIP$UCP- >> (at the tcpip unmap * /noconfirm command).t >> >sJ >What is the priority of the NFS server process that is looping?  NormallyJ >NFS is at 8, but if it had an internal problem and attempted to exit withK >NODELET set, the process is set to priority 0 and it goes into an infiniteA >loop (VMS exit does this).  >s 	Actually its still at 8.s  H >I know a few fixes have been put in TCPIP$NFS_SERVICES/TCPIP$NFS_SERVERG >to address some errors.  Be sure that when you get 5.3 that you update E >to latest ECO.  If there are any problems, contact me and I will see  >what I can do.% > & 	John, thanks, I appreciate the offer.  D 	7.3-1 CD arrived Saturday but haven't done anything with it as I'veF 	never done an update before and don't want to rush into it unplanned.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 15:52:38 -07005 From: michael.oconnor@bhpsteel.com (Michael O'Connor)uC Subject: Threaded application crashes on a VAX, but not on an Alphat= Message-ID: <bda6ac5d.0307281452.42dbe801@posting.google.com>-  D I am developing an application in C, in which a thread is created toE handle a socket connection to a remote computer. The thread calls the/D function "gethostbyname", which causes the application to crash on aC VAX 4000-50 (OpenVMS V7.3 with TCPIP V5.1, and C V6.4-005) with the< following error message:  ; %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=04, virtualw+ address=005F977C, PC=00629EF3, PSL=03C00000n  C The same application runs OK on an Alpha with OpenVMS V7.3-1, TCPIP E V5.3 - ECO 2, and C V6.5-001. Below is an extract from the code. NoteoE that calling "gethostbyname" from the main thread on the VAX does noth: cause a crash. Can anyone shed some light on this problem?     #include <netdb.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <stdlib.h>e    F static  char      hostname[11] = "xxxxxxxxxx";    /* Insert a hostname here */p static  pthread_t link_thread;    $ static void *conn_to_remote(void *i) {-   struct hostent *host;,  !   host = gethostbyname(hostname);FA   if ( host != NULL ) printf("In conn_to_remote: host name %s\n",A host->h_name);     pthread_exit(0);   return(NULL);6 }6     int main(void) {c   int   status;h   void *exit_value;    struct hostent *host;n    !   host = gethostbyname(hostname);eF   if ( host != NULL ) printf("In main: host name %s\n", host->h_name);  A   status = pthread_create(&link_thread, NULL, conn_to_remote, 0);n   if ( status != 0 )   {t;     printf("Failed: pthread_create returned %d\n", status);i     exit(status);    }e     /* Do something */   sleep(5);   2   status = pthread_join(link_thread, &exit_value); }    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Jul 2003 18:04:13 -0500- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)aG Subject: Re: Threaded application crashes on a VAX, but not on an AlphaW3 Message-ID: <xXUyDEy$Rhoy@eisner.encompasserve.org>f  u In article <bda6ac5d.0307281452.42dbe801@posting.google.com>, michael.oconnor@bhpsteel.com (Michael O'Connor) writes: F > I am developing an application in C, in which a thread is created toG > handle a socket connection to a remote computer. The thread calls the F > function "gethostbyname", which causes the application to crash on aE > VAX 4000-50 (OpenVMS V7.3 with TCPIP V5.1, and C V6.4-005) with thet > following error message: > = > %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=04, virtuals- > address=005F977C, PC=00629EF3, PSL=03C00000  > E > The same application runs OK on an Alpha with OpenVMS V7.3-1, TCPIPsG > V5.3 - ECO 2, and C V6.5-001. Below is an extract from the code. Note G > that calling "gethostbyname" from the main thread on the VAX does notn< > cause a crash. Can anyone shed some light on this problem?  D If the debugger makes the problem go away, I would suggest using the process dump capability.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:27:28 GMTr# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>rA Subject: Vaunted VMS marketing nowhere to be seen - no film at 11 H Message-ID: <4zgVa.76091$vz%.26119@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  F http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0OYN/ 00IOKRYWYQSNDBCCKHSCJUMEYJVN?articleID=12803283o    E ......Analyst Jim Johnson of the Standish Group said enterprises relytF too extensively on recovery. "If you have to recover, you've lost timeA and money." He says most companies are more cognizant of business.> continuity but budget cuts have forced many to pull back. SaysC Johnson: "The goal still needs to be an infrastructure so automaticf" that the time to recover is zero."    > This sounds like a job for Super OpenVMS Clusters (the Open is silent).    # Look up in the magazines and on tv.< It's a bird.
