1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 10 Jun 2003	Volume 2003 : Issue 319       Contents: Re: access violation in SMTP  Re: Alan Erskine dying from AIDS  Re: Alan Erskine dying from AIDS  Re: Alan Erskine dying from AIDS1 Re: Another future of VMS article on the Inquirer 1 Re: Another future of VMS article on the Inquirer ; Re: BLASTed directory locks, timing windows & endless loops  Re: Corporate takeovers A Re: CREATE/TERMINAL ... maintain focus in DECterm issuing command & Re: CSWB 1.2.1 fails to display images
 Default route  Re: Default route " Re: Dell to make Itanium 2 systems" Re: Dell to make Itanium 2 systems" Re: Dell to make Itanium 2 systems$ Re: ES40 processor upgrade questions$ Re: ES40 processor upgrade questions Re: Firewall for VMS / TRU64 Re: Firewall for VMS / TRU64 Re: Firewall for VMS / TRU64 Re: Gnu make question * Re: Halt & Startup Issues with VS 4000 VLC Re: Help listing SYSGEN params# Re: Here's a commercial for you all # Re: Here's a commercial for you all # Re: Here's a commercial for you all # Re: Here's a commercial for you all @ Hobbyist or EDU license experience with multiprocessor machines?( Re: How get OS on totally blank machine?M Re: How to compile/link Fortran for 'portable' executable to down-level OVMS? ! I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!! % Re: I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!! % Re: I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!! % Re: I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!! / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way / Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way + Re: JF Mezei gang raped in comp.os.vms orgy 1 Re: JF's spirit entered my body when he fucked me 1 Re: JF's spirit entered my body when he fucked me C Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ... C Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ... C Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ... C Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ... 7 Memory alignment (Was: What do these Macro codes mean?) ( Re: Mezeing, and Mezei's severe problems( Re: Mezeing, and Mezei's severe problems' MMS v3.3-4 bug (was Re: VMS SQL client) ) Re: Motif 1.3, Euro sign not standard ?!? ) Re: Motif 1.3, Euro sign not standard ?!?  need kbd for VAX4000/90 ' Re: OT: CNN Story Not Favorable To Bush ' Re: OT: CNN Story Not Favorable To Bush  Re: perl question  Re: perl question  Re: perl question  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death  Re: Portents of Itanium death ? Re: Printer recommendation, hobbyist/decwindows/mozilla and VMS  Re: rtr web admin   Re: Running java programs in VMS& Re: Speed of IDE controllers in DS10 ? Supporting  Wintel laptops Re: Supporting  Wintel laptops Re: Supporting  Wintel laptops Re: Supporting  Wintel laptops TLZ10  Re: VAX VMS 7.3  Re: VMS SQL client Re: VMS SQL client Web Apps for VMS Re: Web Apps for VMS Re: Web Apps for VMS RE: Web Apps for VMS Re: Web Apps for VMS Re: Web Apps for VMS Re: Web Apps for VMS# Re: What do these Macro codes mean? # Re: What do these Macro codes mean? 0 Re: [The Inquirer] "HP trying to dump OpenVMS ?"0 Re: [The Inquirer] "HP trying to dump OpenVMS ?"0 Re: [The Inquirer] "HP trying to dump OpenVMS ?"  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:20:02 GMT 1 From: Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com> % Subject: Re: access violation in SMTP 2 Message-ID: <3EE54024.BAEF163D@firstdbasource.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:  > & > Message from user INTERnet on XXXXXXE > INTERnet ACP SMTP Accept Request from Host: a.b.c.d     Port: 64855  > ( > Message from user TCPIP$SMTP on XXXXXXF > %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address= > 000000006666( > 6664, PC=0000000066666664, PS=0000001B > & > Message from user INTERnet on XXXXXXH > INTERnet ACP AUXS error during process exit  Status = %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO > I > Has anyone seen the above?  Any idea what caused it?  Any idea where to J > start looking?  (I have the SMTP logicals set to be verbose, so I hope IH > can find something somewhere.  If anyone knows a quick answer---or, if5 > necessary, a quick fix---I'd appreciate it though.)  > ! > 5.0A, soon to be upgraded.  :-|     H look in the TCPIP$SMTP_COMMON directory and look at the log files.  What do they say?   --   Regards,  6 Michael Austin            OpenVMS User since June 19847 First DBA Source, Inc.    Registered Linux User #261163 7 Sr. Consultant            http://www.firstdbasource.com    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 22:46:14 +0200 0 From: Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au>) Subject: Re: Alan Erskine dying from AIDS 9 Message-ID: <VBIQCPAX37781.9478240741@Gilgamesh-frog.org>   1 Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote:   3 >Not as bad as blah blah blah...same old tired shit   F Please forgive my immature outburst in my post above.  My AIDS-ravagedK brain is backfiring again.  I have AIDS-induced dementia.  I deserve it for B all my years of promiscuous gay sex.  That's probably why JF keepsI rejecting my advances and doesn't answer the love emails I send him.  I'm K sorry JF, I love you, but I know you deserve better than me.  I only have a F few more weeks to live anyway, so I'll just continue masturbating five/ times a day looking at your picture till I die.    -- Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au Where's the WMD Mr Bush?   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:26:32 -0400  From: "J.J. Jarod" <jarod@jj.ca>) Subject: Re: Alan Erskine dying from AIDS 7 Message-ID: <fY6Fa.1733$mH1.73577@wagner.videotron.net>    High speed faggot!   Jarod   G "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> a crit dans le message de 3 news:VBIQCPAX37781.9478240741@Gilgamesh-frog.org... 3 > Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote:  > 5 > >Not as bad as blah blah blah...same old tired shit  > H > Please forgive my immature outburst in my post above.  My AIDS-ravagedI > brain is backfiring again.  I have AIDS-induced dementia.  I deserve it  for D > all my years of promiscuous gay sex.  That's probably why JF keepsK > rejecting my advances and doesn't answer the love emails I send him.  I'm K > sorry JF, I love you, but I know you deserve better than me.  I only have  a H > few more weeks to live anyway, so I'll just continue masturbating five1 > times a day looking at your picture till I die.  >  > -- > Alan Erskine  > alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au > Where's the WMD Mr Bush? >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:19:05 +1000 2 From: "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au>) Subject: Re: Alan Erskine dying from AIDS < Message-ID: <3ee5079c$0$22427$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>  L Jarod - I think you'll find this is quite fake - the coward that posted this uses annonomysing software.    -- Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au Where's the WMD Mr Bush?    + "J.J. Jarod" <jarod@jj.ca> wrote in message 1 news:fY6Fa.1733$mH1.73577@wagner.videotron.net...  > High speed faggot! >  > Jarod  > I > "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> a crit dans le message de 5 > news:VBIQCPAX37781.9478240741@Gilgamesh-frog.org... 5 > > Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote:  > > 7 > > >Not as bad as blah blah blah...same old tired shit  > > J > > Please forgive my immature outburst in my post above.  My AIDS-ravagedK > > brain is backfiring again.  I have AIDS-induced dementia.  I deserve it  > for F > > all my years of promiscuous gay sex.  That's probably why JF keepsH > > rejecting my advances and doesn't answer the love emails I send him. I'm H > > sorry JF, I love you, but I know you deserve better than me.  I only have > a J > > few more weeks to live anyway, so I'll just continue masturbating five3 > > times a day looking at your picture till I die.  > >  > > -- > > Alan Erskine" > > alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au > > Where's the WMD Mr Bush? > >  > >  >  >    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:17:48 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>: Subject: Re: Another future of VMS article on the Inquirer2 Message-ID: <8LecnTB6lvnKUnmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>  > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message7 news:cf15391e.0306090719.5e933532@posting.google.com... 7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message . news:<ipucnQSyadqPCn-jXTWcqw@metrocast.net>...J > > I did find Terry's recent Inquirer reference to $800 million in annual VMS  > > system profit rather a hoot  > ... K > > Since then, VMS revenues have dropped by at least half (from $4 billion K > > annually as of Y2K/early 2001) to $2 billion annually just a few months I > > later (as of the December, 2001 formal letter responding to Gartner's H > > negative comments about VMS, so one might reasonably assume that the figure > > wasn't being low-balled).  > D > During HP Enterprise Users Week in Amsterdam a few weeks ago, MarkG > Gorham told the attendees that VMS generates between $2.5 billion and F > $3.0 billion in revenues, and $500 million in profits (in US dollars( > and definition of "billion") annually.  K Thanks - first number I've heard in this area since the Gartner response 18 K months ago.  So while things aren't nearly as good as they used to be, they J aren't quite as bad as they were shortly after the Alphacide.  The commentH about Terry's inflated use of 2- to 3-year-old profit information in the$ present tense still stands, however.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:19:06 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> : Subject: Re: Another future of VMS article on the InquirerF Message-ID: <uebFa.36473$G_.1599@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message , news:8LecnTB6lvnKUnmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net... > @ > "Keith Parris" <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message9 > news:cf15391e.0306090719.5e933532@posting.google.com... 9 > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message 0 > news:<ipucnQSyadqPCn-jXTWcqw@metrocast.net>...E > > > I did find Terry's recent Inquirer reference to $800 million in  annual > VMS ! > > > system profit rather a hoot  > > ... E > > > Since then, VMS revenues have dropped by at least half (from $4  billion F > > > annually as of Y2K/early 2001) to $2 billion annually just a few monthsA > > > later (as of the December, 2001 formal letter responding to 	 Gartner's F > > > negative comments about VMS, so one might reasonably assume that the  > figure > > > wasn't being low-balled).  > > F > > During HP Enterprise Users Week in Amsterdam a few weeks ago, MarkE > > Gorham told the attendees that VMS generates between $2.5 billion  and @ > > $3.0 billion in revenues, and $500 million in profits (in US dollars * > > and definition of "billion") annually. > A > Thanks - first number I've heard in this area since the Gartner  response 18 D > months ago.  So while things aren't nearly as good as they used to be, theyD > aren't quite as bad as they were shortly after the Alphacide.  The comment F > about Terry's inflated use of 2- to 3-year-old profit information in the & > present tense still stands, however.  6 Either way, $500MM or $800MM is a big chunk of change.  D Imagine any company in industry you'd like where a product brings inE 10% of the company's profits and you'll see advertising and marketing F to further promote the product and expand the profitability and market@ share of that product.....any company in any industry except HP.  > As a customer it makes you feel like you've been given eternal life...by a vampire.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:33:11 -0500 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com> D Subject: Re: BLASTed directory locks, timing windows & endless loops3 Message-ID: <3EE4EF07.FACA03C9@applied-synergy.com>    Richard Maher wrote: >  > Hi Jim > 1 > Thanks for the info, it was right on the money!  > K > (Curiously a $search or DIR needs the lock 3 times and a DELETE or CREATE  > only needs it twice?)  > 6 > Can you please help with a couple of final issues: - > L > 1) I now get told when "something" happens on a given directory and I alsoG > check (if the second longword of the LVB has changed) if the file I'm K > looking for has arrived, but I need to know when the creation of the file N > has completed as opposed to started. So what I'm after is a run-of-the-mill,J > missionary-position file-lock. This seems not to be the arbitration lockI > that Keith Paris has talked about previously, and is very hard to track N > down. (SDA> sh proc/locks Doesn't work 'cos PID is zero. And SDA> show locksK > doesn't have any F11B$a locks)  What is the resource name and access mode  > for a simple *File* Lock?  > L > 2) Where can I find the documantation for lck$m_recover and lck$m_protect?J > In this instance I don't particularly want to use this functionality butM > Kernel mode locks have this annoying habit of surviving image exit and even G > if I go th UWSS route my KRNL rundown routine would have to be pretty G > sophisticated to track multiple File Watches and $DEQs. How to ensure < > housekeeping is done with these locks? Force process exit? > G > 3) 'Cos it's Kernel mode, do I have to ensure that my Blocking AST is M > $lkpaged in memory so that a need to swap it in won't crash the machine. Am N > I getting paranoid? I remember reading in the Hitchhikers Guide (or similar)J > about a TSR Calendar and I had an Old BECOME routine (pre-persona systemJ > services) that used to do this. Does anyone have a handy Kernel mode 101 > cheat sheet? >  > Thanks again for the help! >  > Cheers Richard Maher    : Page faults are allowed during AST delivery and execution.  D However, if you raise your IPL above IPL$_ASTDEL, it is necessary to) lock any pages accessed at eleveated IPL.   G It is probably not necessary to $LCKPAG the pages.  It is sufficient to D $LKWSET the pages as long as the code that uses them is scheduled as part of your process.   G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 18:47:51 -0700 # From: dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley)   Subject: Re: Corporate takeovers< Message-ID: <1ca82fc6.0306091747.40be979@posting.google.com>   "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> wrote in message news:<FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB058912@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>...  > > -----Original Message-----6 > > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com]  > > Sent: June 7, 2003 12:49 AM  > > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com   > > Subject: Corporate takeovers > >  > >  > > Oracle buys Peoplesoft.  > > > > > Corel (owner of Wordperfect) sells itself to a california , > > venture capitalist for a very low price. > >  >  > JF -   > + > I thought you were joking .. Holy smoke !  > ! > Reference Oracle press release: B > http://www.oracle.com/corporate/investor relations/FINALpsft.pdfF > "ORACLE TO LAUNCH CASH TENDER OFFER FOR PEOPLESOFT FOR $16 PER SHARE > < > Oracle Q4 preliminary earnings of 14 to 15 cents per share > J > Redwood Shores, Calif., June 6, 2003-Today, Oracle Corporation announcedB > that it will commence a cash tender offer to purchase all of theJ > outstanding shares of PeopleSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSFT) for $16 per share,J > or approximately $5.1 billion. Separately, Oracle announced that it willC > meet or exceed consensus earnings estimates for the fiscal fourth 
 > quarter. I think it went like this :-  < SAP announces deal with MySQL - Oracle don't really mind SAP outselling them E in the applications market as they usually get the database in an SAP  sale, " however MySQL is another matter...  F Peoplesoft announces merger with JD Edwards - Oracle again usually getE the database in a Peoplesoft sale, but JD Edwards preferered database 	 is DB2...   > Oracle bids $16 for Peoplesoft (when the market price was $18)  @ As usual the only people laughing are Microsoft, who are quietly	 embedding ' sql server into their operating systems    Phil   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:16:00 -0500 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com> J Subject: Re: CREATE/TERMINAL ... maintain focus in DECterm issuing command3 Message-ID: <3EE4EB00.835C30BE@applied-synergy.com>   ! VAXman-, @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:  > 2 > Help save me some mouse movement and clicking... > I > I use a CREATE/TERMINAL command to create a window for the debugger and J > define logicals for the DBG$INPUT/OUTPUT pointing to the created DECtermJ > so that I can debug applications which write to the terminal or that are > detached, etc. > H > I'd like the DECterm to be created but for the "focus" (ie. the activeH > DECterm) to remain in the DECterm issuing the CREATE/TERMINAL command.F > Any ideas?  Perhaps there is a "secret" DECterm specific escape seq., > which can be output after CREATE/TERMINAL?  D I'm not sure if this is what you need or not, but in my DECW$MWM.DAT
 file, I have:     Mwm*keyboardFocusPolicy: pointer Mwm*focusAutoRaise: True Mwm*autoRaiseDelay: 1000  H "keyboardFocusPolicy: pointer" says that whatever window has the pointer automagically also has focus.   F "focusAutoRaise: True" says that whatever window gains focus is raised to the top of the stack.  G "autoRaiseDelay: 1000" says to wait 1000ms when moving the pointer into D a window before raising it.  This keeps the windows from jumping all- over as you move the mouse across the screen.   