 It's a plane.o4 No, it's advertising for Windows and unix and linux.    $ Advertising VMS by HP is silent too.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:45:44 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>g Subject: Volume shadowing ?o9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIMEJAHKAA.tom@kednos.com>d  7 Is there a size limitation on the drives for AXP 7.1-2?* --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/2003   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:55:58 GMTo# From: hoff@hp.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)  Subject: Re: Volume shadowing ?q1 Message-ID: <OZgVa.1004$Ju1.589@news.cpqcorp.net>t  _ In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIMEJAHKAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:/8 :Is there a size limitation on the drives for AXP 7.1-2?     The terse answer:        Yes.  No.  Maybe.  Depends.m       The slightly longer answer:n  F     Volume shadowing does not impose particular capacity limits beyondG     those of OpenVMS itself, so long as the same number of disk blocks n6     is present on each member volume of the shadowset.  I     OpenVMS Alpha V7.1-2 and specifically volume capacity limits and ECOsrG     are discussed in the OpenVMS FAQ -- there are SCSI- and ATA-relatedtH     disk capacity discussions, and ECO details within the FAQ.  (The FAQ@     discusses rather more than OpenVMS Alpha V7.1-2, of course.)        Some central questions follow:       What is the device?        What is the error? M:     What particular problem(s) are you seeking to resolve?    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------K     For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------E         Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:17:16 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>n Subject: RE: Volume shadowing ?o9 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIGEJJHKAA.tom@kednos.com>t   >-----Original Message-----a+ >From: Hoff Hoffman [mailto:hoff@hp.nospam]a$ >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:56 PM >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  >Subject: Re: Volume shadowing ? >e >l? >In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIMEJAHKAA.tom@kednos.com>, "Tomn! >Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:T9 >:Is there a size limitation on the drives for AXP 7.1-2?t >  >  The terse answer: >   >    Yes.  No.  Maybe.  Depends. >d >o >  The slightly longer answer: >vG >    Volume shadowing does not impose particular capacity limits beyond G >    those of OpenVMS itself, so long as the same number of disk blocksi7 >    is present on each member volume of the shadowset.d > J >    OpenVMS Alpha V7.1-2 and specifically volume capacity limits and ECOsH >    are discussed in the OpenVMS FAQ -- there are SCSI- and ATA-relatedI >    disk capacity discussions, and ECO details within the FAQ.  (The FAQyA >    discusses rather more than OpenVMS Alpha V7.1-2, of course.). >n >n! >  Some central questions follow:S >0 >    What is the device? >    What is the error?e; >    What particular problem(s) are you seeking to resolve?a  G I was thinking about populating a BA356 with Seagate 73GB drives, which  would H be accessed by two PWS500's, one running 7.1-2 the other 7.3, but I will have a look at the FAQ, thanks.   >- >-1 > ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h>1 >-----------------------------L >    For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.hp.com/go/openvms/faq3 > --------------------------- pure personal opinionw >---------------------------F >        Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoff[at]hp.com >d >---' >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.i; >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).eA >Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/2003  >a ---t& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/2003   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:42:08 -0500m1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>k Subject: Re: Volume shadowing ?n' Message-ID: <3F25DF00.2AD8B64E@fsi.net>-   Tom Linden wrote:  >  > >-----Original Message-----M- > >From: Hoff Hoffman [mailto:hoff@hp.nospam]k& > >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:56 PM > >To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com" > >Subject: Re: Volume shadowing ? > > 
 > > [snip] > >t > >    What is the device? > >    What is the error?a= > >    What particular problem(s) are you seeking to resolve?t > I > I was thinking about populating a BA356 with Seagate 73GB drives, whicha > would J > be accessed by two PWS500's, one running 7.1-2 the other 7.3, but I will > have a > look at the FAQ, thanks.  E I'd be concerned about heat. Dunno what kind of heat those drives puth/ out, and dunno if the BA356 fans can handle it.t  2 Dual "beefy" power supplies might be needed, also.  & Better check the heat/power spec.'s...   --   David J. Dachterae dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/!   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:49:51 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> / Subject: Yamahill? Prescott? Wot's it all mean?fH Message-ID: <3UgVa.76188$vz%.69614@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  F http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=5&u=/pcworld/20030 728/tc_pcworld/111508i     ......  D "Sixty-four bits is of great use in the back office, for servers andB databases," says Intel spokesperson George Alfs. "The big iron hasD good use for 64-bits," he adds, but says the company isn't convinced. the technology yet has a place on the desktop.  E "It's hard to peg an exact time for this transition," Alfs adds. "ThesC infrastructure isn't here today," but, he notes, "we're keeping our  options open."  C Intel wants to keep 64-bit computing as a server technology for the D time being, so it can sell more Itanium processors, Krewell says. ItD doesn't want to sell the Itanium as a desktop processor. Plus, thereD is a key difference between the Itanium and the Apple and AMD chips.D While the G5 and Athlon 64 can run 32-bit applications natively, theE Itanium is a pure 64-bit chip that requires slower software emulation  to run 32-bit apps.w  @ Rumors persist, however, that Intel has created a 32- and 64-bitF capable processor code-named Yamhill that could ship should the 64-bitE desktop market heat up, Krewell says. If such a technology exists, itiD could even be seeded into Intel's next-generation desktop processor,E code-named Prescott, which is due this year. Intel's Alfs declines tow comment on the Yamhill rumors.  F Epic's Sweeney agrees that Intel seems reluctant to move to 64 bits onC the desktop, but he says the company is too savvy to let others geth# ahead on this important technology.n  D "In the next two years, either Intel will ship a 64-bit desktop chipB or it will lose the majority of its consumer and business market,"D Sweeney says. "If I was in Intel's position, I would be working...toD get a 64-bit chip ready, but in the meantime, I would be downplaying the importance of 64 bits."t   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.415 ************************