 Good luck!    G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com     Fax: 817-237-3074    ------------------------------   Date: 10 Jun 03 06:50:50 +0200) From: p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) / Subject: Re: CSWB 1.2.1 fails to display images ) Message-ID: <E0ITd5pL7Hpt@elias.decus.ch>   b In article <3ee48834$0$49114$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bart Zorn <B.Zorn@xs4all.nospam.nl> writes: > Paul Sture wrote: K >> I have just installed CSWB (although it now calls itself SWB) 1.2.1, and ! >> it doesn't display any images.  >>  F >> This could be a leftover from version 1.0. Has anyone seen anything >> similar?  >>   > I > On a DS10 I have no problems with SWB V1.2.1. Before I installed it, I  7 > had Mozilla 1.2.1 in use, which I first uninstalled.  F > @SYS$COMMON:[MOZILLA]INSTALL REMOVE and then PRODUCT REMOVE MOZILLA. > K > Next I installed SWB and apart from a few cosmetic differences, I see no  8 > functional differences between the two 1.2.1 flavours. >   @ Thanks. That's probably the way to go. I will note that 1.2.1 isE definitely far faster than the previous version I tried, which was so 6 slow as to be largely unusable (debug code in there?).   --  
 Paul Sture   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:26:46 +0200   From: Kees <Ome.Kees@Brabant.nl> Subject: Default route8 Message-ID: <npj9evg54utm7o006j4g27gmk9epfqjn5j@4ax.com>   Hi.   B I wonder if there is a functional difference in defining a default* route in the following two ways (example):  
 First way:0 UCX> set route /default /gateway=192.168.100.2226 UCX> set route /default /gateway=192.168.100.222 /perm   Second way: 8 UCX> set route 0.0.0.0 /gateway=192.168.100.222 /network= UCX> set route 0.0.0.0 /gateway=192.168.100.222 /network/perm    Thanx in advance   Kees Bekema    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:18:18 GMT 1 From: Michael Austin <maustin@firstdbasource.com>  Subject: Re: Default route2 Message-ID: <3EE53FBC.B86BB38D@firstdbasource.com>   Kees wrote:  >  > Hi.  > D > I wonder if there is a functional difference in defining a default, > route in the following two ways (example): >  > First way:2 > UCX> set route /default /gateway=192.168.100.2228 > UCX> set route /default /gateway=192.168.100.222 /perm > 
 > Second way: : > UCX> set route 0.0.0.0 /gateway=192.168.100.222 /network? > UCX> set route 0.0.0.0 /gateway=192.168.100.222 /network/perm  >  > Thanx in advance > 
 > Kees Bekema   C no difference. but I would upgrade from UCX to latest VMS and TCPIP  versions...  --   Regards,  6 Michael Austin            OpenVMS User since June 19847 First DBA Source, Inc.    Registered Linux User #261163 7 Sr. Consultant            http://www.firstdbasource.com    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:59:10 -0400# From: "rob kas" <bob@paychoice.com> + Subject: Re: Dell to make Itanium 2 systems / Message-ID: <ve9imn1q0toi9b@corp.supernews.com>   J   To Bad AMD has sold more Opterons in one Qtr then several years worth of	 Itanium's   /                                             Rob     $ > Dell does an about face on ItaniumG >   Posted by Kenneth Farmer (Wednesday June 04 2003 @ 06:35PM EDT) [ ]  > ? > Looks like Dell has done an about-face. They had announced an F > Itanium-based server back in 2001, but quietly cancelled the productG > shortly afterward. But they recently demonstrated an Itanium 2 server F > at Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 launch, and say they plan to ship  > Itanium boxes later this year. >  > See: > ( > InfoWorld: Dell demos Itanium 2 server= > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/04/24/HNdelldemo_1.html  > G > ComputerWeekly: Dell demos Itanium 2 server, but keeps lid on details ( > http://www.cw360.com/Article121223.htm > * > PC World: Dell Develops Itanium 2 Server9 > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110423,00.asp  > A > The Inquirer: Dell will plump for cheapo Intel Itanium Madisons * > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9780 > ---  > F > A quick Google search confirms that indeed, starting about SeptemberF > 2002, Dell started telling customers that it plans to ship Itanium 2 > systems in 2003. >  > From Information Week F > (http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020912S0002), way back in > September 2002: G > 'Says [Kevin] Rollins [Dell's president and chief operating officer]: H > "We've never doubted that Itanium would be a winner. The question was,/ > when it would be ready" for Dell's strategy?'  > F > From CNET News (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-966499.html) November > 20, 2002: F > 'The Austin, Texas-based computer giant will come out with computersG > containing Intel's latest 64-bit chip, called Itanium 2, according to B > Joe Marengi, senior vice president for Dell's Americas division. > F > "We will support Intel all the way on this...We will have an IA-64 2H > (Itanium 2) product on our roadmap," Marengi said in an interview withD > CNET News.com at Comdex Fall 2002 here. "The technology is totally
 > solid."' > ... H > 'While Marengi declined to discuss Opteron in depth, he noted that theE > benchmark scores of Itanium are relatively strong and that the path : > for adoption among corporate customers seems inevitable. > E > "Over time, that (Itanium) is going to be the technology that takes H > hold," he said. Last year [2001] he was negative on Itanium, but "this? > year [2002] I am in a neutral-to-positive stance," he added.'  > ... > > 'SoundView Technology analyst Mark Speckter said that Dell'sC > vacillation over the past year was largely for show. Adopting AMD F > chips would have required Dell to design completely new computers asE > well as stock additional parts. Servers running AMD chips have also : > historically been shunned by corporate buyers, he added. > F > Meanwhile, Microsoft has continued to pledge its support to Itanium.H > Itanium has been "not a matter of if they (Dell) do it, it is a matter > of when," Speckter said. > D > Scott Randall, also an analyst at SoundView, said that Opteron wasC > also hurt by delays.  If the chip had come out six months ago, it : > would have posed more of a competitive threat, he said.'   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:40:25 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> + Subject: Re: Dell to make Itanium 2 systems 2 Message-ID: <tw4Fa.2206$NO7.1357@news.cpqcorp.net>  K Really?  I didn't know Intel published figures?  But you wouldn't be taking 8 AMD's press releases as some sort of unbiased truth, eh?    . "rob kas" <bob@paychoice.com> wrote in message) news:ve9imn1q0toi9b@corp.supernews.com...  > L >   To Bad AMD has sold more Opterons in one Qtr then several years worth of > Itanium's  > 1 >                                             Rob  >  > & > > Dell does an about face on ItaniumI > >   Posted by Kenneth Farmer (Wednesday June 04 2003 @ 06:35PM EDT) [ ]  > > A > > Looks like Dell has done an about-face. They had announced an H > > Itanium-based server back in 2001, but quietly cancelled the productI > > shortly afterward. But they recently demonstrated an Itanium 2 server H > > at Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 launch, and say they plan to ship" > > Itanium boxes later this year. > >  > > See: > > * > > InfoWorld: Dell demos Itanium 2 server? > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/04/24/HNdelldemo_1.html  > > I > > ComputerWeekly: Dell demos Itanium 2 server, but keeps lid on details * > > http://www.cw360.com/Article121223.htm > > , > > PC World: Dell Develops Itanium 2 Server; > > http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110423,00.asp  > > C > > The Inquirer: Dell will plump for cheapo Intel Itanium Madisons , > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9780 > > ---  > > H > > A quick Google search confirms that indeed, starting about SeptemberH > > 2002, Dell started telling customers that it plans to ship Itanium 2 > > systems in 2003. > >  > > From Information Week H > > (http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020912S0002), way back in > > September 2002: I > > 'Says [Kevin] Rollins [Dell's president and chief operating officer]: J > > "We've never doubted that Itanium would be a winner. The question was,1 > > when it would be ready" for Dell's strategy?'  > > H > > From CNET News (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-966499.html) November
 > > 20, 2002: H > > 'The Austin, Texas-based computer giant will come out with computersI > > containing Intel's latest 64-bit chip, called Itanium 2, according to D > > Joe Marengi, senior vice president for Dell's Americas division. > > H > > "We will support Intel all the way on this...We will have an IA-64 2J > > (Itanium 2) product on our roadmap," Marengi said in an interview withF > > CNET News.com at Comdex Fall 2002 here. "The technology is totally > > solid."' > > ... J > > 'While Marengi declined to discuss Opteron in depth, he noted that theG > > benchmark scores of Itanium are relatively strong and that the path < > > for adoption among corporate customers seems inevitable. > > G > > "Over time, that (Itanium) is going to be the technology that takes J > > hold," he said. Last year [2001] he was negative on Itanium, but "thisA > > year [2002] I am in a neutral-to-positive stance," he added.'  > > ... @ > > 'SoundView Technology analyst Mark Speckter said that Dell'sE > > vacillation over the past year was largely for show. Adopting AMD H > > chips would have required Dell to design completely new computers asG > > well as stock additional parts. Servers running AMD chips have also < > > historically been shunned by corporate buyers, he added. > > H > > Meanwhile, Microsoft has continued to pledge its support to Itanium.J > > Itanium has been "not a matter of if they (Dell) do it, it is a matter > > of when," Speckter said. > > F > > Scott Randall, also an analyst at SoundView, said that Opteron wasE > > also hurt by delays.  If the chip had come out six months ago, it < > > would have posed more of a competitive threat, he said.' >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:32:53 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> + Subject: Re: Dell to make Itanium 2 systems ' Message-ID: <3EE53545.1B76D514@fsi.net>    Keith Parris wrote:  > [snip]F > A quick Google search confirms that indeed, starting about SeptemberF > 2002, Dell started telling customers that it plans to ship Itanium 2 > systems in 2003.  2 I wonder how many of them will be OpenVMS-capable?   --   David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:45:15 -0400 - From: Jonathan Boswell <jsb@ost.cdrh.fda.gov> - Subject: Re: ES40 processor upgrade questions 0 Message-ID: <3EE4FFEB.39905F36@ost.cdrh.fda.gov>   John Santos wrote:D > One of my customers is investigating upgrading a pair of ES40's byF > adding a second processor to each.  Since HP isn't selling these anyE > more (or at least 500Mhz versions), they have gone to a third-party  > supplier.   O You might also tell them they could pull a 500 MHz processor out of one, put it K in the other, and buy two identical 667 or 833 MHz processors for the donor O ES40.  This yields two dual-processor ES40's, though not with identical power.  H I pulled this stunt and it works well.  (Actually I went from two singleL processor 667s to dual processor configurations, and then to quad processorsP with 4 667s and 4 833s.)  Your SMP licenses don't care what speed each processor has.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:48:35 GMT - From: Jack Patteeuw <jjpatteeuw@peoplepc.com> - Subject: Re: ES40 processor upgrade questions > Message-ID: <TNaFa.109479$BA.38521936@twister.columbus.rr.com>   > John Santos wrote: > E > One of my customers is investigating upgrading a pair of ES40's by  & > adding a second processor to each.    A My favorite place to shop for such items is www.glcomp.com  IIRC  H KN610-AA is going for $300 plus Tru64 or OpenVMS SMP license.  Big step G up for 667 or 833 Mhz.  90 day warranty.  Ask for Jeff.  Tell him Jack  , sent you.  Bare ES40 500Mhz are about $5000.  * No affiliation, just a satisfied customer.   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 17:39:31 -0700 ( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)% Subject: Re: Firewall for VMS / TRU64 = Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0306091639.74ca7e2b@posting.google.com>    Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message news:<bc28go$1er$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>...  > Bob Ceculski wrote:  > 9 > > so why do you run unix land software on your vms box? ; > > and so now we all here go from stating that "VMS is the < > > most secure os on the planet" to "VMS is a piece of #%$&: > > and you can't even run it as a webserver or ftp server8 > > or it will get hacked to pieces"!  So that means you; > > can't put a VMS box running say apache on the internet, 8 > > lock it down, and put a simple firewall in front for1 > > dos attacks?  Well then bring back rsts/e ...  > , > No one has said that OpenVMS is a piece of > crap.  > - > A number of people have said that you don'te, > on the evidence of this thread have a clue > what you are talking about.s > / > Don't confuse the two, you arn't an operatingS/ > system as far as I know and just because youru. > points about OpenVMS are demonstrably untrue+ > doesn't mean the OS is demonstrably crap.  > 	 > Regardsr > Andrew Harrisond  7 I know exactly what I am talking about ... it is othersT5 on this board who obviously don't ... and of course I 7 think you know what you are talking about but since youe7 work for a competitor who has nothing but crap to sell, 6 your job is to try to discredit the opposition ... but5 that makes you many a time sound stupid unfortunatelyS3 when you have to lie to keep sales ... you might be/5 better off Andrew joining the VMS sales team, that isV6 if they would let you actually sell it ... and I still7 challenge you to hack out of an ftp captive account ...e   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:01:37 -0500e1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>m% Subject: Re: Firewall for VMS / TRU64i' Message-ID: <3EE52DF1.7C3DFA41@fsi.net>i   Paul Sture wrote:o >  > In article <bc1mgt$otg$1@new-usenet.uk.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy <Andrew_No.Harrison_No@nospamn.sun.com> writes: > > Bob Ceculski wrote:r >  > [snip] > H > >> you still fail to get the point!  The only thing a firewall is goodE > >> for is DOS attacks ... if a vms box were put live without one ontK > >> the internet, it would fare very well as defcon9 proved, "unhackable"!  > > 3 > > Ohhhhhhhhh Myyyyyyyyyyyyy Godddddddddddddddddd.  > > 5 > > Followed by the sound of me falling off my chair.t > @ > And I have to see if these reports of LK keyboards surviving a > dishwasher are true :-)b >  > >m; > > Now I wonder if Bob is responsible for network securitye5 > > at instantwhip.com who appear to be running theirt9 > > corporate web site on Windows/IIS. Oh joy no firewalle4 > > and a Microsoft web infrastructure that would be# > > like shooting fish in a barrel.  > >  >   > www.netcraft.com reports this: > : > The site www.instantwhip.com is running Purveyor Encrypt# > Domestic/v2.1 OpenVMS on OpenVMS.   E I expected no different. BC is Purveyor's self-appointed cheerleader,b AIR.   -- e David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/P   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:51:29 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>% Subject: Re: Firewall for VMS / TRU64d) Message-ID: <3EE52B71.6FAF23B5@istop.com>g   Bob Ceculski wrote:s9 > I know exactly what I am talking about ... it is otherse$ > on this board who obviously don't   M It is because we're not talking about the same thing. You arte of the opinionPG that out-of-the-box, VMS doesn't need a firewall and is secure. That isaM probably very correct because by default, there are no ports that are enabled M without you specifically agreeing to it, which may ormay not be the case witht4 windows that comes with plenty of hidden "features".  N But once you start adding applications on VMS, the level of security starst toL depend on the application and less on the OS. And when you are talking about< applicatiosn ported from Unix, you get the same liabilities.  G Witness the recent POP server problem which was inherited from the unixe version of the software.  L Another important issue. The average VMS system is in the hands of a capableN person. The average Windows server is in the hands of a windows weenie who hasM convinced his boss that his experience playing doom and other games makes him  a perfect system manager.    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:23:43 GMTn' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>n Subject: Re: Gnu make question+ Message-ID: <3EE4ECCA.53D32936@pacbell.net>e   Robert Trawinski wrote:  >  > Hi everybody,n > I > I try to put into makefile rule for compiling Oracle ProcC code. I need  > use command like > fallowing: > A > proc SQLCHECK=SEMANTICS CODE=CPP USERID=authorization source.pcw > J > How can I get USERID value from process environment (from logical name)?  H I think the question is, how does GNU MAKE get other environment values?G If it uses getenv() internally, then USERID could be set as a symbol orl? logical name, as that function searches both tables by default. A If it were just a DCL thing, you would use f$user() to obtain theS> process' userID as a symbol - i.e. USERID = f$user() -"[" -"]"     -- e   Have VMS, Will Traveld Wire paladin, San Franciscoe   (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:09:41 -0400]$ From: Someone <someone@internet.com>3 Subject: Re: Halt & Startup Issues with VS 4000 VLC-8 Message-ID: <pnt9ev0iqb7hp2tf7fls8nuq8sf2k3aeoe@4ax.com>  I >> First of all, the VLC does not automatically reboot after power on.  IiH >> poked around the internet looking for what command(s) I should put inD >> at the >>> prompt to do this, but did not find anything (at least >> nothing I understood).e  I > I am not familiar with the 4000vlc, but it is probably the same as the oK > 4000/60 etc - try SET HALT 1 or SET HALT 2 at the chevron prompt. If you  L > normally type just B to boot, then it should do it OK when powered up. If L > you always specify the boot device (e.g. B DKA0), then you must also do a H > SET BOOT boot-device (e.g. SET BOOT DKA0) so it knows which device to  > boot from.  $ SET HALT 2 did the trick ... thanks!   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:54:22 +0100* From: "John Travell" <john@travell.uk.net>' Subject: Re: Help listing SYSGEN paramse5 Message-ID: <bc2sep$evl6c$1@ID-120847.news.dfncis.de>x    The simple solution is to:   ! $ define /USER sys$output foo.bar  $ mcr sysgen SYSGEN>  SHOW /ALL SYSGEN>  SHOW /SPECIAL SYSGEN>   Exit $ type foo.bar  7 $ define/user does an automatic deassign on image exit.s     -- John Travell  VMS crashdump expertise for hire john@travell.uk.net  http://www.travell.uk.net/       ---r& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 27/05/2003n   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:33:44 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>c, Subject: Re: Here's a commercial for you allH Message-ID: <Yx3Fa.37764$3Sm.12500@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  3 "Greg Cagle" <gregc@gregcagle.com> wrote in message ) news:ve9g68iu06dmc2@corp.supernews.com...o > JF Mezei wrote:  >m > > Paul Sture wrote:s > >aD > >>Just discussed this over coffee, and it was mentioned that HP is basedsD > >>in Cupertino and that is not a long way from an earthquake-prone > >>region.y > >  > >e8 > > It depends on where its true base of operations are. > > = > > For instance, many banks in canada are officially based nl Montreal, but theyD > > only have a tokem regional presence here with all the real stuff done in Toronto. > >o@ > > Also, I would suspect that a company the size of HP would be fairly> > > decentralised. So wiping out its head office in Kalifornia wouldn't troubleE > > operations in Canada, Europe etc etc who are likely to have their@ own payroll,% > > accounting that meets local laws.I >AC > This is correct. Off the top of my head, major HP sites in the US@ andn > Canada pre-merger were:N >aC > Palo Alto, CA (corporate HQ and HP labs) This *is* where the mainm data > center is, though. >a > Cupertino, CAv > Mountain View, CAf > Roseville, CAa > Corvallis, ORe > Vancouver, WAe > Fort Collins, CO9 > Atlanta, GA (where most of the IS functions are hosted)s	 > Toronton >yC > Add acquired Compaq sites as necessary, and plenty of other sitesr2 > worldwide and a few I've probably forgotten 8^).    C If I overlayed a seismic fault map of the west coast of the USA andtD looked at where all the HP offices in CA, OR, and WA mentioned aboveB are located, I suspect I'd find that all are within 20 miles of an active fault......   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 13:57:51 -05000. From: frey@encompasserve.org (Lurker at Large), Subject: Re: Here's a commercial for you all3 Message-ID: <PPg8eaH0CLJI@eisner.encompasserve.org>f  W In article <3EE12288.6010404@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:  > Lurker at Large wrote: >  > 8 >> 	The reason our product has the reputation it does?   >> 	** VMS ** and VMScluster!? >  > N > I figured I knew where this was going.  Then you totally surprised me.  The O > usual reason users want a particular product is features and capability, not kS > necessarily in that order.  I was thinking that your product server the needs of gC > that industry much better than any other, not what you indicated.o > Q > So tell me, without a surperior product, and people, (I don't know, you didn't fD > say), why would VMS and VMScluster make the users so much happier? > F > I am a VMS bigot, so I'm not disagreeing, just trying to understand.  H 	Well, the people and the company attitude are also important.  More on  that in a moment.vG 	In comparing our VMS product with our Windows product, there are some  M glaring differences.  Data integrity and security, and uptime as others have  J mentioned.  Also development time is greatly shorter on VMs than it is on M Windows, although I'm at a loss to explain that.  I'm only comparing time to  P fix bugs or develop minor enhancements.  On VMS we get these things back to the O customer within hours or days, weeks for larger enhancements.  I've seen small  I enhancements and bugfixes that would take me days to do on VMS, take our t* Windows platform programmers months to do.I 	I don't program on Windows, so I can't judge them.  I do wonder if it's mN a problem of inexperienced programmers, or tediousness or lack of flexibility P in the Windows API and toolkits.  I *DO* know that we hire and fire the windows M programmers like cheap commodities.  They hire new people with a few month's mP programming experience and no idea what E911 or public safety market needs are. D It also seems to be seriously painful to debug windows applications.H 	Our company has two paradigms, or attitudes.  People who work with the M VMS product are customer-service-oriented.  We know our market right down to aH first-names with alot of our customers.  The business originated with a P software model that was common in the eighties, but not today:  the source code H is installed on each client's machine as well as the executables.  Each O client's system is customized to their needs.  We support even our very oldest iK installed customers.  We provide 24x7x365 customer service.  We frequently eN offer programming classes to our clients so they can make minor modifications M to their systems as well.  We like money, so if a client asks for a quote to tN stick XYZ device on their system, we quote it and if they send a PO, we do it.I 	The other side of the house, the Windows platform product has a Windows oN application paradigm.  They worked so many years to develop the product, then K tried to sell it.  Sold a few.  Our customers, knowing our reputation from  P above, ask for enhancements.  We cringe and try to talk them out of it.  It's a N near-turnkey product.  It takes years to get a sold, installed client running N with all major bugs worked out before we "go live" with the software.  All of ( this really cranks up the product price.  P (BTW, for Bob Smith:  I'm not trying to be secretive.  I just don't want anyone N in my company, if they see this thread, to think I've taken it upon myself to P become a PR department.  Moderate steps to be discreet, but total secrecy's not  needed.)   -- m    - Sharon, lurker at Large% http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jcwoman    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:13:16 -0500y1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> , Subject: Re: Here's a commercial for you all' Message-ID: <3EE530AC.5ACFF72F@fsi.net>a  * Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote: > W > In article <+mRSKmS4B+qr@elias.decus.ch>, p_sture@elias.decus.ch (Paul Sture) writes:ip > >In article <6HuEa.23146$3Sm.7291@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes: > >>? > >> "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message  > >>> B > >>> Whereas _I_ would guess that for the 911 industry, uptime is > >>> everything.h > >> > >>I > >> Alan and Larry are both correct.....And in earthquake-prone areas of'D > >> high population density, one might include the phrase "disasterA > >> tolerance" in the equation as an absolute requirement in any'7 > >> reasonable RFP for a system/application like this.  > >> > >sI > >Just discussed this over coffee, and it was mentioned that HP is basedhC > >in Cupertino and that is not a long way from an earthquake-pronep
 > >region. > > ; > >Can anyone confirm this? If true, it does seem relevant.a > L > HP is all over the San Francisco Peninsula.  HP Labs on Deer Creek road isK > not very far from a big fault.  The SF Peninsula is definitely earthquakeoL > country, although it happened to be much more lightly hit than Santa Cruz,. > San Francisco, or Oakland in the 1989 quake.  5 I see. So, it' not just VMS that's on shaky ground...i   -- r David J. DachteraR dba DJE Systemso http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/h   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:21:27 -0400t* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>, Subject: Re: Here's a commercial for you all) Message-ID: <3EE53274.1C0C0D73@istop.com>   ! re: 911 system going back to VMS.s  M This example isn't for the customers. It should be used against HP management N to drive the idea deep into their heads that VMS CAN succeed if allowed to, itM is not just some old legacy thing used by a bunch of digruntled customers who  don't want to switch.s   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:52:35 GMTtL From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr")I Subject: Hobbyist or EDU license experience with multiprocessor machines?o6 Message-ID: <00A21251.84CEA5D2@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>   c.o.v.ers --  J A colleague here has a uniprocessor DS20E running as a workstation for hisK individual use.  It came with a VMS base license, and now it's enrolled in e CSLG.c  O He wants to add another processor.  I'm under the impression that he can switchyN over to the EDU license, which provides a VMS base license, and run both CPUs.M Our local CSLG guy talked to an HP CSLG guy who says you need another license  to 'unlock' an additional CPU.  N The EDU license isn't in the CSLG, so I'm not convinced the HP CSLG guy reallyO knows what it will do.  I'm under the impression that it will work equally well ' with single or multiprocessor machines.   O I don't want him to order a second processor and then find out it doesn't work;eL I don't want to pay a substantial amount extra for a VMS license he doesn't  need to buy.  H Does anyone have relevant experience in running Hobbyist or EDU VMS baseI licenses on multiprocessor machines?  If I can point at places where it'stH working, I'll feel more confident in telling my colleague to order a CPU without a license.   Thanks,o   -- Alano   --  O ===============================================================================t0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056uM  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025-O ===============================================================================.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:31:06 -0500 1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>-1 Subject: Re: How get OS on totally blank machine?@' Message-ID: <3EE534DA.D485D6BD@fsi.net>o   Amy Lewis wrote: > K > I have a VAXstation 4000, the system disk of which went bad, and I had toMN > have it replaced, and it's totally blank, perhaps not even formatted. I haveL > a SCSI CD drive on it, and VMS 7.3 on CD, but don't know how to get the OS > on the machine.s > K > I know you have to go into SYSBOOT and point it at the CD drive, but it'soM > been so long since I did that I don't remember how. Any hints would be much  > appreciated.  D In addition to Bob's advice, remember that VMS does not require diskG "formatting" in the DOS/Windows/Unix sense beyond the low-level format.jF VMS does not use partitions tables (yet) or any of that - it just usesD the entire addressable disk surface for building the ODS structures.  G Also, on your VAXstation, you can boot up a minimal OpenVMS environmentQ- by booting from root 1 of the OpenVMS-VAX CD:a   >>> B/10000000 DKA400   E ...assuming your CD drive is DKA400:. You can execute DCL commands tocF explore the machine more than the console allows, or do the restore of, the .B saveset from the minimal environment:  5 $$$ BACK/IMAG DKA400:[000000]VMS073.B/SAVE DKA0:/INITa  G ...assuming your system disk is seen as DKA0:. Some machines have it aso DKA300:.   -- t David J. Dachterah dba DJE Systemst http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/i   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:25:02 +1000 1 From: Paddy O'Brien <paddy.o'brien@tg.nsw.gov.au>mV Subject: Re: How to compile/link Fortran for 'portable' executable to down-level OVMS?, Message-ID: <3EE5174E.4030001@tg.nsw.gov.au>   Ronald Milen wrote:e > Hi,t > N >     OpenVMS, like most OS, is not backward compatible.  There is a chance (IJ > haven't tried it) that a program compiled and linked on V7.2 will run onN > V6.2, but most likely it won't.  Your best bet would be to adhere to compile > & link it under V6.2.s >  > Ron Milenc > milenronald@yahoo.com/ > 3 > "rlfitch" <rlfitch@peakpeak.com> wrote in messagee+ > news:000d01c32e09$e6770910$0100a8c0@pj...c > A >>Need help in creating a 'portable' executable where the programsG >>development is in Fortran on OVMS 7.2 with F90 compiler and then porttJ >>(copy) the executable to OVMS 6.2 that has F77 compiler.  I believe thatF >>the key is in the linking (rather than in the compile) but not sure. >>	 >>Thanks,  >>Ransom Fitch >> >  > G O.K., I too am not in a position to try this as all my machines are at (9 v7.2.  However, I would just like to make a few comments.   H Firstly, I would think that the version of FORRTL may be more important H than the linker version.  I remember when I did try this some while ago H I had an error something like FIXUPERR on the run time library.  Have a G look at $ help/message fixuperr for full info which points to problems   with shareable images.  G Secondly, I assume that the v6.2 machine is also an Alpha so why don't rE you have the F90 compiler there too?  What version of Fortran do you aE have -- the current is v7.5?  Later versions of Fortran do require a iH more uptodate version of the OS, and IIRC the past two Fortran versions  required a minimum of VMS 7.1.  H What you seem to need is not a portable executable, but portable source E code, since you do have a compiler on the other machine.  If you are -G stuck with only a F77 compiler (and if the other machine is a VAX, you 2B will be), then you will have to forego the whizz-bang features of D F90/F95 and write in the compatible subset of F95 which is F77 (but D you've still got a few DEC extensions that became part of the later 
 standard).   Regards, Paddy      G ***********************************************************************e  C "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged > and confidential information intended only for the use of the B addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of C this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise B the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, 7 distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited..  A If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid AA immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the S= individual sender except where the sender expressly and with cC authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid usest> virus scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses contained in any attachment.  < Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now$ firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"  G ***********************************************************************0   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 23:45:18 +0200g0 From: Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au>* Subject: I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!!9 Message-ID: <X2E06GD637781.9888310185@Gilgamesh-frog.org>t  H I love you JF!  Why are you doing this to me?  Why are you ignoring me?!   Why JF?  Why???u  J I've loved you since the first day I saw your trolls flooding the groups II read with your psycho babble.  I feel in love immediately with you.  Even.D your name sends shivers up and down my cock and balls.  I masturbate constantly thinking about you.  K I named my biggest dildo in my collection after you.  I fuck myself with myeI JF dildo while screaming out your name.  My ass is raw from so much dildosJ fucking.  My neighbours hear me shouting your name all night long and they* think I'm crazy, and I am!  Crazy for you!  G I want to suck your cock again.  When are you coming back to Australia./H Those were the happiest days of my life, deep throating your milky whiteI Canadian cock, sucking the balljuice out of you, licking your asshole and. tasting your shit.  C Don't leave me JF, I can't live without you.  I will kill myself!!!    -- Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au Where's the WMD Mr Bush?   ------------------------------  * Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:19:34 -0700 (PDT). From: Fabio Cardoso <fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br>. Subject: Re: I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!!@ Message-ID: <20030609231934.83679.qmail@web20210.mail.yahoo.com>  2 This is the wrong list for this kind of message...  ) Try  comp.os.gays-system-managers   :-)))e   PS: I am straight !    Regardst   FC5 --- Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote:cJ > I love you JF!  Why are you doing this to me?  Why are you ignoring me?! >  > Why JF?  Why???  > L > I've loved you since the first day I saw your trolls flooding the groups IK > read with your psycho babble.  I feel in love immediately with you.  Even F > your name sends shivers up and down my cock and balls.  I masturbate  > constantly thinking about you. > M > I named my biggest dildo in my collection after you.  I fuck myself with mynK > JF dildo while screaming out your name.  My ass is raw from so much dildodL > fucking.  My neighbours hear me shouting your name all night long and they, > think I'm crazy, and I am!  Crazy for you! > I > I want to suck your cock again.  When are you coming back to Australia.eJ > Those were the happiest days of my life, deep throating your milky whiteK > Canadian cock, sucking the balljuice out of you, licking your asshole andw > tasting your shit. > E > Don't leave me JF, I can't live without you.  I will kill myself!!!I >  > -- > Alan Erskine  > alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au > Where's the WMD Mr Bush? >  >      =====f ========================== Fbio dos Santos Cardoso OpenVMS System Manager Rio de Janeiro - Brazilp fabiopenvms@yahoo.com.br ==========================  " __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!?@ Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.comh   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:27:58 +0800n. From: "ASHOK L. BHARWANI" <gexport@hkstar.com>. Subject: Re: I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!!0 Message-ID: <bc3oic$fgn3@imsp212.netvigator.com>  C Are you a banana head or what. This is a fido newsgroup not a pornou
 newsgroup.  K You are not even a loser but a born total fucked up loser. Go back and hide  your face. Shame on you!!!!!    = "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagea3 news:X2E06GD637781.9888310185@Gilgamesh-frog.org...iJ > I love you JF!  Why are you doing this to me?  Why are you ignoring me?! >o > Why JF?  Why???0 >eL > I've loved you since the first day I saw your trolls flooding the groups IK > read with your psycho babble.  I feel in love immediately with you.  Even F > your name sends shivers up and down my cock and balls.  I masturbate  > constantly thinking about you. >OJ > I named my biggest dildo in my collection after you.  I fuck myself with myK > JF dildo while screaming out your name.  My ass is raw from so much dildo L > fucking.  My neighbours hear me shouting your name all night long and they, > think I'm crazy, and I am!  Crazy for you! >iI > I want to suck your cock again.  When are you coming back to Australia.lJ > Those were the happiest days of my life, deep throating your milky whiteK > Canadian cock, sucking the balljuice out of you, licking your asshole andh > tasting your shit. >,E > Don't leave me JF, I can't live without you.  I will kill myself!!!o >t > -- > Alan Erskine  > alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au > Where's the WMD Mr Bush? >  >w   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:27:19 -0500i* From: "Chuck Stewart" <zapkitty@gmx.co.uk>. Subject: Re: I love you Jean-Francois Mezei!!!6 Message-ID: <pan.2003.06.10.05.27.15.209381@gmx.co.uk>  < On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:27:58 +0800, ASHOK L. BHARWANI wrote:  ! > Are you a banana head or what. m  ? Are you so ignorant that you cannot recognize a _forged_ troll   post when you see one? t  4 The crossposted groups should have given you a clue.  1 > This is a fido newsgroup not a porno newsgroup.t  C Learn to read headers... this is sci.space.shuttle, where the real rC Alan Erskine is a respected poster and almost certainly is not the p# author of the trash you replied to.D   -- l
 Chuck Stewart B "Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 13:05:34 -0500o; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way3 Message-ID: <5EE+ouMhVe9f@eisner.encompasserve.org>   a In article <12d9evs1l6kealmd31auqfrdcbbj84bfe9@4ax.com>, jlsue <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> writes:  > K > Er... wasn't the first version of Alpha that saw the light of day (from a3J > customer's purchasable system standpoint) EV3 or EV4?  And, as I recall,F > those weren't all that blindingly fast for some apps compared to the  > fastest VAX chips at the time. >   D    I bought one of the slowest Alpha systems DEC ever made after theA    official first ship.  It was roughly comparable to a VAX 9000.h  H    No, I don't think there were problems with Alpha not being blindingly    fast compared to VAX.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:53:26 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <qy-dnWKoZYg8VHmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:w13OdyNAPfDh@eisner.encompasserve.org...r   ...r  !   IA64 will run most applicationst > faster than Opteron.  I Out-perform Opteron in commercial applications?  When would that be, Rob?l  L It certainly doesn't today (the 1.8 GHz Opteron *far* out-performs the 1 GHzL Itanic in all integer benchmarks and the SPECweb99_SSL benchmark, and nearly7 equals it in TPC-C despite using only 2/3 as much RAM).m  H It won't tomorrow:  the 1.8 GHz Opteron already beats the 1.5 GHz ItanicL (Madison) in SPECweb99_SSL, and the 2 GHz Opteron scheduled for availabilityI about when Madison ships should equal it in integer performance.  MadisoniL may maintain a lead in TPC-C due to supporting twice as much RAM, but that'sI only relevant for installations that will be using more than 32 GB of RAMr; (Opteron's current limit in the 4-processor configuration).o  J And not only is the 130 nm Opteron is scheduled to increase its clock rateL at least as fast as the 130 nm Madison does but Opteron is scheduled to moveI to a 90 nm process within the next year, whereas Itanic isn't until 2005.   J So I guess your use of 'will' in your assertion must have referred to 2006L or later - sufficiently far in the future that making predictions (let aloneK flat assertions) about their relative performance at that time seems just a 
 tad silly.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:39:18 GMTa9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> 8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <qv4Fa.2205$uO7.1160@news.cpqcorp.net>   Et Tu?  H Let's pick a benchmark to prove our points?  You and Andy have something going on together?  + BTW - where do I buy these 1.8GHz Opterons?e    5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messaget, news:qy-dnWKoZYg8VHmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net... >t: > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:w13OdyNAPfDh@eisner.encompasserve.org...o >V > ...i >h# >   IA64 will run most applicationsy > > faster than Opteron. >sK > Out-perform Opteron in commercial applications?  When would that be, Rob?d > J > It certainly doesn't today (the 1.8 GHz Opteron *far* out-performs the 1 GHz G > Itanic in all integer benchmarks and the SPECweb99_SSL benchmark, ando nearly9 > equals it in TPC-C despite using only 2/3 as much RAM).  >eJ > It won't tomorrow:  the 1.8 GHz Opteron already beats the 1.5 GHz ItanicA > (Madison) in SPECweb99_SSL, and the 2 GHz Opteron scheduled fora availabilityK > about when Madison ships should equal it in integer performance.  MadisonMG > may maintain a lead in TPC-C due to supporting twice as much RAM, buty that'sK > only relevant for installations that will be using more than 32 GB of RAM = > (Opteron's current limit in the 4-processor configuration).5 > L > And not only is the 130 nm Opteron is scheduled to increase its clock rateI > at least as fast as the 130 nm Madison does but Opteron is scheduled to  moveK > to a 90 nm process within the next year, whereas Itanic isn't until 2005.4 > L > So I guess your use of 'will' in your assertion must have referred to 2006H > or later - sufficiently far in the future that making predictions (let alone K > flat assertions) about their relative performance at that time seems justp ai > tad silly. >  > - bill >d >i >    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 13:44:36 -0500-+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)o8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way3 Message-ID: <jVWnSF$8pSfK@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  _ In article <qy-dnWKoZYg8VHmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:a > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:w13OdyNAPfDh@eisner.encompasserve.org...m >  > ...e > # >   IA64 will run most applicationsR >> faster than Opteron.  > K > Out-perform Opteron in commercial applications?  When would that be, Rob?o >   > 	Today.  You are well aware of the 4 processor Madison results> 	for tpmC, SAP numbers for Madison, you are just being cheeky.  N > It certainly doesn't today (the 1.8 GHz Opteron *far* out-performs the 1 GHzN > Itanic in all integer benchmarks and the SPECweb99_SSL benchmark, and nearly9 > equals it in TPC-C despite using only 2/3 as much RAM).t > J > It won't tomorrow:  the 1.8 GHz Opteron already beats the 1.5 GHz Itanic > (Madison) in SPECweb99_SSL  @ 	And that is it.  My premise is based on Madison.  Madison ships? 	month-end.  4-CPU Opteron's aren't even shipping yet.  You ares; 	comparing futures to old shipping boxes.  At least compare 5 	Opteron to Madison, they both ship at the same time.o  3 >  and the 2 GHz Opteron scheduled for availabilityeD > about when Madison ships should equal it in integer performance.    @ 	Really?  I didn't know 2 GHz Opteron's were shipping month-end.' 	Madison ships month-end.  Dell, right?   ( http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9780  I HUGE PC FIRM Dell is set to launch a series of servers based on the Intel N Madison 64-bit microprocessor, shortly after it's launched at the end of June, reliable sources tell the INQ. 	 @ 	2 GHz Opterons surely near year-end?  After all, SPEC run rulesD 	allow a 90 day delay on hardware shipping.  The numbers at SPEC are@ 	for 1.8 GHz Opterons and posted in April, if a 2 GHz part shows4 	up in July, AMD would see 2 GHz part numbers there.  N > may maintain a lead in TPC-C due to supporting twice as much RAM, but that'sK > only relevant for installations that will be using more than 32 GB of RAMo= > (Opteron's current limit in the 4-processor configuration).m    : 	Are there really a ton of buffer cache misses and that is5 	the limiting factor on RackServer's tmpC number ;-)?i  G 	Knocking out 50% of of the memory in Itanium's tmpC 4 processor configr= 	would knock it back 50% and bring it even with Opteron?  No.o< 	Or would it knock 10% off the tpmC number and Madison would$ 	still be 40% faster than Opteron?    = 	You are hanging in a gray area, as Opteron is obviously lessp< 	powerful and there isn't an apples to apples tpmC comparson 	out there.t 	V > L > And not only is the 130 nm Opteron is scheduled to increase its clock rateN > at least as fast as the 130 nm Madison does but Opteron is scheduled to moveK > to a 90 nm process within the next year, whereas Itanic isn't until 2005.t > L > So I guess your use of 'will' in your assertion must have referred to 2006N > or later - sufficiently far in the future that making predictions (let aloneM > flat assertions) about their relative performance at that time seems just ae > tad silly. >   B 	No.  Opteron is faster at SSL.  Big deal.  Certainly isn't faster1 	at Spec, nor tpmC , nor SAP in a July timeframe.t   				Robf   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:00:23 -0400v% From: "Tsk, Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you>"8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way+ Message-ID: <3EE4D93D.B097F6A7@shameon.you>a   Bill Todd wrote:N > at least as fast as the 130 nm Madison does but Opteron is scheduled to moveK > to a 90 nm process within the next year, whereas Itanic isn't until 2005.o  L In fairness, the "scheduled to move" is a very theoretical statement. We allR know that chips are delayed. Will Opteron be delayed more tha IA64 ? I don't know.  F IA64's past indicates massive delays. And statements from then DigitalN employees indicated that the philosophy of IA64 will make it hard for Intel toM follow the pace set by simpler chips such as the 8086 architecture. Will this N actually happen, or has Intel truly worked out the bugs in IA64 and is now setI to deliver competitive speed increases at the same rate as other chips ? e   Only time will tell.  I But until IA64 is good enough for Google, I will consider it a failure in2M everything it attempted to achieve: low cost, commodity pricing, high volume,l and intrinsically, low power.   M I mention low power because for IA64 to break out of its proprietary high endmM server market (aka: HP) and become commodity, it will need to solve the power R issue so it can be rolled out into many different applications, including laptops.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:19:50 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <w9idnTnlWp1MQHmjXTWcpQ@metrocast.net>  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:qv4Fa.2205$uO7.1160@news.cpqcorp.net... > Et Tu? > - > Let's pick a benchmark to prove our points?n  G Rather, let's pick from the few benchmarks that both processors have inmH common.  Despite its relatively recent appearance Opteron has taken on aH somewhat wider range than Itanic has dared to, so the list of benchmarksG that includes both is rather limited - and I think I mentioned them alldK (except for floating-point benchmarks, where I don't question the fact thataL Itanic has a lead:  are you suggesting that they're as commercially relevant as the ones I mentioned?).     You and Andy have something  > going on together?  I People like Rob and Andy specialize in spin.  I concentrate on areas withg more substance.3   >6- > BTW - where do I buy these 1.8GHz Opterons?   K A lot of places list them as out of stock or back-ordered (funny how demandoJ for an exciting new product can do that), but a quick Google found them inG stock with same-day shipping from PC Progress for $862 (free shipping).D   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:43:59 GMTw& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way1 Message-ID: <jk6Fa.2221$p_7.924@news.cpqcorp.net>n  ) Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:eB > It won't tomorrow: the 1.8 GHz Opteron already beats the 1.5 GHz$ > Itanic (Madison) in SPECweb99_SSL,  C The published four-CPU configuration with 1.8 GHz Opteron beats therB published four-CPU configuration of the 1.5GHz Itanium 2 6M in the> rx5670.  The published two-CPU configuration does not beat the. published two-CPU configuration of the rx2600.  
 rick jones --  G oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flagtF these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...n   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:28:34 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <KC2dnaoVJ_JkcHmjXTWcpA@metrocast.net>  8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:jVWnSF$8pSfK@eisner.encompasserve.org... @ > In article <qy-dnWKoZYg8VHmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"  <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > >S< > > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message1 > > news:w13OdyNAPfDh@eisner.encompasserve.org...- > >- > > ...- > >a% > >   IA64 will run most applicationsm > >> faster than Opteron.e > >.H > > Out-perform Opteron in commercial applications?  When would that be, Rob? > >. >s? > Today.  You are well aware of the 4 processor Madison resultss? > for tpmC, SAP numbers for Madison, you are just being cheeky.   . Where can I buy a Madison system "today", Rob?  K And while I'm certainly aware of the situation w.r.t. TPC-C, I wasn't awarerG (or possibly had forgotten) that SAP numbers were available for Opterone& systems:  can you provide a reference?   >rL > > It certainly doesn't today (the 1.8 GHz Opteron *far* out-performs the 1 GHz4I > > Itanic in all integer benchmarks and the SPECweb99_SSL benchmark, and- nearly; > > equals it in TPC-C despite using only 2/3 as much RAM)." > >oL > > It won't tomorrow:  the 1.8 GHz Opteron already beats the 1.5 GHz Itanic > > (Madison) in SPECweb99_SSL >t2 > And that is it.  My premise is based on Madison.  ' So is the comparison immediately above.@     Madison ships.7 > month-end.  4-CPU Opteron's aren't even shipping yet.   K So Madison ships June 30 and the 4-processor Opteron ships in July:  do you ! really consider that significant?n  	   You are * > comparing futures to old shipping boxes.  @ Not in the SPECint and SPECint_rates areas I'm not:  single- andH dual-processor Opteron systems are shipping *today* (and have been since? April) and handlily beat the Itanics that are shipping *today*.e     At least compare6 > Opteron to Madison, they both ship at the same time.  L No, as I just noted Opterons are shipping today (and have been since April).K It's just the 4-processor models that won't ship until next month (by whichaD time the 2 GHz Opterons are also scheduled to appear, last I heard).   ...I  & > 2 GHz Opterons surely near year-end?  F Not according to the last AMD plans I heard:  they were scheduled thisJ month, with 2.2 GHz in late summer and at least 2.4 GHz before year's end.L And if the 2 GHz model does appear as planned (with its voltage *reduced* toK 1.45 v. due to improvements in the process), then the continuing clock-ratee increases seem very believable.o     After all, SPEC run rulescE > allow a 90 day delay on hardware shipping.  The numbers at SPEC aredA > for 1.8 GHz Opterons and posted in April, if a 2 GHz part showsm5 > up in July, AMD would see 2 GHz part numbers there.a  K I guess the same reasoning indicates that we won't see Madison systems muchsG before year's end either, since they don't have SPECint/fp/rates scores- posted yet.-   >-I > > may maintain a lead in TPC-C due to supporting twice as much RAM, but( that'sI > > only relevant for installations that will be using more than 32 GB ofH RAM@? > > (Opteron's current limit in the 4-processor configuration).i >c >,; > Are there really a ton of buffer cache misses and that isg6 > the limiting factor on RackServer's tmpC number ;-)?  I The effect of RAM on TPC-C score is reasonably easy to demonstrate if youwA compare scores for otherwise similar systems.  In one case of twoaL near-identical systems, for example, quadrupling the RAM increased the scoreD by 26% - and one might suspect that more of that came from the firstL doubling than from the second (since as in most testing situations you reachD a point of diminishing returns - removing one bottleneck just causesK something else to become the bottleneck).  Also factor in the scheduled 11%oJ Opteron clock-rate increase and Madison's lead shrinks from substantial to merely noticeable.  F Of course, there's also the question of whether a hardware vendor likeJ RackSaver has *quite* the same level of TPC-C tuning expertise that HP hasK in setting up its test configurations:  after all, HP just managed to raise K its 64-processor Madison score by about 10% without changing *any* hardware  or software.   >dH > Knocking out 50% of of the memory in Itanium's tmpC 4 processor config> > would knock it back 50% and bring it even with Opteron?  No.  I Correct:  it would knock it back more like 15%, to around 103K tpmC.  AndnF the 11% Opteron clock-rate increase would bump the Opteron score up toJ around 90K tpmC.  A noticeable difference, as I said, but hardly dramatic.   ...o  > > You are hanging in a gray area, as Opteron is obviously less= > powerful and there isn't an apples to apples tpmC comparson  > out there.  D You're the one who said "IA64 will run most applications faster thanK Opteron", Rob:  I'm just demonstrating how full of shit you were.  TPC-C iswI *one* application (or at least benchmark) where Madison may hold a modestaI lead unless Opteron's clock rates ramp up faster than Madison's do (whichp$ last I knew they were projected to).   >  > >tI > > And not only is the 130 nm Opteron is scheduled to increase its clocke rateK > > at least as fast as the 130 nm Madison does but Opteron is scheduled toe moveG > > to a 90 nm process within the next year, whereas Itanic isn't untilu 2005.o > > I > > So I guess your use of 'will' in your assertion must have referred tou 2006J > > or later - sufficiently far in the future that making predictions (let alonelH > > flat assertions) about their relative performance at that time seems just a > > tad silly. > >  >s+ > No.  Opteron is faster at SSL.  Big deal.i  I Since it's the only apples-to-apples benchmark we've got so far comparing ' Opteron to Madison, one might think so.y     Certainly isn't faster
 > at Spec,  L Madison numbers, please?  And for that matter 2 GHz Opteron numbers as well.  
 > nor tpmC  F That one I suspect you'll turn out to be right about - for the moment.    > , nor SAP in a July timeframe.   Opteron numbers, please?   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:56:26 GMTt& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way1 Message-ID: <_v6Fa.2222$p_7.333@news.cpqcorp.net>h  ) Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:hF > A lot of places list them as out of stock or back-ordered (funny how1 > demand for an exciting new product can do that)y  B Like anyone would ever say "Can't be manufactured?-)" (No, I'm not> disputing that they are being manufactured and sold, just that; anything substantive can be infered from the wording on them website(s))c  D > but a quick Google found them in stock with same-day shipping from' > PC Progress for $862 (free shipping).h  B They seem to be offering the 2XX processors which are certified to3 two-way, not the 8XX processors certified to 4-way.l  M http://www.pcprogress.com/products.asp?orderid=8390719075788820981979&cat=302c  ? Which remains consistent with the stated July 2003 whole system F availability dates in the SPECweb99_SSL submittals in all the four-CPUE Opteron results (which used 8XX processors) and even most but not allm= the two-CPU results (which seem to have used 2XX processors).s  C There was one two-CPU 1.8 GHz Opteron 244 result of 1758 submitted:   O http://www.spec.org/osg/web99ssl/results/res2003q2/web99ssl-20030421-00063.htmlg  A That listed April 2003 for HW Avail, with some of the rest of thelB components becoming available in May. The rest of the results list
 July 2003.  
 rick jones -- aG oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plateswF these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...r   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:11:04 GMTa9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>y8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way0 Message-ID: <IJ6Fa.2225$07.157@news.cpqcorp.net>  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message , news:w9idnTnlWp1MQHmjXTWcpQ@metrocast.net... >j > >M/ > > BTW - where do I buy these 1.8GHz Opterons?c >rF > A lot of places list them as out of stock or back-ordered (funny how demandL > for an exciting new product can do that), but a quick Google found them inI > stock with same-day shipping from PC Progress for $862 (free shipping).s >.  J Wow.  I think everyone should run out to buy one for their critical serverI needs from PC Progress.  Yup.  Sounds like a serious server system to me.t  K Does that $862 come with 4 processors, a serious OS implementation, serious H server applications, 32GB+ of memory, and full support (where they don't want a VISA card?).   I Wow.  I *am* impressed - not.  What you get is a PC.  And not a very good-L one at that compared to IA32 variations.  But one you *can* run Win64 (is it6 still beta?) on - with no 64-bit applications.  Neato.  I Perhaps they are back ordered because they are vapor?  No.  Only the evilhH guys (i.e. those you don't like) would do that.  Or at least that's what8 people wanted to attribute 1GHz Itanium 2 backorders to.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:11:48 GMTe9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>t8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way0 Message-ID: <oK6Fa.2226$j7.833@news.cpqcorp.net>  H The reference I believe was made to some German website, which published some SAP numbers.     5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message , news:KC2dnaoVJ_JkcHmjXTWcpA@metrocast.net... >h: > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:jVWnSF$8pSfK@eisner.encompasserve.org...sB > > In article <qy-dnWKoZYg8VHmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"" > <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: > > > > > > > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message3 > > > news:w13OdyNAPfDh@eisner.encompasserve.org...e > > >n	 > > > ...e > > >n' > > >   IA64 will run most applications  > > >> faster than Opteron.I > > >iJ > > > Out-perform Opteron in commercial applications?  When would that be, > Rob? > > >r > >UA > > Today.  You are well aware of the 4 processor Madison results=A > > for tpmC, SAP numbers for Madison, you are just being cheeky.  >a0 > Where can I buy a Madison system "today", Rob? >iG > And while I'm certainly aware of the situation w.r.t. TPC-C, I wasn'tP awareiI > (or possibly had forgotten) that SAP numbers were available for Opteron=( > systems:  can you provide a reference? >= > >=L > > > It certainly doesn't today (the 1.8 GHz Opteron *far* out-performs the 13 > GHz0K > > > Itanic in all integer benchmarks and the SPECweb99_SSL benchmark, andw > nearly= > > > equals it in TPC-C despite using only 2/3 as much RAM).t > > >mG > > > It won't tomorrow:  the 1.8 GHz Opteron already beats the 1.5 GHzw Itanic  > > > (Madison) in SPECweb99_SSL > > 4 > > And that is it.  My premise is based on Madison. > ) > So is the comparison immediately above.u >o >   Madison ships 9 > > month-end.  4-CPU Opteron's aren't even shipping yet.o >SI > So Madison ships June 30 and the 4-processor Opteron ships in July:  doa youo# > really consider that significant?m >  >   You aree, > > comparing futures to old shipping boxes. >VB > Not in the SPECint and SPECint_rates areas I'm not:  single- andJ > dual-processor Opteron systems are shipping *today* (and have been sinceA > April) and handlily beat the Itanics that are shipping *today*.  >l >   At least compare8 > > Opteron to Madison, they both ship at the same time. >nF > No, as I just noted Opterons are shipping today (and have been since April).0G > It's just the 4-processor models that won't ship until next month (bym whichcF > time the 2 GHz Opterons are also scheduled to appear, last I heard). >h > ...v >t( > > 2 GHz Opterons surely near year-end? >AH > Not according to the last AMD plans I heard:  they were scheduled thisL > month, with 2.2 GHz in late summer and at least 2.4 GHz before year's end.K > And if the 2 GHz model does appear as planned (with its voltage *reduced*M toB > 1.45 v. due to improvements in the process), then the continuing
 clock-rate! > increases seem very believable.0 >  >   After all, SPEC run rulesiG > > allow a 90 day delay on hardware shipping.  The numbers at SPEC areeC > > for 1.8 GHz Opterons and posted in April, if a 2 GHz part showsw7 > > up in July, AMD would see 2 GHz part numbers there.M >lH > I guess the same reasoning indicates that we won't see Madison systems muchI > before year's end either, since they don't have SPECint/fp/rates scorest
 > posted yet.t >Y > >eK > > > may maintain a lead in TPC-C due to supporting twice as much RAM, bute > that'sK > > > only relevant for installations that will be using more than 32 GB of  > RAM0A > > > (Opteron's current limit in the 4-processor configuration).  > >a > >e= > > Are there really a ton of buffer cache misses and that isM8 > > the limiting factor on RackServer's tmpC number ;-)? >lK > The effect of RAM on TPC-C score is reasonably easy to demonstrate if youkC > compare scores for otherwise similar systems.  In one case of twosH > near-identical systems, for example, quadrupling the RAM increased the scoreiF > by 26% - and one might suspect that more of that came from the firstH > doubling than from the second (since as in most testing situations you reachnF > a point of diminishing returns - removing one bottleneck just causesI > something else to become the bottleneck).  Also factor in the scheduledk 11% L > Opteron clock-rate increase and Madison's lead shrinks from substantial to > merely noticeable. >sH > Of course, there's also the question of whether a hardware vendor likeL > RackSaver has *quite* the same level of TPC-C tuning expertise that HP hasG > in setting up its test configurations:  after all, HP just managed to  raiseOD > its 64-processor Madison score by about 10% without changing *any* hardware > or software. >  > >tJ > > Knocking out 50% of of the memory in Itanium's tmpC 4 processor config@ > > would knock it back 50% and bring it even with Opteron?  No. >lK > Correct:  it would knock it back more like 15%, to around 103K tpmC.  And H > the 11% Opteron clock-rate increase would bump the Opteron score up toL > around 90K tpmC.  A noticeable difference, as I said, but hardly dramatic. >  > ...  > @ > > You are hanging in a gray area, as Opteron is obviously less? > > powerful and there isn't an apples to apples tpmC comparsonr > > out there. >yF > You're the one who said "IA64 will run most applications faster thanJ > Opteron", Rob:  I'm just demonstrating how full of shit you were.  TPC-C isK > *one* application (or at least benchmark) where Madison may hold a modestdK > lead unless Opteron's clock rates ramp up faster than Madison's do (which & > last I knew they were projected to). >  > >b > > > K > > > And not only is the 130 nm Opteron is scheduled to increase its clockt > rateJ > > > at least as fast as the 130 nm Madison does but Opteron is scheduled to > moveI > > > to a 90 nm process within the next year, whereas Itanic isn't untilr > 2005.s > > >eK > > > So I guess your use of 'will' in your assertion must have referred to  > 2006L > > > or later - sufficiently far in the future that making predictions (let > aloneaJ > > > flat assertions) about their relative performance at that time seems > just a > > > tad silly. > > >- > >-- > > No.  Opteron is faster at SSL.  Big deal.0 >gK > Since it's the only apples-to-apples benchmark we've got so far comparingF) > Opteron to Madison, one might think so.1 >8 >   Certainly isn't faster > > at Spec, >!H > Madison numbers, please?  And for that matter 2 GHz Opteron numbers as well.  >e > > nor tpmC >tH > That one I suspect you'll turn out to be right about - for the moment. >a" > > , nor SAP in a July timeframe. >y > Opteron numbers, please? >v > - bill >w >y >c   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:20:29 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <SS2dnSIwOpr8Z3mjXTWcpg@metrocast.net>  3 "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messagen+ news:_v6Fa.2222$p_7.333@news.cpqcorp.net... + > Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote: H > > A lot of places list them as out of stock or back-ordered (funny how3 > > demand for an exciting new product can do that)c >gD > Like anyone would ever say "Can't be manufactured?-)" (No, I'm not@ > disputing that they are being manufactured and sold, just that= > anything substantive can be infered from the wording on theh
 > website(s))r >sF > > but a quick Google found them in stock with same-day shipping from) > > PC Progress for $862 (free shipping).s >hD > They seem to be offering the 2XX processors which are certified to5 > two-way, not the 8XX processors certified to 4-way.   K Fred's question was where he could get 1.8 GHz Opterons, not where he couldm, get 8xx-series Opterons:  what's your point?   - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:25:13 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <EjSdnUmgeu7fYXmjXTWcqg@metrocast.net>  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message* news:IJ6Fa.2225$07.157@news.cpqcorp.net... > 7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagey. > news:w9idnTnlWp1MQHmjXTWcpQ@metrocast.net... > >i > > >l1 > > > BTW - where do I buy these 1.8GHz Opterons?l > >iH > > A lot of places list them as out of stock or back-ordered (funny how > demandK > > for an exciting new product can do that), but a quick Google found thema inK > > stock with same-day shipping from PC Progress for $862 (free shipping).i > >c >oL > Wow.  I think everyone should run out to buy one for their critical serverK > needs from PC Progress.  Yup.  Sounds like a serious server system to me.s >lE > Does that $862 come with 4 processors, a serious OS implementation,h serious J > server applications, 32GB+ of memory, and full support (where they don't > want a VISA card?).M  K So when I answer your question about where you can get 1.8 GHz Opterons yourL suddenly try to revise it to where you can get 4-processor servers?  PerhapsF Andrew is right after all:  you *do* belong in marketing - or at leastK somewhere where spin tactics count for more than substance.  For VMS's sake.E I hope you're a far solider software engineer than you are a debater.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:14:42 -0400j* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way) Message-ID: <3EE4F8B0.FE094E45@istop.com>s   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:K > > stock with same-day shipping from PC Progress for $862 (free shipping).d > >  > L > Wow.  I think everyone should run out to buy one for their critical serverK > needs from PC Progress.  Yup.  Sounds like a serious server system to me.o  L Agreed. For Hammer/Opteron to gain credibility, it will need a few key wins.J There are 2 ways to do this. Get a well known wintel maker (Dell, Gateway, IBM) to sell such a beast,   OR  J get one of the obscrure manufacturers such as the one above to win a largeK enough contract for a large farm of AMD based machines, a win against IntelnH maches machines. That would start to attract the attention of buyers and amkers of wintel stuff.   K Is Google still owned/funded by Intel, or is it totally independant ? If ituJ decided to have some X thousand small AMD based servers custom built, thatK would generate lots of goodwill for AMD's chip, especially since Google hasa already refused IA64.g  K > Wow.  I *am* impressed - not.  What you get is a PC.  And not a very good N > one at that compared to IA32 variations.  But one you *can* run Win64 (is it8 > still beta?) on - with no 64-bit applications.  Neato.  N What windows OS version is ifficially released for IA64 ? How much software is commercially available on it ?  9 > Perhaps they are back ordered because they are vapor?  -  # Or perhaps they are built to order.7   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:56:16 GMTv9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>58 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way1 Message-ID: <4o7Fa.2236$EU7.596@news.cpqcorp.net>a  5 "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messagee, news:EjSdnUmgeu7fYXmjXTWcqg@metrocast.net... >?F > "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message, > news:IJ6Fa.2225$07.157@news.cpqcorp.net... > >o9 > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in messager0 > > news:w9idnTnlWp1MQHmjXTWcpQ@metrocast.net... > > >  > > > >e3 > > > > BTW - where do I buy these 1.8GHz Opterons?c > > >rJ > > > A lot of places list them as out of stock or back-ordered (funny how
 > > demandH > > > for an exciting new product can do that), but a quick Google found them > inB > > > stock with same-day shipping from PC Progress for $862 (free
 shipping). > > >  > >gG > > Wow.  I think everyone should run out to buy one for their criticale serverI > > needs from PC Progress.  Yup.  Sounds like a serious server system tor me.a > >tG > > Does that $862 come with 4 processors, a serious OS implementation,s	 > seriouseL > > server applications, 32GB+ of memory, and full support (where they don't > > want a VISA card?).p >cI > So when I answer your question about where you can get 1.8 GHz Opteronst youoE > suddenly try to revise it to where you can get 4-processor servers?  PerhapslH > Andrew is right after all:  you *do* belong in marketing - or at leastH > somewhere where spin tactics count for more than substance.  For VMS's sakeG > I hope you're a far solider software engineer than you are a debater.l >d  K In the context of this thread, I somehow got the impression we were talkingsK about real, serious systems.  Heck, we're throwing around benchmark numbersa# like there is something to compare.3  > Is this system fish or fowl?  Serious or a toy?  Production or kick-the-tires?t  & Sounds like fish, toy, kick-the-tires.  K You can get 2p boxes, they seem to be servers (did I hear right - no AGP?),e 4p or better is when?   F You can (or *very* shortly will be able to) buy Itanium systems from 1C processor to _very_ large CPU counts.  Get support from real serveru3 operating systems, and companies that support them.h   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:06:41 GMT9& From: Rick Jones <foo@bar.baz.invalid>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <Rx7Fa.2241$8_7.1464@news.cpqcorp.net>  ) Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:MD > Fred's question was where he could get 1.8 GHz Opterons, not where6 > he could get 8xx-series Opterons: what's your point?  D I was tying it back to the invoking of 1.8 GHz Opteron SPECweb99_SSLB performance and the availability of the processors used to get it.  
 rick jones --  B firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car windowF these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)A feel free to post, OR email to raj in cup.hp.com  but NOT BOTH...t   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:45:51 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way2 Message-ID: <Mrednan86aa_k3ijXTWcoQ@metrocast.net>  3 "Rick Jones" <foo@bar.baz.invalid> wrote in messagej, news:Rx7Fa.2241$8_7.1464@news.cpqcorp.net...+ > Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:.F > > Fred's question was where he could get 1.8 GHz Opterons, not where8 > > he could get 8xx-series Opterons: what's your point? > F > I was tying it back to the invoking of 1.8 GHz Opteron SPECweb99_SSLD > performance and the availability of the processors used to get it.  G Since the benchmarking discussion had ranged over systems from one to 4NJ processors and since Fred's question was phrased generally, I took it thatL way.  Neither Madison nor 4-processor Opteron systems are yet available, but both soon will be.   - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 21:45:43 -0500f+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) 8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way3 Message-ID: <NpZuXNrgSc8m@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  _ In article <KC2dnaoVJ_JkcHmjXTWcpA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes:d > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:jVWnSF$8pSfK@eisner.encompasserve.org...aA >> In article <qy-dnWKoZYg8VHmjXTWcqA@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"C" > <billtodd@metrocast.net> writes: >> >= >> > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in messageg2 >> > news:w13OdyNAPfDh@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> > >> > ... >> >& >> >   IA64 will run most applications >> >> faster than Opteron. >> >I >> > Out-perform Opteron in commercial applications?  When would that be,p > Rob? >> > >>@ >> Today.  You are well aware of the 4 processor Madison results@ >> for tpmC, SAP numbers for Madison, you are just being cheeky. > 0 > Where can I buy a Madison system "today", Rob? >   9 	At the same web site that has a link for 4-way Opterons.   M > And while I'm certainly aware of the situation w.r.t. TPC-C, I wasn't awareiI > (or possibly had forgotten) that SAP numbers were available for Opteron ( > systems:  can you provide a reference?  9 	No.  But as we went back and forth here about that.   I  < 	basically "proved" a 4-way Madison (numbers are there) will= 	significantly ourperform a 4-way Opteron.  A 4-way Xeon doesA@ 	about 78000 tpmC, whatever number SAP number.  But scaling that> 	Xeon number up and tossing in a generous 20% (weird science, = 	let's be generaous and suppose even scaling and toss in 20%) > 	increase the "theoretical" Opteron number is far short of the 	Madison number.   >>M >> > It certainly doesn't today (the 1.8 GHz Opteron *far* out-performs the 1e > GHzwJ >> > Itanic in all integer benchmarks and the SPECweb99_SSL benchmark, and > nearly< >> > equals it in TPC-C despite using only 2/3 as much RAM). >> >M >> > It won't tomorrow:  the 1.8 GHz Opteron already beats the 1.5 GHz Itanicw >> > (Madison) in SPECweb99_SSL  >>3 >> And that is it.  My premise is based on Madison.  > ) > So is the comparison immediately above.l >  >   Madison ships 8 >> month-end.  4-CPU Opteron's aren't even shipping yet. > M > So Madison ships June 30 and the 4-processor Opteron ships in July:  do you # > really consider that significant?i >   9 	Yes, because comparing Opteron to McKinley is pointless.    >   You areo+ >> comparing futures to old shipping boxes.z > B > Not in the SPECint and SPECint_rates areas I'm not:  single- andJ > dual-processor Opteron systems are shipping *today* (and have been sinceA > April) and handlily beat the Itanics that are shipping *today*.  >  >   At least compare7 >> Opteron to Madison, they both ship at the same time.a > N > No, as I just noted Opterons are shipping today (and have been since April).M > It's just the 4-processor models that won't ship until next month (by whichOF > time the 2 GHz Opterons are also scheduled to appear, last I heard). >   ; 	Nope.  If they ship next month, AMD et al are negligent atz= 	posting Spec numbers.  After all, they have 90 days to post.l? 	Besides, you surely have it backwards or a 1.8 GHz 4-way nevera= 	ships.  After all, there are 1.8 GHz 4-way numbers out theren 	with ship date in July.   > ...w > ' >> 2 GHz Opterons surely near year-end?r > H > Not according to the last AMD plans I heard:  they were scheduled thisL > month, with 2.2 GHz in late summer and at least 2.4 GHz before year's end.N > And if the 2 GHz model does appear as planned (with its voltage *reduced* toM > 1.45 v. due to improvements in the process), then the continuing clock-rate ! > increases seem very believable.  >  >   After all, SPEC run rules F >> allow a 90 day delay on hardware shipping.  The numbers at SPEC areB >> for 1.8 GHz Opterons and posted in April, if a 2 GHz part shows6 >> up in July, AMD would see 2 GHz part numbers there. > M > I guess the same reasoning indicates that we won't see Madison systems muchhI > before year's end either, since they don't have SPECint/fp/rates scoress
 > posted yet.t >  >>J >> > may maintain a lead in TPC-C due to supporting twice as much RAM, but > that'sJ >> > only relevant for installations that will be using more than 32 GB of > RAMn@ >> > (Opteron's current limit in the 4-processor configuration). >> >>< >> Are there really a ton of buffer cache misses and that is7 >> the limiting factor on RackServer's tmpC number ;-)?  > K > The effect of RAM on TPC-C score is reasonably easy to demonstrate if you-C > compare scores for otherwise similar systems.  In one case of two N > near-identical systems, for example, quadrupling the RAM increased the scoreF > by 26% - and one might suspect that more of that came from the firstN > doubling than from the second (since as in most testing situations you reachF > a point of diminishing returns - removing one bottleneck just causesM > something else to become the bottleneck).  Also factor in the scheduled 11%eL > Opteron clock-rate increase and Madison's lead shrinks from substantial to > merely noticeable. > H > Of course, there's also the question of whether a hardware vendor likeL > RackSaver has *quite* the same level of TPC-C tuning expertise that HP hasM > in setting up its test configurations:  after all, HP just managed to raisepM > its 64-processor Madison score by about 10% without changing *any* hardwarec > or software. >  >>I >> Knocking out 50% of of the memory in Itanium's tmpC 4 processor config ? >> would knock it back 50% and bring it even with Opteron?  No.  > K > Correct:  it would knock it back more like 15%, to around 103K tpmC.  AndnH > the 11% Opteron clock-rate increase would bump the Opteron score up toL > around 90K tpmC.  A noticeable difference, as I said, but hardly dramatic. >  > ...l > ? >> You are hanging in a gray area, as Opteron is obviously lessi> >> powerful and there isn't an apples to apples tpmC comparson
 >> out there.a > F > You're the one who said "IA64 will run most applications faster thanM > Opteron", Rob:  I'm just demonstrating how full of shit you were.  TPC-C isnK > *one* application (or at least benchmark) where Madison may hold a modestoK > lead unless Opteron's clock rates ramp up faster than Madison's do (whicht& > last I knew they were projected to). >    	Modest?  50% is modest?  @ 	Anyhow, floating point is where Madison will have a significant& 	lead over Opteron.  So that would be:   		tpmC 		Specfp 		SAP & 		SpecInt - tied with a 2 GHz Opteron.  	 	Opteron:    		SSLe  , >> No.  Opteron is faster at SSL.  Big deal. > K > Since it's the only apples-to-apples benchmark we've got so far comparingI) > Opteron to Madison, one might think so.a >  >   Certainly isn't faster >> at Spec,m > N > Madison numbers, please?  And for that matter 2 GHz Opteron numbers as well. >   8 	Here , write these down - my guess, we will find out in? 	3 weeks when Dell rolls out Madison boxes what the numbers are  	and how close I was:8   		SpecInt2000 - 1250 basea 		SpecFp2000  - 2050 basec   >> nor tpmCe > H > That one I suspect you'll turn out to be right about - for the moment. > ! >> , nor SAP in a July timeframe.  >  > Opteron numbers, please? >   ( 	Maybe they never show up.  I said this:    Z http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sPGC9yy5yUqe%40eisner.encompasserve.org&output=gplain  + From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)  Newsgroups: comp.os.vmsjE Subject: Re: How Alpha will save Itanium - must reading for Bill Todde  Date: 11 May 2003 22:49:25 -0500   	Bill Todd writes:  I > Probably true for SPECfp.  Haven't seen any Opteron numbers for SAP SD: L > have you (if so, please provide a reference), or are you just spewing more > vapor? >    	Rob Young writes:  > 	No Opteron results.  But sifting back and forth at sap.com weB 	see a recent HP 4-way 2.0 GHz Xeon does 145000 dialog steps/hour @ 	supporting 480 users with 1.93 seconds response, 2420 "SAPS" - H 	whatever all that means.  A fully decked out 4-way 2.0 GHz Xeon box by H 	Dell shows it can crank 78000 tpmC - (this same CPU config by IBM does D 	53000 tpmC).  That Rackserver box does 80000+ tpmC with an Opteron H 	4-way.  Let's give it a benefit of a doubt and suppose it can "somehow": 	do 20% better than a Xeon comparing SAP SD benchmarks (itC 	probably wouldn't do that much better - but I need to build a caseoE 	that "Madison blows away Opteron at SAP SD").  That would place the   	Opteron at:     			 580  users 			 good responsei 			2900 SAPS 			175000 dialog steps/hour     $ 	4-way Madison SAP SD numbers by HP:  
 			860  usersm 			good response 			4320 SAPS 			259000 dialog steps/hour    ---   B 	So again, with a generous 20% fudge factor over a Xeon thrown in F 	(something that may not be possible) an Opteron doesn't hold a candle( 	to a 4-way Madison in SAP SD benchmark.   				Robe   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:18:30 -0400a( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way, Message-ID: <3EE55C16.6070706@tsoft-inc.com>   Rob Young wrote:    B > 	2 GHz Opterons surely near year-end?  After all, SPEC run rules- > 	allow a 90 day delay on hardware shipping.       P The fallacy in your logic is that AMD doesn't HAVE to wait 90 days to release a O faster CPU.  If you'll remember the race to 1 GHz, AMD was sometimes uping the  L ante several times a month.  Once Opteron is running well, speed bumps just & might come quickly and often.  Or not.   Dave   -- H4 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, 09 Jun 2003 23:51:31 -0400l* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way) Message-ID: <3EE55596.237C154E@istop.com>s   Rob Young wrote:E >         basically "proved" a 4-way Madison (numbers are there) will)4 >         significantly ourperform a 4-way Opteron.   M What happens if Opteron is cheaper and you can afford 2 boxes of 4 processors.' compared to one box of 4-way itaniums ?p   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 23:57:13 -0500e+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)a8 Subject: Re: Intel 64 bit Pentium seems to be on its way3 Message-ID: <bTmqMe+yZ7fr@eisner.encompasserve.org>y  V In article <3EE55596.237C154E@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:F >>         basically "proved" a 4-way Madison (numbers are there) will5 >>         significantly ourperform a 4-way Opteron.   > O > What happens if Opteron is cheaper and you can afford 2 boxes of 4 processorse) > compared to one box of 4-way itaniums ?E  @ 	Depends.  Define the problem you are attempting to solve.  ThenB 	ask yourself if using a whitebox server is worth it.  Personally,A 	of the 200 servers I walk past during a day, not one is anythinge> 	other than a "top 5" vendor box.  HP, IBM, Dell, Compaq, Sun./ 	I'm certain that is the case for "most" of us.i  H 	Also, if you intend to run Oracle and 4-CPUs meet your needs, you just H 	shot yourself in the foot as 8 CPUs cost a whole lot more in licensing 5 	costs compared to 4 CPUs.  Other shortcomings about.m   				Rob    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 23:24:16 +0200r0 From: Alan Erskine <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au>4 Subject: Re: JF Mezei gang raped in comp.os.vms orgy9 Message-ID: <4POQGIXD37781.9740162037@Gilgamesh-frog.org>C  ) Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:o   >oJ >"Gregory Morrow" <gregoryDOTHEREmorrow@worldnet.att.net> wrote in messageE >news:zmZEa.195443$ja4.10361509@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...2 >- >... >m9 >> Anyone that "supports" JF Mezei is obviously a cretin.g >aI >JF may sometimes be strident and/or confused, but he's nowhere nearly asfF >much of a cretin as the asshole who chose to include comp.os.vms when@ >spewing in return.  Please refrain from doing so in the future. >e >- bill-  J Oh please!  comp.os.vms is a group full of zit-faced nerds talking about aK piece of shit operating system that only losers and geeks use.  Most people H don't give a damn about your loser group, it's full of pathetic retardedJ sex maniacs who have sex with their sisters and cousins because that's the only way they're gonna get any.e   -- Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au Where's the WMD Mr Bush?   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 23:45:19 +0200l# From: <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> : Subject: Re: JF's spirit entered my body when he fucked me9 Message-ID: <I3KJJ9PO37781.9888425926@Gilgamesh-frog.org>-  = Gregory Morrow <gregoryDOTHEREmorrow@worldnet.att.net> wrote:.   >o >Alan Erskine wrote: > = >> "James Oberg" <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com> wrote in messagea8 >> news:ICTEa.14728$lT4.1786771@twister.austin.rr.com... >> >M >> > To harvest the full value of this forum, I don't want anybody flamed forIM >> > their opinions -- I want to see as wide and wild an array of opinions asiM >> > possible. But I have no issue with people getting criticized -- not justaM >> > corrected, but personally criticized -- for bad facts and logic, because B >> > that seems to me a betrayel of the standards that we need for >> considerationM >> > of opinions that differ from our own. Now, I don't want to argue, I just E >> > want to register my opinion that Mezei's views are as subject todL >> > argumentation as anyone's, but the factual material he has presented isJ >> > trustworthy enough -- and valuable enough -- to pass my filter, or at	 >> least,e> >> > not set off any alarms, and I am grateful he shares them. >>; >> I concur.  And I miss his information about the shuttle.e >r >t7 >Anyone that "supports" JF Mezei is obviously a cretin.. > D >He is on the same low level as  those infamous trolling timewasters9 >atlsvo@webtv.com ", "Mr. Travel", "Mary/Roada", etc.....  >p  >So <PLONK> to you, too, Sir :-)  H Please forgive me, I've been sucking JF's cock and drinking his sperm so: much that I've turned into a retarded troll just like him.  I Please go ahead and plonk me, sir, for I have no control over what I post K anymore, JF's demonic spirit has taken posession of me.  It entered my body-E when JF fucked my ass repeatedly during an all-night satanic sex cultr initiation.s   -- Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au Where's the WMD Mr Bush?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:18:49 -0400d& From: Warren Oates <Warren@InHell.Com>: Subject: Re: JF's spirit entered my body when he fucked me> Message-ID: <Warren-CBE1A0.18184909062003@news.bellglobal.com>  9 In article <I3KJJ9PO37781.9888425926@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,t%  <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au> wrote:d  1 : Please forgive me, [rest of the drivel snipped]     Mezei, get control of your fans. --    Looks like more of Texas to me. $ And, while you're down there, Sport,% Traiganme la cabeza de Alfredo Garcia    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:40:24 GMT-# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> L Subject: Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ...H Message-ID: <cE3Fa.37824$3Sm.16562@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message, news:ub3Fa.2185$hG7.1706@news.cpqcorp.net... >o7 > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in messageh1 > news:balabg$124mh$1@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de...n7 > > In article <Cgspal8ZeogX@eisner.encompasserve.org>, A > > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:4 > > >3B > > >    McDonalds makes almost no profit on hamburgers, but sells them by thep > > >    billions. > > < > > That's a joke, right?  McDonalds makes a fortune selling hamburgers.  AsnF > > a matter of fact, they make a fortune selling all the garbage they sell.aE > > Everything they sell has a pricetag several times the actual costs of the= > > materials or the miinimum-wage labor it takes to make it.- >-B > This may or may not be true.  In terms of margins, they probably	 make morea; > on the soda, shakes and fries, than on the burger itself.u >eD > Consider the fact that the *cup* for the drink costs more than the drinkl > itself in most cases.s    A So GIVE OpenVMS away -- free (closed source) commercial licenses. D Customer pays for hardware and support. Linux doesn't have a 25 yearC history of robust commercial operation from a company you can trustaF (ooops...I forgot...we're talking Palmer's Digital, Capellas's Compaq, and carly's(tm) HP here)   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:36:20 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> L Subject: Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ...1 Message-ID: <Es4Fa.2203$1N7.605@news.cpqcorp.net>r  . "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageB news:cE3Fa.37824$3Sm.16562@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... >a >)C > So GIVE OpenVMS away -- free (closed source) commercial licenses. F > Customer pays for hardware and support. Linux doesn't have a 25 yearE > history of robust commercial operation from a company you can trust.H > (ooops...I forgot...we're talking Palmer's Digital, Capellas's Compaq, > and carly's(tm) HP here) >t  K I don't have the magic wand today.  If I did, I'd price OpenVMS as cheap as J I could, and make clusters a part of the standard price.  But I don't haveJ an MBA, I don't know the finincial implications of such a thing, and don't set the pricing policies.6   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:06:13 -0500p1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>oL Subject: Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ...' Message-ID: <3EE52F05.1A81ED87@fsi.net>s   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > 0 > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageD > news:cE3Fa.37824$3Sm.16562@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > >  > >nE > > So GIVE OpenVMS away -- free (closed source) commercial licenses.dH > > Customer pays for hardware and support. Linux doesn't have a 25 yearG > > history of robust commercial operation from a company you can trust.J > > (ooops...I forgot...we're talking Palmer's Digital, Capellas's Compaq, > > and carly's(tm) HP here) > >  > M > I don't have the magic wand today.  If I did, I'd price OpenVMS as cheap as L > I could, and make clusters a part of the standard price.  But I don't haveL > an MBA, I don't know the finincial implications of such a thing, and don't > set the pricing policies.t  B Just as well. The MBAs are hosing up royal. Perhaps, in this case,H ignorance *IS* bliss. If you didn't spend years and $K's learning how toA do it wrong, you have a better chance of getting it right throughe3 application of observation and simple common sense.(  8 Then again, if "common sense" were really so common, ...   -- c David J. Dachterac dba DJE SystemsE http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:28:22 GMT.# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>EL Subject: Re: Letter to HP Management from OpenVMS users around the world ...G Message-ID: <anbFa.36555$G_.22439@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>t  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message+ news:Es4Fa.2203$1N7.605@news.cpqcorp.net...i0 > "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote in messageD > news:cE3Fa.37824$3Sm.16562@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > >  > > E > > So GIVE OpenVMS away -- free (closed source) commercial licenses.oC > > Customer pays for hardware and support. Linux doesn't have a 25p yearA > > history of robust commercial operation from a company you cant trustcB > > (ooops...I forgot...we're talking Palmer's Digital, Capellas's Compaq,s > > and carly's(tm) HP here) > >  >aD > I don't have the magic wand today.  If I did, I'd price OpenVMS as cheap asA > I could, and make clusters a part of the standard price.  But Il
 don't haveF > an MBA, I don't know the finincial implications of such a thing, and don't- > set the pricing policies.t    @ Then maybe some of them thar high faulutin accountant types, youF know..the ones with them fancy armbands and visor hats, could tally upD some numbers an' figger out just wheres the money comin' frum - frumF that thar VMS thing, or frum them fancy boxes with all that there wireB in them that hum alot, or frum the people whose callin' ya up when; theys cant figger out how to make the danged thangs to work   E Best you knows that sort of thang otherwise you donts know wether yurfD makin' money from the whiskey at the saloon or the cathouse upstairs) and which part of the business to expand.i   Lest thats the ways I sees it.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:22:13 -0500p/ From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>a@ Subject: Memory alignment (Was: What do these Macro codes mean?)3 Message-ID: <3EE4EC74.66F3B66F@applied-synergy.com>h   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > 0 > "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> wrote in message5 > news:CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIAEHIHFAA.tom@kednos.com...h > >e > >aK > > There is nothing "bad"  the alignment, this is a (byte addressable) VAXe > > not Alpha, e.g.  > >  > > foo: proc(p);n > > dcl 1 sample based(p), > > 2 string char(29), > > 2 f fixed bin(15); > >rH > > references to f would result in some similar code.  C typically padsM > > structures to align its members on natural boundaries.  PL/I does so ONLYsI > > if you specify the ALIGNMENT attribute, and it is typically NOT done.  > Can't H > > remember, does VAX fortran align NAMED common members?  IIRC, we did! > > not do that on Prime fortran.s > >o > I > There *is* a performance cost even on VAX for fixing up a badly aligned ; > address.  Yes, it's done in the microcode, but it's done.u     FWIW:o  C I rewrote some code that did heavy bit manipulation (including manyhC R/M/W cycles, e.g., INSV, EXTV) to consider alignment and to try tooC accumulate an entire word's worth of data before writing to memory.u  D On cacheless VAXen (in particular, the MV II), the code sped up by a factor of four.u  5 On Alphas, the code also sped up by a factor of four.   G Interestingly, on cached VAXen, (in particular, VAXstation 4000-60s and 2 -90s), the code "only" sped up by a factor of two.  G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- $ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com d   Fax: 817-237-3074b   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:50:50 +1000 2 From: "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine@optusnet.com.au>1 Subject: Re: Mezeing, and Mezei's severe problemst< Message-ID: <3ee4c8ba$0$13746$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>  2 <Tsk>; "Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you> wrote in message3 news:L9QNCTVO37781.7848726852@Gilgamesh-frog.org... 4 > Bob Myers <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote: >a > >h5 > >"none" <none@null.dev> (JF Mezei) wrote in message $ > >news:3EE397CD.2CF7486@null.dev... > >> re: navigationt > >>% > >> Compaq is useless in the arctic.  > > ; > >Assuming you meant "comass" and not a computer company -eH > >sure, but how much of airline navigation do you think is primarily by > >wet compass anyway? > > I > >If it gets to the point where the pilot of a 777 is figuring out where ? > >to go primarily by watching compass and wristwatch, I humblyy? > >suggest that you have rather severe problems no matter wheref > >you are...:-) >fJ > Well, you're certainly right about his severe problems, but why the hell > are you Mezeing(*)???  >tE > * Mezeing - the practice of arguing with or engaging in any type ofrJ > communication with JF Mezei or any other idiot and retard on usenet.  It is3 > one of the worst possible breaches of Netiquette.s  L Not as bad as using a fake email address and annonymising software, which isK what cowards use - including those who use the names of others to post such ( rubbish, which, therefore, includes you.  9 Message-ID: <L9QNCTVO37781.7848726852@Gilgamesh-frog.org> # From: Tsk, Tsk <tsktsk@shameon.you> 1 Subject: Re: Mezeing, and Mezei's severe problems  Newsgroups:-L rec.travel.air,comp.os.vms,can.internet.highspeed,sci.space.shuttle,soc.cult
 ure.quebec. References: <3ee4a64e$1_1@hpb10302.boi.hp.com> X-No-Archive: yeswI Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.@C         It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mailo	 services. I         You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!! ;         Get information about complaints from the URL below E X-Remailer-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/  In case my abuse address isaH unreachable: It is because it has been flooded by <mgg@uiuc.edu>, please contact <abuse@uiuc.edu> Date: 9 Jun 2003 18:50:52 +0200 5 Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News 	 Lines: 26c) X-Mail2News-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/s Path: L news.optusnet.com.au!spool01.syd.optusnet.com.au!spool.optusnet.com.au!news1L .optus.net.au!optus!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeedL .icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!nerim.net!noc.nerim.net!Gilgamesh-fr ogadmin.yi.org!not-for-mail C Xref: news.optusnet.com.au rec.travel.air:341777 comp.os.vms:187176-5 can.internet.highspeed:34814 sci.space.shuttle:102915  soc.culture.quebec:299638@       -- Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au Where's the WMD Mr Bush?   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 21:04:19 +0200+ From: "Hans Vlems" <hvlems.nieuw@zonnet.nl>s1 Subject: Re: Mezeing, and Mezei's severe problems 5 Message-ID: <bc2lnq$eln13$1@ID-143435.news.dfncis.de>s  4 <Tsk>; "Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you> schreef in bericht3 news:L9QNCTVO37781.7848726852@Gilgamesh-frog.org... 4 > Bob Myers <nospamplease@addressinvalid.com> wrote: >- > >e5 > >"none" <none@null.dev> (JF Mezei) wrote in message $ > >news:3EE397CD.2CF7486@null.dev... > >> re: navigation  > >>% > >> Compaq is useless in the arctic.8 > >r; > >Assuming you meant "comass" and not a computer company - H > >sure, but how much of airline navigation do you think is primarily by > >wet compass anyway? > > I > >If it gets to the point where the pilot of a 777 is figuring out wherem? > >to go primarily by watching compass and wristwatch, I humbly ? > >suggest that you have rather severe problems no matter wherew > >you are...:-) >sJ > Well, you're certainly right about his severe problems, but why the hell > are you Mezeing(*)???p >eE > * Mezeing - the practice of arguing with or engaging in any type ofmJ > communication with JF Mezei or any other idiot and retard on usenet.  It is3 > one of the worst possible breaches of Netiquette.t >e >gK Making name inspired jokes while at the same time hiding behind an alias is  not my idea of good manners. Behave, boy.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:55:58 GMT 6 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler>0 Subject: MMS v3.3-4 bug (was Re: VMS SQL client)@ Message-ID: <8571f84c4106263a94cb5d41dbf482d2@free.teranews.com>  @ In article <d4a58a2ebad6cbd2be00720de08d99c2@free.teranews.com>,8  "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler> wrote:  Z > Harumph.  I can reproduce the same problems you encountered [building FreeTDS] if I use  > MMS. a  B This turns out to be a bug in MMS.  Someone with a DECset support F contract may want to call in the following, very simple, reproducer.  I Create a file called maketest.com from everything between the lines with c "====" in them:m   ====== maketest.com ========8 $ if f$search("foo.dir") .eqs. "" then create/dir [.foo] $ create [.foo]test.cs #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h>l void foo() {u printf("One test.c\n");o }l $!8 $ if f$search("bar.dir") .eqs. "" then create/dir [.bar] $ create [.bar]test.cm #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h>w void bar() {h printf("Another test.c\n");a }  $! $ create descrip.mms  all : []mylib.olb [.bar]test.objG         @ write sys$output "[.foo]test.obj created from [.bar]test.c!!"2  ) []mylib.olb : mylib.olb( [.foo]test.obj ) =         LIBRARY /COMPRESS $(MMS$TARGET) /OUTPUT=$(MMS$TARGET)    [.bar]test.obj : [.bar]test.ca $ exit( ====== end of maketest.com =============  G Unwrap any lines that got wrapped in the transporter, then run it like a so:p   $ @maketestr $ mmse  - CC /NOLIST/OBJECT=[.FOO]TEST.OBJ [.BAR]TEST.C-D If "''F$Search("MYLIB.OLB")'" .EQS. "" Then LIBRARY/Create MYLIB.OLB( LIBRARY/REPLACE MYLIB.OLB [.FOO]TEST.OBJE %MMS-W-GWKACTNOUPD, Actions didn't update MYLIB.OLB([=[.FOO]TEST.OBJ)a  1 LIBRARY /COMPRESS []MYLIB.OLB /OUTPUT=[]MYLIB.OLBt- CC /NOLIST/OBJECT=[.BAR]TEST.OBJ [.BAR]TEST.Cn- [.foo]test.obj is created from [.bar]test.c!!  $i  ? So you can see that it has concocted an implicit dependency of I? [.foo]test.obj upon [.bar]test.c.  It should of course infer a tD dependency on [.foo]test.c.  It appears to get confused by the fact E [.bar]test.c is explicitly mentioned in an unrelated dependency rule.1  G Most likely adding another explicit rule will prevent it from deducing rB the incorrect implicit rule, but it really shouldn't be necessary.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:42:36 +0100* From: "Richard Brodie" <R.Brodie@rl.ac.uk>2 Subject: Re: Motif 1.3, Euro sign not standard ?!?+ Message-ID: <bc2gud$qlg@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>i  X "Dirk Munk" <munk@home.nl> wrote in message news:bc2ess$m8k$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...  Q > The problem seems to be that the ascii value of the  (euro if you can read it) L > is not standard on all platforms. Perhaps we have to wait for 16 bit ascii  > before everything gets normal.  S Can't resist jumping in on this one: ASCII is a fine good old-fashioned 7 bit code.oR The ISO-8859 family codes with multiple definitions of the characters with the top6 bit set were OK for their time but are prone to error.  O Unfortunately, the Euro lives in the relative newcomer ISO-8859-15, which is anrL ugly bodge on the way to ISO-10646 (aka Unicode). As your post claims to be:H ISO-8859-1 (Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed)U it doesn't really contain a Euro at all. It merely has the code (164) that would be a ( Euro, had it been posted in ISO-8859-15.  O Had the Euro arrived a few years later, it might have been practical for ISO torS have said "we aren't doing any more 8 bit encodings". As it is, it has just createdbI some extra confusion. Hopefully the widespread adoption of XML will drive : Unicode forward and this sort of confusion will disappear.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:24:37 +0200p From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>2 Subject: Re: Motif 1.3, Euro sign not standard ?!?2 Message-ID: <bc2u7t$vs4$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Richard Brodie wrote:iZ > "Dirk Munk" <munk@home.nl> wrote in message news:bc2ess$m8k$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl... >  > Q >>The problem seems to be that the ascii value of the  (euro if you can read it)hL >>is not standard on all platforms. Perhaps we have to wait for 16 bit ascii  >>before everything gets normal. >  > U > Can't resist jumping in on this one: ASCII is a fine good old-fashioned 7 bit code.oT > The ISO-8859 family codes with multiple definitions of the characters with the top8 > bit set were OK for their time but are prone to error. > Q > Unfortunately, the Euro lives in the relative newcomer ISO-8859-15, which is an N > ugly bodge on the way to ISO-10646 (aka Unicode). As your post claims to be:J > ISO-8859-1 (Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed)W > it doesn't really contain a Euro at all. It merely has the code (164) that would be ar* > Euro, had it been posted in ISO-8859-15.  N This is fun. I know the Euro is in ISO-8859-15, and I can make that character N set standard for Mozilla mail and news. However when I did that, and tried to Q send my previous message, Mozilla complained that I used a character that is not  Q in the character set ! To type the Euro in VMS (if it is installed), keep <right r, compose-character> pressed and type <x> <o>.   > Q > Had the Euro arrived a few years later, it might have been practical for ISO toNU > have said "we aren't doing any more 8 bit encodings". As it is, it has just createdtK > some extra confusion. Hopefully the widespread adoption of XML will drive < > Unicode forward and this sort of confusion will disappear. >  >    ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:35:05 -0700# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>   Subject: need kbd for VAX4000/909 Message-ID: <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIMEPAHFAA.tom@kednos.com>H  0 Well, sometimes you get sloppy;-(  Lost an LK2013 anybody got a spare or anything that will work witha; this VAX?  It has that small (handset?) modular style jack.m   I think 401s work too.     ----& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).@ Version: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 14:10:46 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>0 Subject: Re: OT: CNN Story Not Favorable To Bush2 Message-ID: <veCcnbvZyp0RU3mjXTWcqQ@metrocast.net>  H "Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:jLNj7nmBFXuk@eisner.encompasserve.org...    ...i     The inability ofG >    US forces to find evidence of WMD in Iraq is an obvious difficultyhD >    that all can see.  But the need to remove Sadam by force is not< >    generally held to rely soley on the possibility of WMD.  H That's technically correct, when you consider the world as a whole:  theH general perception was that there was no pressing need to remove him *at all*..  K But in the more limited (in multiple meanings) context of the good ol' U.S.aJ of A., the vigorously-asserted presence of WMD *and the imminent threat ofH their use in large quantities* was very definitely the rationale used toI sell a somewhat dubious public on the need for going to war *right then*,iE rather than allowing the U.N. inspection process to continue.  No one D suggested that Saddam was anything other than a bad-ass, but only anJ imminent threat to *us* justified taking unilateral action half way around= the world over the objections of the international community.y  L Of course, now that the imminence of such a threat is becoming more and moreA ludicrous (and more and more information is coming out of variouswI intelligence agencies indicating that it was highly questionable *before*aK the war as well), Dubya and friends are back-pedaling furiously and seekingiJ other rationalizations for why they should not be treated as internationalL criminals.  And a lot of 'Muricans seem to be buying it, God bless 'em - butI the Brits appear at least a bit less ready to be as cynically manipulated & after the fact as they were before it.   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:09:23 GMTi' From: Don Sykes <anonymous@pacbell.net>u0 Subject: Re: OT: CNN Story Not Favorable To Bush+ Message-ID: <3EE4E96E.FED7F359@pacbell.net>e   Larry Kilgallen wrote: > ] > In article <3EE3B6AD.5060901@bellatlantic.net>, bob smith <sfmc68@bellatlantic.net> writes:a > L > > I did not and do not like clitton, he has lied to the public, lied under  > > oath, and is a pervaricator. > K > But he has not said anything about VMS, so the discussion does not belongl > here.l  E I agree Larry. After involving myself in just such threads before theeE war, I came to realize that posting political opinions in this NG can G only make one have less respect for those with whom one disagrees. Even H though I would like to think that everyone can respect people of various? political viewpoints, the discussions quickly deteriorate; withaF otherwise civil people using vulgar language and spouting epithets and lots of "!".G This can only serve to color one's view (pro or con) in future postingsa3 by the same individuals, regardless of the subject.n  E So, while I am still somewhat tempted to argue my views again, I willpA take your position and agree this is OT and does not belong here.i   --     Have VMS, Will Travel  Wire paladin, San Francisco    (paladinATalphaseDOTcom)   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:19:23 -0500 ' From: Chris Olive <nospam@raytheon.com>d Subject: Re: perl question> Message-ID: <cK7Fa.3506$c6.3314@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>   Antony Wardle wrote: > Thanks for that. > < > I can easily do it in DCL , but as I will have to run thisH > frequently, a programme always seems to be much more efficient/faster. > N > Plus, its probably about time I got off my butt, and didn't some programming! > in a language thats not DCL ;-)e >   F Since basically having to leave VMS behind in 1996 (save for the last G year on a VMS assignment which has brought me back into this forum), I  E found Perl to be about the closest thing to DCL that I had/have ever iI seen, in so far as what it can do and how one "thinks" to program in it. mF   There are things in DCL I miss in Perl, and many things in Perl not B possible in DCL, but again, I found that the way I programmed and 1 "thought" in DCL to transfer easily over to Perl.o  ; (I wonder if anyone else here is of the same sentiment...?)s  H Regular expressions, which was the cleanest solution to your problem in D Perl (already recommended) is of course NOT in DCL (at least not as 6 implemented in Perl), and THAT is a HUGE deal in Perl.  + Perl suits my "DCL fancies" outside of VMS.y   Chrisl   > [snipage]u >    Chrisa -----  Chris Oliveh Systems Consultant' Raytheon Technical Services Corporatione Indianapolis, IN  * email: olivec(AT)indy(DOT)raytheon(DOT)com   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:36:45 -0500e' From: Chris Olive <nospam@raytheon.com>h Subject: Re: perl question> Message-ID: <v_7Fa.3507$c6.3261@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>   Antony Wardle wrote:  E You may want to stop "top posting" like this since many Usenet users  I (including myself) regard it as disruptive to the flow of the thread: 8-)    > this how my script looks now:i >  > if (open(MYFILE, "file")) {e >  >          $line = <MYFILE>; >  > print ($line); >  > * > # print ("Enter the search pattern:\n"); >  >  >  > $pattern = $line ; >  > * > I guess I change the above to look like: >  > $line=~s/^0//; > $pattern = $line >  > 
 > sound good?e >  > print ($pattern);i >  > $filename = $ARGV[0];e >  > $linenum = $matchcount = 0;d >  > print ("Matches found:\n");e >  > while ($line = <>) { >  >          $linenum += 1;  > % >          if ($line =~ /$pattern/) {l >  > etc. >  >   G I'm not sure I'm putting the two pieces you have above together in the jD right way.  If you are wanting to read through a file in Perl, then F assigning the output of your file handle to a scalar is only going to A give you the last line in the file (reference your line "$line =  F <MYFILE>" above).  This is likely not what you want.  Your while loop E however, will work fine insofar as reading every line in the file is tG concerned.  The block isn't closed properly however, but it appears to e just be a snippet of code.  B Why not just use auto-increment, C-style, instead of $scalar += 1?   $linenum++;    ## Why not this? " $linenum += 1; ## Instead of this?  I Also, maybe you mean to count line numbers only if they match a pattern?  ;   Or maybe your posting got cut on the way to NNTP land...?c      $|++;        ## Flush all outputF use strict;  ## Another thing DCL doesn't have that is nice in Perl...   my $filename = "somefile.dat";
 my $hits = 0;   . open( <MYFILE>, $filename ) || die "open: $!";& while (<MYFILE>) { $hits++ if (/^0/) } close( MYFILE );  % print "Found pattern $hits times.\n";rF exit; ## Not necessary but makes clear in this post that program ended    = Be sure to look into hashes if you need to "group" your file mC analyzations to any degree.  Something DCL *can* do to some degree  ) though not nearly as efficiently as Perl.    Chriss -----  Chris Oliver Systems Consultant' Raytheon Technical Services Corporation) Indianapolis, IN  * email: olivec(AT)indy(DOT)raytheon(DOT)com   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:17:47 -0500a1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>e Subject: Re: perl question' Message-ID: <3EE531BB.1397B6DF@fsi.net>S   Paul Sture wrote:h > ] > In article <3EE371EF.36418112@fsi.net>, "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:i > > Antony Wardle wrote: > >> > >> Thanks for that.k > >>? > >> I can easily do it in DCL , but as I will have to run thisbK > >> frequently, a programme always seems to be much more efficient/faster.m > >gL > > Careful there - perl is still an interpretive language. Granted as such,L > > it is still a bit more efficient than DCL for some takes, but it's still  > > interpretive, just like DCL. > >e > J > Yes it is indeed interprative, but from what I have read, it effectivelyH > compiles the program when it loads it, so is definitely more efficientF > than DCL. In that context, the last time I used DCL on a VAX brought, > back memories of just how slow DCL can be.  G Gotta confess something here: I am *REALLY* getting spoiled running DCL-6 proc.'s on these GS1280s. These suckers are *QUICK*!!!   -- - David J. Dachteraa dba DJE Systems0 http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:11:51 GMTn9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>r& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death2 Message-ID: <H54Fa.2198$iJ7.1631@news.cpqcorp.net>  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messages# news:3EE4BE46.3583B432@istop.com...  > Rob Young wrote:@ > >         AMD was downgraded last week.  Appears that AMD willJ > >         be doing GOOD if it doesn't lose anymore marketshare to Intel: >.J > Have the analysts who are rating AMD provided any information on whether they* > or their employer own a stake in Intel ? >   L Come on.  The "analysts" here in c.o.v. seldom disclose their names, or what- their financial interest is in spreading FUD.-  I We know your POV, so ofcourse you would make this type of statement - buti! let stand all the Opteron "hype".c   >:L > It is interesting that those analysts don't mention the fact that Intel is8 > nowhere near recuperating the huge investment in IA64,  J Analysts don't care how much money was spent in the past.  They care aboutJ the bottom line ROI of the company via stock price increase, or dividends.C They try to predict those things on various chicken entrails - both + financial and "guessing" and future trends.u  F What they see is Intels revenues, their profits, and their predictionsI against financial performance - not R&D costs in past years that was longZJ ago written off on their taxes.  Itanium will *not* be measured by them byK how much was invested in it, but by it's current and potential contributionb to revenue and profits.   E Intel has a chip that is leading, or near leading in most performance-H benchmarks.  It has several major system makers lined up to sell systemsC based on the chip - from Dell, to HP, to IBM.  It has OS support orEK committed plans for Windows, Linux, various UNIXes, NSK, and yes - VMS.  ItuH is making current investments to get software libraries and applications! available on the Itanium systems.     and that there is aL > risk that 64 bit on desktop would take off which woudl leave intel without ae > competing product. >   K There is almost NO risk of the "64 bit desktop" taking off in any near termoJ future.  Opteron isn't a risk there.  Nor are the systems (what little are$ being made) targeted at the desktop.  L > If one were to look at Intel's IA64 division only, would you agree that it0 > would definitely be a "sell" compared to AMD ? >t  H What does this matter?  Intel is making an investment in the future.  IfI companies have to make a day 1 profit on everything they do, then we willc soon end in stagnation."  K > HP won't reveal how much Intel paid Compaq to retain the VMS engineers on: aE* > "make work project" to port VMS to IA64.  L You are supposing such a thing happened, and I have no knowledge of it.  NorL do I know of any report of it, or internal rumor of it.  Just speculation ofD people outside HP with a POV that is anti-HP (mostly a carry over of< anti-Compaqism), anti-Intel, and intended or not - anti-VMS.  # >But the way things are going rightpJ > now, I am not even sure Intel will get that money back from sales of VMS on( > IA64, at least not in he next 5 years.  C You have your head in a very dark place, or maybe just closed eyes.t  F Don't you get exhausted trying to outdo people like Bill and Andrew in negative prognostication?t   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 12:55:58 -0500(+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) & Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death3 Message-ID: <vzGV1Ribwmiw@eisner.encompasserve.org>s  V In article <3EE4BE46.3583B432@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > Rob Young wrote:? >>         AMD was downgraded last week.  Appears that AMD willrI >>         be doing GOOD if it doesn't lose anymore marketshare to Intel:a > O > Have the analysts who are rating AMD provided any information on whether theyu* > or their employer own a stake in Intel ? >   D 	While it would be a brash statement to suggest: "that won't happen"< 	the SEC is keeping a very close eye on analysts in light of? 	Enron, etc.  You get 2 or 3 good scandals going and things do   	change.  Teapot Dome, etc.    > L > It is interesting that those analysts don't mention the fact that Intel isL > nowhere near recuperating the huge investment in IA64, and that there is aN > risk that 64 bit on desktop would take off which woudl leave intel without a > competing product. >   ? 	Well... the fact that they are making money hand over fist anduA 	have $12 billion in cash on hand and improved earnings, it would ? 	make for silly analysis to suggest IA64 is weighing them down.>  L > If one were to look at Intel's IA64 division only, would you agree that it0 > would definitely be a "sell" compared to AMD ?  B 	Sure.  Gut Microsoft of their Office division and Microsoft would? 	be a much less attractive investment.  Office is like printerssC 	to HP.  IA64 is a drag on investments.  But it is a tiny smudge on " 	the radar screen, not a big blip.  M > HP won't reveal how much Intel paid Compaq to retain the VMS engineers on a'M > "make work project" to port VMS to IA64. But the way things are going right M > now, I am not even sure Intel will get that money back from sales of VMS ont( > IA64, at least not in he next 5 years.  ; 	Fred Kleinsorge states that Mark Gorham declares VMS to besB 	profitable to the tune of $500 million per year.  I would ventureE 	to guess that anyone that is doing anything with IA64 is consideringa@ 	it a strategic investment.  As Keith Parris points out, Dell is> 	back to selling IA64 servers.  Dell is the best canary in theC 	coal mine that anyone could point to.  The fact that they "dissed">> 	Intel and halted IA64 server sales was very embarassing.  But? 	Dell being Dell and very good at business must have told InteleG 	that Itanium 1 and early Itanium 2 wasn't happening.  Now that Madisonk9 	is about ready to roll, Dell is ready to move on IA64.     > 	Why does it now make business sense for Dell to begin selling; 	Madison?  Madison has superior floating point and superior D 	tpmC compared to Opteron.  Sure, whitebox Opteron's will be cheaper8 	but most of us don't have whitebox in our server rooms.   				Rob1   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:28:46 GMTn9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>G& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death1 Message-ID: <yl4Fa.2201$fO7.320@news.cpqcorp.net>   8 "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:vzGV1Ribwmiw@eisner.encompasserve.org...  > < > Fred Kleinsorge states that Mark Gorham declares VMS to be2 > profitable to the tune of $500 million per year.  L No I didn't.   Someone else claimed that Mark said this in Amsterdam.  I wasG not there, and never claimed this and can't say if it is true or false.a   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:24:55 GMT 9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>u& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death2 Message-ID: <Xh4Fa.2200$5O7.1568@news.cpqcorp.net>  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messagey# news:3EE4C0DE.43974724@istop.com...n > Fred Kleinsorge wrote:I > > Itanium isn't "targeted EOL", and compatability with IA32 has no real " > > bearing on the VMS discussion. >sK > Yes it does, because of the reasons your bosses used to justify the Alphau' > murder and moving to that IA64 thing.u >o  ' You can't "murder" an inanimate object.m  G > Your bosses used keywords such as "commodity", "mass market" and "lowa cost" to& > justify moving to IA64 versus Alpha. >'  H No, they didn't.  Those may be potential long term benefits, but you are* bending the facts to suit your world view.  I > The problem is that IA64 has so far achieved none of the qualities thatM Carly I > and Curly had promised and there is nothing on the horizon showing such  things happening.y >s  H Actually, I have the horizon taped to my office wall showing the roadmapE between now and sometime in 2007 - and frankly its a pretty good one.c  H > It is exactly because IA64 is not compatible with wintel platform that IA64F > will remain a low volume, proprietary and expensive chip, especially if/when.: > Intel is forced to release a 64 bit version of the 8086.  G Binary compatability with IA32 is a real issue in the x86 space, not annH insurmountable one - but a tough one.  But frankly, the AMD x86-64 isn'tI going to do squat in the general purpose IA32 space - at least running intH 64-bit mode.  It isn't transparent either.  Win64 instead of Windows XP.J New binaries for anything that needs to use the 64-bit space.  And franklyK not really enough justification for the bulk of the market.  Sure - they'lle sell some.  But not a lot.  K In the server market, where AMD has targeted the chip - they have an uphilldL battle in just finding *one* system vendor to put their flagship non-WindowsH OS on it.  I keep thinking Sun will do it - but they are afraid to admit* SPARC is dead (and deal with the fallout).  K In general AMD has a nifty piece of technology, but is in a weak finiancialuJ and market share position.  Alpha was a nifty piece of technology - and it lost in the market place.    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:58:32 -0400 % From: "Tsk, Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you> & Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death+ Message-ID: <3EE4CAC4.3C36A18D@shameon.you>,   Bill Todd wrote:N > can be said on this subject already has been said, multiple times.  Now thatN > Opteron has appeared it's time to sit back and see how things actually shake > out.  I Bringing this back to the subject...  It is very hard to set a "date" fors something to happen.  J Alpha may have officially been killed on June 25 2001, but there are signs7 that the decision had been taken a couple years before.l  L HP may not have announced its real plans for VMS, but it doesn't mean that aK decision hasn't already been taken with a true "internal" roadmap on how toi achieve that goal.  K In the case of AMD, there is a big difference. Hammer/Opteron/whatever is a-M product it actually really wants to sell and grow. It is clearly strategic to  AMD. (contrary to VMS for HP).  K In the case of IA64, I think that Intel is in an face-saving mode. They can@6 afford to "face save" by sinking more money into IA64.  G The diplomatic way out of the IA64 quagmire is quite simple. Intel will.M develop a high volume low cost 64 bit 8086 to compete against AMD.  The speedeK of IA64 development will be set such that a few years later, all the curves G will show the 8086 outpacing IA64. HP will hopefully be under different K management who will then look at the curves and decide that the 8086 is the 1 way to go, at which point, Intel can retire IA64.n   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 13:53:13 -0500g+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)m& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death3 Message-ID: <AFgGNnoZ2$KF@eisner.encompasserve.org>h  m In article <yl4Fa.2201$fO7.320@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes:e > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:vzGV1Ribwmiw@eisner.encompasserve.org...h >>= >> Fred Kleinsorge states that Mark Gorham declares VMS to ben3 >> profitable to the tune of $500 million per year.e > N > No I didn't.   Someone else claimed that Mark said this in Amsterdam.  I wasI > not there, and never claimed this and can't say if it is true or false.r >   < 	My bad.  Sorry to attribute that to you, I need to find out 	who said that - just today.   				Roby   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 13:54:14 -0500i+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young)e& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death3 Message-ID: <tZkGqlZs5xEG@eisner.encompasserve.org>i  m In article <yl4Fa.2201$fO7.320@news.cpqcorp.net>, "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> writes:d > : > "Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message/ > news:vzGV1Ribwmiw@eisner.encompasserve.org...a >>= >> Fred Kleinsorge states that Mark Gorham declares VMS to be<3 >> profitable to the tune of $500 million per year.L > N > No I didn't.   Someone else claimed that Mark said this in Amsterdam.  I wasI > not there, and never claimed this and can't say if it is true or false.o >  	(
 	Yes, my bad.   = 	It was Keith Parris that stated that today, see other posts.    				Robe   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:52:45 GMTt9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>d& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death2 Message-ID: <1I4Fa.2209$JP7.1382@news.cpqcorp.net>  9 "Tsk, Tsk".  Gee.  Another anonymous dispenser of wisdom.b  H The end of the world has been scheduled, but the Bush administration hasI decided not to announce it until the Summer TV schedule is in full swing..  C Sun has decided to liquidate all assets and pay the proceeds to ther/ stockholders, since they have run out of ideas.c  H Any other great unprovable "truths" we should share here with the world?  $ What a load of *utter* horse puckey.      0 "Tsk, Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you> wrote in message% news:3EE4CAC4.3C36A18D@shameon.you...  > Bill Todd wrote:K > > can be said on this subject already has been said, multiple times.  Nowe thatJ > > Opteron has appeared it's time to sit back and see how things actually shake" > > out. > K > Bringing this back to the subject...  It is very hard to set a "date" for- > something to happen. >,L > Alpha may have officially been killed on June 25 2001, but there are signs9 > that the decision had been taken a couple years before.- >-L > HP may not have announced its real plans for VMS, but it doesn't mean that akJ > decision hasn't already been taken with a true "internal" roadmap on how to > achieve that goal. >fK > In the case of AMD, there is a big difference. Hammer/Opteron/whatever iss aeL > product it actually really wants to sell and grow. It is clearly strategic to  > AMD. (contrary to VMS for HP). > I > In the case of IA64, I think that Intel is in an face-saving mode. TheyF cann8 > afford to "face save" by sinking more money into IA64. >sI > The diplomatic way out of the IA64 quagmire is quite simple. Intel willoI > develop a high volume low cost 64 bit 8086 to compete against AMD.  Ther speed F > of IA64 development will be set such that a few years later, all the curvesI > will show the 8086 outpacing IA64. HP will hopefully be under differentaI > management who will then look at the curves and decide that the 8086 ish the 3 > way to go, at which point, Intel can retire IA64.a   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:40:36 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death) Message-ID: <3EE4E2A8.7E10A6E3@istop.com>r   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:K > going to do squat in the general purpose IA32 space - at least running ineJ > 64-bit mode.  It isn't transparent either.  Win64 instead of Windows XP.@ > New binaries for anything that needs to use the 64-bit space.   M The name of the game is whether one can run his existing windows programs andrM access the huge wealth of available windows software. For Opteron, the answer'# is YES. For IA64, the answer is NO..  M Furthermore, in the longer term, AMD has one chip to develop for both desktopbN and servers. Doesn't matter if desktops are used mostly in 32 bit mode or not.  J But intel has two completely separate architectures to develop/maintain inH parralel, with the 8086 having both desktop and server markets, and IA64 having a small server niche.  K Carly said that she was under pressure to streamline her product offerings,aM and standardizing on IA64 was the "right thing to do". If Carly were the headaL of Intel, the same logic would force her to standardize on the 8086 and drop	 the rest.e  M > In the server market, where AMD has targeted the chip - they have an uphill N > battle in just finding *one* system vendor to put their flagship non-Windows > OS on it.   L Since there are only 3 enterprise vendors left with their own OS, 2 of whichN have their own chips, it isn't fair to expect AMD to win that marketplace.  IfF AMD is aiming for mass markst/volume, they will want to get the wintelR manufacturers such as Dell, Gateway etc, as well as perhaps IBM's wintel division.  J **IF** HP were to announce today that it was abandonning IA64 and going toN AMD, I think that Intel would have a  64 bit 8086 out the door VERY VERY fast.  G If Dell is going to be making a few token IA64s, it isn't due to marketoN demand, it is due to Intel pressures, perhaps in exchange for a better deal on the volume 8086s.n  H For as long as Intel needs to artificially push IA64, and until there isN natural demand from customers for IA64 stuff, the chip should be considered on life support.   ? > I keep thinking Sun will do it - but they are afraid to admit , > SPARC is dead (and deal with the fallout).  N Sun has no problem insulting Microsoft because it doesn't depend on Microsoft.L But Sun buys stuff from Intel, so it has to be careful with its relationship with intel.d  L > and market share position.  Alpha was a nifty piece of technology - and it > lost in the market place.c  K You can't lose a race you didn't enter. Alpha was never allowed to compete.g   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:49:56 -0400h* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death) Message-ID: <3EE4E4D7.5BD911BE@istop.com>a   "Tsk, Tsk" wrote:eE > I would say that the majority of the pundits here have real names. r  M Well, what a twist... I had tried to cancel the spammer's post, but forgot to E set my identity back, so I guess that text must have looked starnge !s   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:24:37 -0400 % From: "Tsk, Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you> & Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death+ Message-ID: <3EE4DEEA.26614359@shameon.you>e   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:N > Come on.  The "analysts" here in c.o.v. seldom disclose their names, or what/ > their financial interest is in spreading FUD.7  H I would say that the majority of the pundits here have real names. ThoseK without fake names are in the minority. And if J Q public makes a statementoN here, it isn't under the name of a large Wall Street Brokerage firm, and there? is usually a disclaimer that he doesn't speak for his employer.   I But when an "analyst" speaks on behalf of his wall street employer, it isnH quite different in terms of what one *should* expect. But trust in thoseO "analysts from wall street" is very very low because of conflicts of interests..  K > We know your POV, so ofcourse you would make this type of statement - bute# > let stand all the Opteron "hype".i  I In all frankness, I don't see "opteron hype". I see warnings that OpteronsH *might* take off and I do personally feel that the 64 bit 8086 has a farI greater chance of becoming commodity than IA64 which has lost its chance.e  L > Analysts don't care how much money was spent in the past.  They care aboutL > the bottom line ROI of the company via stock price increase, or dividends.  K Short term stuff, yes, that si what you expect from a wall street analysts.OL Will the company meet its revenue goals this quarter.  Often not even askingL "will the company meet its dividend goal (which si what should really matter to an investor).  H > What they see is Intels revenues, their profits, and their predictionsK > against financial performance - not R&D costs in past years that was longO! > ago written off on their taxes.]  M But a good analyst would have to comment on a corporation's continued sinking M of money into unprofitable products because that reflects on a bad managementEN philosophy. Lets take an example at Digital. ALL-In-1 was very profitable, andJ had evolved with the times. Yet, Palmer chose to abandon it in favour of aN competitor's product which yielded little to no profits to Digital. Was this aG wise management decision from shareholder's perspective ? Yet, AnalystsiD applauded Digital's move to abandon profitable products in favour of" Microsoft's unprofitable products.  I Could it be because analysts had a stake in Microsoft and it was to their * advantage to see MSFT's stock price rise ?  L If a shareholder had invested in Digital, would they be happy to see DigitalM management essentially taking Digital's profits and handing them to Microsoft.1 instead of handing them to Digital shareholders ?e  + > Itanium will *not* be measured by them by.M > how much was invested in it, but by it's current and potential contributionr > to revenue and profits.   I But analysts *should* question a company who continues to sink money inton9 unprofitable products because that reduces profitability.I  L What this means is that Intel is far more profitable than alaysts are seing,J but Intel squanders a good deal of profits on projects such as IA64. It isJ good to spend on R&D. And if the R&D yields something interesting, you can then commercialise it.  N The problem with IA64 is that Intel commercialised it before it had developpedM it (selling the skin before you kill the bear). And The commitment has costed)E Intel a lot of money that should have otherwise gone to shareholders.     J > benchmarks.  It has several major system makers lined up to sell systems0 > based on the chip - from Dell, to HP, to IBM.   M Except for HP, all other vendors have token "yeah, we'll sell IA64 systems ifhM a customer really asks" type of commitments. They are not betting their wholeL business on IA64.d     > It has OS support orJ > committed plans for Windows, Linux, various UNIXes, NSK, and yes - VMS.   N Alpha had the same. Yet, someone was able to break those "committed plans" one. day by concucting whatever reason they wanted.  L Lets face it. The minute Intel launches a 64 bit 8086, you'll find all thoseG other vendors quietly widthdrawing from IA64 and focusing on their core < "wintel" products. HP will be the lone vendor stuck to IA64.  J > is making current investments to get software libraries and applications# > available on the Itanium systems.e  L The minute Intel agreed that its IA64 woudln't become commodity on desktops,N it sealed the fate of IA64. It is not an interesting platform to adopt, unlessM you are big enough that Intel gives you lots of goodies if you help it out oft its IA64 quagmire.  M > There is almost NO risk of the "64 bit desktop" taking off in any near term & > future.  Opteron isn't a risk there.  M You underestimate the power or marketing.  My 11 year old newphew now wants apI wintel for his birthday with all the bells and whistles to play his fancyoL games. And if he learns that there is one PC with 64 bit chip that is biggerL and better than a 32 bit chip, he will "demand" to have that PC. (even if it  won't bring him much initially).  K But for the comsumer market, it will remain a race for MHz (or I should now L say GHz) because that is how consumers compare machines. So the big questionA is whether AMD can producd its chips with impressive MHz ratings.k  G > What does this matter?  Intel is making an investment in the future.    L But if it is the wrong investment for Intel to make, do you think it is wise# to continue to sink money into it ?   N > You are supposing such a thing happened, and I have no knowledge of it.  Nor: > do I know of any report of it, or internal rumor of it.   N It seemed very clear to me on June 25 2001 that Intel would help fund the portN of VMS to IA64. However, the details of the agreement (how much money etc etc)J were never made public. However, every indications from the wording of theH announcement swas that Intel was sending money to Compaq in excahnge forC Compaq killing Alpha and donating its employees/compilers to Intel.h   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:14:00 GMT-9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>a& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death1 Message-ID: <sM6Fa.2227$a7.1116@news.cpqcorp.net>e  4 Come on JF, stop trying to get around the killfiles.  0 "Tsk, Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you> wrote in message% news:3EE4DEEA.26614359@shameon.you...: > Fred Kleinsorge wrote:K > > Come on.  The "analysts" here in c.o.v. seldom disclose their names, orr what1 > > their financial interest is in spreading FUD.a > J > I would say that the majority of the pundits here have real names. ThoseC > without fake names are in the minority. And if J Q public makes au	 statementtJ > here, it isn't under the name of a large Wall Street Brokerage firm, and there A > is usually a disclaimer that he doesn't speak for his employer.e > K > But when an "analyst" speaks on behalf of his wall street employer, it isrJ > quite different in terms of what one *should* expect. But trust in thoseF > "analysts from wall street" is very very low because of conflicts of
 interests. >eI > > We know your POV, so ofcourse you would make this type of statement -s but % > > let stand all the Opteron "hype".a >mK > In all frankness, I don't see "opteron hype". I see warnings that Opteron J > *might* take off and I do personally feel that the 64 bit 8086 has a farK > greater chance of becoming commodity than IA64 which has lost its chance.  >tH > > Analysts don't care how much money was spent in the past.  They care abouttC > > the bottom line ROI of the company via stock price increase, ors
 dividends. > C > Short term stuff, yes, that si what you expect from a wall streeto	 analysts. G > Will the company meet its revenue goals this quarter.  Often not evene askingG > "will the company meet its dividend goal (which si what should reallye matter > to an investor). >fJ > > What they see is Intels revenues, their profits, and their predictionsH > > against financial performance - not R&D costs in past years that was long# > > ago written off on their taxes.a >uG > But a good analyst would have to comment on a corporation's continued- sinking-D > of money into unprofitable products because that reflects on a bad
 managementL > philosophy. Lets take an example at Digital. ALL-In-1 was very profitable, and7L > had evolved with the times. Yet, Palmer chose to abandon it in favour of aI > competitor's product which yielded little to no profits to Digital. Was  this aI > wise management decision from shareholder's perspective ? Yet, Analysts F > applauded Digital's move to abandon profitable products in favour of$ > Microsoft's unprofitable products. >lK > Could it be because analysts had a stake in Microsoft and it was to theira, > advantage to see MSFT's stock price rise ? >oF > If a shareholder had invested in Digital, would they be happy to see DigitalrE > management essentially taking Digital's profits and handing them tol	 Microsofts3 > instead of handing them to Digital shareholders ?i >t- > > Itanium will *not* be measured by them byaB > > how much was invested in it, but by it's current and potential contribution > > to revenue and profits.p >iK > But analysts *should* question a company who continues to sink money intos; > unprofitable products because that reduces profitability.y > G > What this means is that Intel is far more profitable than alaysts areV seing,L > but Intel squanders a good deal of profits on projects such as IA64. It isL > good to spend on R&D. And if the R&D yields something interesting, you can > then commercialise it. > E > The problem with IA64 is that Intel commercialised it before it had2
 developpedH > it (selling the skin before you kill the bear). And The commitment has costedG > Intel a lot of money that should have otherwise gone to shareholders.s >  >mL > > benchmarks.  It has several major system makers lined up to sell systems1 > > based on the chip - from Dell, to HP, to IBM.h > L > Except for HP, all other vendors have token "yeah, we'll sell IA64 systems ifI > a customer really asks" type of commitments. They are not betting theirm whole  > business on IA64.t >e >o > > It has OS support orK > > committed plans for Windows, Linux, various UNIXes, NSK, and yes - VMS.g > L > Alpha had the same. Yet, someone was able to break those "committed plans" oneo0 > day by concucting whatever reason they wanted. >rH > Lets face it. The minute Intel launches a 64 bit 8086, you'll find all thoseyI > other vendors quietly widthdrawing from IA64 and focusing on their corew> > "wintel" products. HP will be the lone vendor stuck to IA64. >nL > > is making current investments to get software libraries and applications% > > available on the Itanium systems.m >DD > The minute Intel agreed that its IA64 woudln't become commodity on	 desktops,iI > it sealed the fate of IA64. It is not an interesting platform to adopt,i unlessL > you are big enough that Intel gives you lots of goodies if you help it out of > its IA64 quagmire. >0J > > There is almost NO risk of the "64 bit desktop" taking off in any near term( > > future.  Opteron isn't a risk there. >eG > You underestimate the power or marketing.  My 11 year old newphew now" wants anK > wintel for his birthday with all the bells and whistles to play his fancypG > games. And if he learns that there is one PC with 64 bit chip that is  biggerK > and better than a 32 bit chip, he will "demand" to have that PC. (even ifi it" > won't bring him much initially). >pI > But for the comsumer market, it will remain a race for MHz (or I shouldt nowoE > say GHz) because that is how consumers compare machines. So the bigo questionC > is whether AMD can producd its chips with impressive MHz ratings.n >=H > > What does this matter?  Intel is making an investment in the future. ><I > But if it is the wrong investment for Intel to make, do you think it is/ wise% > to continue to sink money into it ?p >iK > > You are supposing such a thing happened, and I have no knowledge of it.n Nort; > > do I know of any report of it, or internal rumor of it.  >rK > It seemed very clear to me on June 25 2001 that Intel would help fund thee portK > of VMS to IA64. However, the details of the agreement (how much money etcn etc)L > were never made public. However, every indications from the wording of theJ > announcement swas that Intel was sending money to Compaq in excahnge forE > Compaq killing Alpha and donating its employees/compilers to Intel.C   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:36:15 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death2 Message-ID: <pfydnackjcpScnmjXTWcog@metrocast.net>  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messages# news:3EE4E4D7.5BD911BE@istop.com...  > "Tsk, Tsk" wrote:eF > > I would say that the majority of the pundits here have real names. > L > Well, what a twist... I had tried to cancel the spammer's post, but forgot toG > set my identity back, so I guess that text must have looked starnge !   K I was thinking that he sounded an awful lot like you, but a bit smoother...o   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:27:27 GMTS9 From: "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com>s& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death1 Message-ID: <3Z6Fa.2229$NX7.433@news.cpqcorp.net>c  7 "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message(# news:3EE4E2A8.7E10A6E3@istop.com...- > Fred Kleinsorge wrote:J > > going to do squat in the general purpose IA32 space - at least running inL > > 64-bit mode.  It isn't transparent either.  Win64 instead of Windows XP.A > > New binaries for anything that needs to use the 64-bit space.. >>K > The name of the game is whether one can run his existing windows programst and H > access the huge wealth of available windows software. For Opteron, the answer% > is YES. For IA64, the answer is NO.o >m  G No.  The name of the game is what is the killer app that will cause the L *desktop* (user and developer) to pay a premium to go to x86-64.  The wealthD of IA32 software will STILL run on IA32.  Better.  Faster.  Cheaper.  G > Furthermore, in the longer term, AMD has one chip to develop for both  desktopvK > and servers. Doesn't matter if desktops are used mostly in 32 bit mode ort not. >e  G It only helps them *if* there is a market for it's 64-bit identity.  ItoA doesn't help them if it adds *any* cost to the 32-bit mode usage.   L > But intel has two completely separate architectures to develop/maintain inJ > parralel, with the 8086 having both desktop and server markets, and IA64 > having a small server niche. >f  K Intel is a multi-billion $ money maker that dominated the market.  They can-' easily support IA64 and bring it along.   H As an example.  Windows NT did not compete well with Windows 3.x.  Using. your logic, Microsoft should have scrapped it.  B > Carly said that she was under pressure to streamline her product
 offerings,J > and standardizing on IA64 was the "right thing to do". If Carly were the headI > of Intel, the same logic would force her to standardize on the 8086 and  drop > the rest.O >f  I Carly has said a lot of things, why only use the things you think you canrI stretch the logic of?  She also said stuff about the enterprise business.   H > > In the server market, where AMD has targeted the chip - they have an uphillD > > battle in just finding *one* system vendor to put their flagship non-Windowso
 > > OS on it.u > H > Since there are only 3 enterprise vendors left with their own OS, 2 of which L > have their own chips, it isn't fair to expect AMD to win that marketplace. IfH > AMD is aiming for mass markst/volume, they will want to get the wintelJ > manufacturers such as Dell, Gateway etc, as well as perhaps IBM's wintel	 division.t >c  G Let's see.  Dell will ship Itanium.  Hmmm.  HP will ship Itanium.  HmmmhC sounds like the #1 and #2 guys building those systems have decided.d  > Of the 3 you speak of, 2 have plans for Itanium.  The other...  L > **IF** HP were to announce today that it was abandonning IA64 and going toJ > AMD, I think that Intel would have a  64 bit 8086 out the door VERY VERY fast.e >y  L If the world stopped revolving we'd all fly off.  Let's make dumb assertionsE that somehow would satisfy our desired outcomes.  If everyone stoppedrI selling Itanium, yes, Intel would stop building them.  HP isn't everyone,m< but it would certainly give Intel pause.  However, HP isn't.  I > If Dell is going to be making a few token IA64s, it isn't due to market H > demand, it is due to Intel pressures, perhaps in exchange for a better deal onw > the volume 8086s.l >t  H If this announcement were about Opteron - you would be talking about theL dawn of a new day, the mass availability of it.  Because you want Itanium to! fail, you have a different slant.s  J > For as long as Intel needs to artificially push IA64, and until there isB > natural demand from customers for IA64 stuff, the chip should be
 considered ona > life support.  >f  
 What baloney.   A > > I keep thinking Sun will do it - but they are afraid to admiti. > > SPARC is dead (and deal with the fallout). > E > Sun has no problem insulting Microsoft because it doesn't depend one
 Microsoft.A > But Sun buys stuff from Intel, so it has to be careful with its  relationship
 > with intel.v >   @ Hah.  They know the right thing to do it dump Sparc and go to anI alternative.  Itanium won't do, because Solaris will then have to competepJ head-to-head against IBM and HP.  Which is why I suspect they secretly areJ working on x86-64.  But they can't say anything - because they can't panic their SPARC base.t  K > > and market share position.  Alpha was a nifty piece of technology - and. it > > lost in the market place.i >pD > You can't lose a race you didn't enter. Alpha was never allowed to compete.  L Hooey.  You might disagree with everything that was done or call those doing: it incompetent, but those doing it were trying to compete.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:40:45 +0200t From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death2 Message-ID: <bc2v66$f8t$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:       > M > There is almost NO risk of the "64 bit desktop" taking off in any near termBL > future.  Opteron isn't a risk there.  Nor are the systems (what little are& > being made) targeted at the desktop.   Huh ???rO How did you come to that conclusion? You sound a little bit like a certain mr.  M Gates, who once proclaimed that a PC would never need more then 640kB memory.   K When I was at the Cebit in march, every motherboard supplier had Athlon 64 oM boards on display. You seem to forget that the Athlon 64 is faster in 32 bit  Q mode then the present 32 bit Athlon cpu's. So if I want to buy a fast 32 bit AMD gM system later this year, I buy a Athlon 64 and get the 64 bit capability as a h bonus so to speak !'  Q That my dear Fred is exactly the danger for Intel, it has nothing to compete, at I least not publicly.s   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:55:03 -0400t* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death) Message-ID: <3EE50221.9A81A978@istop.com>    Fred Kleinsorge wrote:I > No.  The name of the game is what is the killer app that will cause theoC > *desktop* (user and developer) to pay a premium to go to x86-64. u  N The thing is that with AMD having designed a chip that acts as both 32 bit andM 64 bit 8086, it doesn't quite need to charge a premium for it on desktops.  IeN don't know its intentions with regards to desktop chip pricing, but I agree is= that if AMD charges a premium for desktop, it won't make it. .  J But if it competes head to head about 32-bit-only intel chips, it stands a chance to win.   > The wealthF > of IA32 software will STILL run on IA32.  Better.  Faster.  Cheaper.  M Cuts both ways. That same argument can be used to predict the demise of IA64.tJ The thing is that with AMD's solution, it can compete head to head againstN Intel's 8086 in the 32 but environment, and compete into most of the niche forG IA64 (albeit, I am sure AMD's chip won't be able to deliver some of the  configs in this niche market).  K This is all speculation because as far as I am concerned, AMD's chip hasn'tcJ made any serious inroads yet. But it would seem to me that it would be farN easier for it to make inroads than it would for Ia64 simply because AMD's chipL is compatible with the industry standard, whereas IA64 is a proprietary chip0 that is incompatible with the industry standard.  H Remember the arguments about Alpha being single-sourced being a drawbackK (originally) ? Well, as long as IA64 is single sources from Intel, the samesM argument should apply to it. Because AMD's solution is based on the induystryxM standard which is available from multiple sources, it makes it much more of aoS commodity and hence more politically acceptable than Intel's proprietary IA64 chip.   M > Intel is a multi-billion $ money maker that dominated the market.  They canr) > easily support IA64 and bring it along.2  M Correct. But eventually, if it doesn't start to pay back and generate profitsnM for Intel, Intell will have to scrap it. Remember the arguments that Alpha or M PA-Risc would cost too much to continue to develop with the ever more complexl1 improvements to it in order to stay in the race ?e  J If IA64 stays low volume, its costs to keep up with the jones' will be tooK much compared to the revenus. Remember that Intel doesn't make profits fromaI system sales, so it can't justify "subsidizing" a chip like Digital or HPtH could with their chips which generated sales of very profitable systems.  K > Carly has said a lot of things, why only use the things you think you canwK > stretch the logic of?  She also said stuff about the enterprise business.t  N Yeah let's talk about it. Conveniently forgetting to mention one product whichL supposedly yields 500 million in pure profits each year anbd whose potentialE could grow massively if that product were marketed is definitely goodt "enterprise business". NOT !  I > Let's see.  Dell will ship Itanium.  Hmmm.  HP will ship Itanium.  Hmmm"E > sounds like the #1 and #2 guys building those systems have decided..  J Dell will not ship Itanium. Dell continues to be a wintel commodity maker.- They agreed to sell a few Ia64 based systems.   N HP is the only one to have bet its business on IA64. Dell doesn't care of IA640 fails. HP stands to lose big time if IA64 fails.  2 > If the world stopped revolving we'd all fly off.  I Nop. If the earth stopped revolving around the sun, there would be globaleL warming of biblical proportions since we'd fall into the sun. However, thoseJ on the right side of the earth would be "ejected" when the earth suddentlyI stops its orbit around the sun and they would continue the earth's orbit.eL (which is why everyone should be walking in the streets in space suits, justD in case  the earth stops revolving around the sun - reference: HP TV commercial :-)    J > If this announcement were about Opteron - you would be talking about theN > dawn of a new day, the mass availability of it.  Because you want Itanium to# > fail, you have a different slant..  H What is important here is that AMD has the *potential* to have its nicheK become part of the industry standard commodity market. Intel's IA64 doesn'te and will remain a niche market.n  I If Dell were to announce that it would use ADM for a variety of products,aI including some high volume ones, then it would be far more significant an I announcement than Dell announcing it had agreed to build a couple of IA64P based servers.     > What baloney.t  - You can get baloney at your local food store.o    B > Hah.  They know the right thing to do it dump Sparc and go to anK > alternative.  Itanium won't do, because Solaris will then have to compete-L > head-to-head against IBM and HP.  Which is why I suspect they secretly areL > working on x86-64.  But they can't say anything - because they can't panic > their SPARC base.a  K Because you and andrew make such a good couple, your statements denigratingsN Sparc are similar to a couple's argument over the positioning of toilet paper.M If anything, IA64's failure to achieve commodity status is good for Sparc. It K gives Sun a *chance* to compete against a market that is split into 3 chipso (Sparc, Power and IA64).  M Had intel succeeded in building a cool, efficient and cheap 64 bit chip, then N I woudl agree that Sparc would be in great jeoperdy. But as it turns out, IA64H is a heavy, bloated and just as expensive architecture requiring its own( dedicated compilers etc, just like Sun.   L And for as long as Sun maintains a significant share of the Unix market, theM volumes of sparc chips should be in the same ballpark as those of IA64. WhichoI means that Sparc should be able to compete head to head with IA64, unlessfM Intel starts to heavily subsidize IA64 and dump it below cost in the  market.6    N > Hooey.  You might disagree with everything that was done or call those doing< > it incompetent, but those doing it were trying to compete.  J Sorry, but Alpha was PREVENTED from competing. Consider the deal to ensureN that Alpha workstatiosn didn't compete against wintel workstations at Digital.H Consider the many requests to make use of Dec,s FAB plant which had beenI turned down because Digital wanted to preserve the ability to use its FAB-B plant (meanwhile, causing the plant to lose hundreds of millions).  M Digital had done everything to prevent Alpha's success. I don't consider thatgJ Alpha was given a fair chance and its failure is not a loss in a race, but failure to enter the race.   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:40:40 -0400* From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death2 Message-ID: <O2WdnbiJNrlzkXijXTWcpA@metrocast.net>  D "Fred Kleinsorge" <my-last-name@stardotzko.dec.com> wrote in message+ news:3Z6Fa.2229$NX7.433@news.cpqcorp.net...  >i9 > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messagea% > news:3EE4E2A8.7E10A6E3@istop.com...i > > Fred Kleinsorge wrote:L > > > going to do squat in the general purpose IA32 space - at least running > inJ > > > 64-bit mode.  It isn't transparent either.  Win64 instead of Windows XP. C > > > New binaries for anything that needs to use the 64-bit space.r > > D > > The name of the game is whether one can run his existing windows programs > andlJ > > access the huge wealth of available windows software. For Opteron, the > answer' > > is YES. For IA64, the answer is NO.c > >s >e > No.r  * Yes *and* no:  the game has several names.  D   The name of the game is what is the killer app that will cause theB > *desktop* (user and developer) to pay a premium to go to x86-64.  L What premium, Fred?  The desktop hardware will be cheaper than Pentium for aK given performance level (as AMD's hardware and associated motherboards haveeK always been), and do you have any information indicating that desktop Win64eH is going to be priced higher than desktop Win32 (Linux certainly isn't)?  J Once you remove the assumption of a significant price difference, you needH not a 'killer' 64-bit app but merely the possibility that a user *might*K want to run *some* 64-bit app before replacing the machine 3 years down theo! road to make Athlon64 attractive.h  D But, ironically, there *is* a killer 64-bit app for desktop Hammers:J Windows itself.  There are multiple areas in which a 64-bit Windows systemG runs *existing 32-bit applications* better than a 32-bit Windows systemh does:   K 1.  Instead of taking up half the application's 4 GB virtual address space,wK Win64 leaves almost the entire 4 GB for application use (and an applicationtI doesn't have to be handling GB of data to find this useful:  consider the J use of a large, sparse hash space for convenience and the larger data sets1 this may allow the application to handle easily).i  L 2.  Instead of limiting the system cache to 960 MB of virtual address space,E Win64 allows as much physical memory to be used for caching as may be H desirable (and given memory prices these days, the possibility that moreL than 960 MB might be desirable to use for caching is hardly likely to be all+ that remote over the next couple of years).t  K 3.  Furthermore, 32-bit Windows maps entities in the system cache in 256 KBeJ chunks, even if the cached entity is far smaller.  This places an absoluteL limit of 3840 items in the cache.  Some informal examination of average fileI sizes at realworldtech.com a while ago yielded the information that aboutrJ half the files on people's current Windows systems were 8 KB or smaller inJ size, and 80% - 90% were 64 KB or smaller in size.  This suggests that theA average size of a cached item could be only 20 KB - 30 KB in manyoG situations:  3840 such items would consume only about 96 MB of physical J memory, which means that even systems with as little as 256 MB of physicalK memory could find that switching to Win64 gave them more usable cache spacehE (by removing the virtual address space limitation of 32-bit Windows).e  D 4.  And, of course, for desktops that *do* grow to more than 4 GB ofH physical memory Win64 will handle it more gracefully than 32-bit Windows does.-  H For that matter there are other infrastructure components as well (e.g.,L Oracle) that by running as local 64-bit services can improve the performance+ of unchanged 32-bit applications on Hammer.:     The wealthF > of IA32 software will STILL run on IA32.  Better.  Faster.  Cheaper.  H No better.  No faster.  No less expensively.  AMD64 *is* IA32, just with added attractions.  D The PC space really doesn't seem to be your area of expertise, Fred.   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:56:36 +1000i1 From: Paddy O'Brien <paddy.o'brien@tg.nsw.gov.au>o& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death, Message-ID: <3EE510A4.2070405@tg.nsw.gov.au>   Tsk, Tsk wrote:o > Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > N >>Come on.  The "analysts" here in c.o.v. seldom disclose their names, or what/ >>their financial interest is in spreading FUD.n >  > J > I would say that the majority of the pundits here have real names. Those) > without fake names are in the minority.    This does not make sense.i  I I would assume that everyone here has a real name whether they use it or   not.  B I disagree with both writers in that I think the majority on this H newsgroup/mailing list -- "pundits" or "analysts" or whatever -- do use I their real names, even to the extent of accepting abuse.  There are only gF a handful of *real* contributors here who do not use their real names H and "John Smith" has explained his own reasons and those might apply to H others in this handful.  Apart from this handful, the other posters who & use the cloak of anonimity are trolls.   Regards, Paddy          G ***********************************************************************   C "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privilegeda> and confidential information intended only for the use of the B addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of C this email, please delete the message and any attachment and adviseuB the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, 7 distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.l  A If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid AA immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the e= individual sender except where the sender expressly and with PC authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid usesi> virus scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses contained in any attachment.  < Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now$ firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"  G ***********************************************************************e   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 18:45:16 -0700-1 From: keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com (Keith Parris)3& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death= Message-ID: <cf15391e.0306091745.62dcfedd@posting.google.com>e  [ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<3EE50221.9A81A978@istop.com>... J > Remember the arguments about Alpha being single-sourced being a drawbackM > (originally) ? Well, as long as IA64 is single sources from Intel, the sametO > argument should apply to it. Because AMD's solution is based on the induystryoO > standard which is available from multiple sources, it makes it much more of aRJ > commodity and hence more politically acceptable than Intel's proprietary > IA64 chip.  C AMD's 64-bit extensions, x86-64 or AMD64 or whatever you call them,hD are available only in chips from a single source -- AMD.  That makes@ Opteron just as much a single-source chip as Itanium.  And usingB Opteron makes you dependent on a single-source supplier with fewer# financial resources than Intel has.d   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:05:02 GMTa# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> & Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium deathG Message-ID: <i1bFa.36355$G_.19984@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>t  0 "Tsk, Tsk" <tsktsk@shameon.you> wrote in message% news:3EE4DEEA.26614359@shameon.you...e >> Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  >iE > > There is almost NO risk of the "64 bit desktop" taking off in anyo	 near term ( > > future.  Opteron isn't a risk there. > C > You underestimate the power or marketing.  My 11 year old newphewp now wants atE > wintel for his birthday with all the bells and whistles to play hisa fancynD > games. And if he learns that there is one PC with 64 bit chip that	 is biggertB > and better than a 32 bit chip, he will "demand" to have that PC. (even if itO" > won't bring him much initially).     Marketing & Advertising 101m- -- aka: A course for HP managment & employeesl2 --------------------------------------------------  C Q. How many people know the phrase, "Dude, you're getting a Dell."?sC A. Almost anyone in the US and Canada who has watched television in  the past 2 years.s  D Q. And how many people who have heard the phrase know what it means?8 A. The same number of people as the answer above covers.  5 Q. How many people worldwide buy Ferrari's each year?yD A. A full-year's worth of production. Off the top of my head, that's 10,000 units of all types.  D Q. How many people worldwide know of Ferrari and could tell you what one is?  A. About one billion.e  D Q. How many of those one billion people would want a Ferrari if they could have/afford one? A. All of the them.w  , Q. How many people know what OpenVMS is/was?8 A. A LOT less than know what unix/linux/windows/Dell is.  @ Q. How many of the people who know what OpenVMS is would want it (ex-cov types)?f A. About three.f  $ -- end of course    ....pun intended   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:54:51 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death) Message-ID: <3EE53A46.6D06D9F3@istop.com>s   Keith Parris wrote:'E > AMD's 64-bit extensions, x86-64 or AMD64 or whatever you call them,gF > are available only in chips from a single source -- AMD.  That makesB > Opteron just as much a single-source chip as Itanium.  And usingD > Opteron makes you dependent on a single-source supplier with fewer% > financial resources than Intel has.i  K Opteron's chips may be single sourced, but they are part of the 8086 familyeH which isn't. So if you currently use 32 bit wintel software, you can getK Opterons a mere replacements of the 8086s without actually havin to use thep/ extensions which are not yet industry standard.e  M But you are right in that if you do start to make use of the 64 bit features,m you do get locked in to AMD.    K As far as AMD's health is concerned, I think that Intel must make sure thatcN AMD is a viable company, otherwise Intel will be under anti-trust scrutiny andM that will cost it a lot of time and money. You'll note that Microsoft came to K the help of Apple when it was struggling, it knew that if Apple went under,vM Microsoft would have to ensure for more severe punishement than it has had toy0 endure so far due to its monopolistic practices.  I However, with the "threat" of Intel also producing a 64 bit 8086, the bigdM question now becomes: if Intel produces a 64 bit version of the 8086, will itmM be binary compatible with AMD's version ? If not, than AMD will be in troubler\ because it will have to change its Opteron to match the Intel chip for binary compatibility.  M So for now, it woudl probably be wise to limit the investment in opteron-onlyw; software until the shakedown of 64 bit systems is complete.    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 22:01:56 -0500t+ From: young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) & Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death3 Message-ID: <ZaQRKmKQshH6@eisner.encompasserve.org>a  V In article <3EE50221.9A81A978@istop.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> writes: > Fred Kleinsorge wrote:   > J >> Let's see.  Dell will ship Itanium.  Hmmm.  HP will ship Itanium.  HmmmF >> sounds like the #1 and #2 guys building those systems have decided. > L > Dell will not ship Itanium. Dell continues to be a wintel commodity maker./ > They agreed to sell a few Ia64 based systems.t >   = 	Dell will ship Itanium.  Madison's name is Itanium 2.  It ist6 	just a bigger/faster version of McKinley - basically:  ? 	See this chart for instance, and numerous other web references  	for naming convention:i  ( http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9755   > J > What is important here is that AMD has the *potential* to have its nicheM > become part of the industry standard commodity market. Intel's IA64 doesn'ts! > and will remain a niche market.  >   > 	Upside down.  Many vendors have committed to and are shipping= 	Itanium products.  Has AMD got a tier 1 vendor on board yet?    	Nope.   			Rob   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:54:04 -0400e( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death, Message-ID: <3EE5565C.8060703@tsoft-inc.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  9 > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in messaget% > news:3EE4C0DE.43974724@istop.com...t >  >>Fred Kleinsorge wrote: >>H >>>Itanium isn't "targeted EOL", and compatability with IA32 has no real! >>>bearing on the VMS discussion.      Agreed.     K >>Yes it does, because of the reasons your bosses used to justify the Alpha-' >>murder and moving to that IA64 thing.  >>) > You can't "murder" an inanimate object.-    P I think that the word gets the point across.  Forget the 'preciseness' game, it  loses every time.e   > G >>Your bosses used keywords such as "commodity", "mass market" and "lowk >>
 > cost" to > & >>justify moving to IA64 versus Alpha. >> >> > J > No, they didn't.  Those may be potential long term benefits, but you are, > bending the facts to suit your world view.    N Oh yes they did!  I even remember the 'promise' of a $1000 system.  I suggest Q you back off such revisionist history because a few searches of Google will bury i you!     > I >>The problem is that IA64 has so far achieved none of the qualities thate >> > CarlyB > I >>and Curly had promised and there is nothing on the horizon showing such  >> > things happening.  >  > J > Actually, I have the horizon taped to my office wall showing the roadmapG > between now and sometime in 2007 - and frankly its a pretty good one.t    8 I for one hope so.  Just don't ask me to 'bet the farm'.   > H >>It is exactly because IA64 is not compatible with wintel platform that >> > IA64 > F >>will remain a low volume, proprietary and expensive chip, especially >>	 > if/whenh > : >>Intel is forced to release a 64 bit version of the 8086. >> > I > Binary compatability with IA32 is a real issue in the x86 space, not aniJ > insurmountable one - but a tough one.  But frankly, the AMD x86-64 isn'tK > going to do squat in the general purpose IA32 space - at least running inf > 64-bit mode.    1 I disagree.  It will do one thing.  It will sell!m  = >  It isn't transparent either.  Win64 instead of Windows XP.sL > New binaries for anything that needs to use the 64-bit space.  And franklyM > not really enough justification for the bulk of the market.  Sure - they'lle > sell some.  But not a lot.    N Microsoft Word and Excel IS the bulk of the market.  Well, Ok, solitare also. O :-)  Microsoft seems to be supporting AMD, and if they do, the 64 bit binaries g> will appear.  Not saying they are required.  I doubt they are.    M > In the server market, where AMD has targeted the chip - they have an uphilleN > battle in just finding *one* system vendor to put their flagship non-WindowsJ > OS on it.  I keep thinking Sun will do it - but they are afraid to admit, > SPARC is dead (and deal with the fallout).    P If they did, and it worked well, and Sun has a rebound, then AMD will be pretty  far up that hill.m    M > In general AMD has a nifty piece of technology, but is in a weak finiancialiL > and market share position.  Alpha was a nifty piece of technology - and it > lost in the market place.t    L No, it lost because upper management at Compaq didn't want to be in the CPU Q business.  I cannot agree that Alpha lost in the market place, unless you define lN success as being a dominant commodity.  IA-64 isn't and won't be that either. P Let's try to judge them both from the same perspective, not re-define 'success' 9 in a manner to allow IA-64 to succeed where Alpha failed.a     Dave     -- i4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 22:34:04 -0700t. From: mistdragon@zdnetonebox.com (mist dragon)& Subject: Re: Portents of Itanium death= Message-ID: <7500353b.0306092134.1654a136@posting.google.com>o  6 > Why exactly use Itanium for the *embedded* market???  F No reason. The point I made referred to 'target any closed market thatA people dont know too much about'. The statement was actually fromhF Transmeta that could not compete with Intel and disclosed its going toE target for 'embedded market', which is obviously a way not to loose ao face :)m  E So Itanium is not going to embedded, its going to high-end where only E systems over 8 CPU's matter and guess how many companies have alreadylF established share there and how many customers are actually using huge amounts of 8+ CPU boxes ?    Mist   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 23:15:54 +0200  From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>H Subject: Re: Printer recommendation, hobbyist/decwindows/mozilla and VMS2 Message-ID: <bc2tnj$1ce$1@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>   Rich Jordan wrote:Z > Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> wrote in message news:<bc1ef3$lqu$1@news4.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>... >  >>Rich Jordan wrote: >>F >>>I have to get a printer, cheap, for home/hobby use, that can handleI >>>printing rich pages from Mozilla and DECwrite, preferably also capablenI >>>of handling plain text printouts like my current DEC ColorWriter 520icI2 >>>(which works fine from windoze for graphics).   >>S >>I would like to have a affordable Postscript inkjet printer as well, however all oL >>printer manufacturers agree on a few things: Postscript Printers Shall Be E >>Expensive, and: Adding A Ethernet Interface Shall Double The Price.  >> >  > ? > Looking at used 1200 and 1600 Deskjets on Ebay.  Depending onrF > interfaces installed, I have an Emulex NetQue and several DECservers > available for interfacing. >  > K >>Please keep in mind that no HP inkjet Postscript printers are officially wN >>supported in DCPS, and even stranger, are not on the list of printers to be D >>supported in future. I don't even know if DCPS supports color ???? >> >  > B > DCPS is nice, but if I can do a print to disk, then send the raw7 > postscript file to the printer, I'll be ok with that.r >  > O >>Another way of doing this is using a software Postscript RIP. Some HP inkjet hM >>printers can be ordered with such a program, but of course just for Windoozt >  > and  >  >>maybe Apple. >> >  > H > Ghostscript.  Too much external effort; it'd make printing enough of aG > chore that I'd use the wife's Mac instead.  Depressing (though not asn+ > much as having wintel on my desktop was!)   O I looked at it. However I did not get the impression that Ghostscript has high r  quality drivers for HP printers.   >  > M >>Perhaps someone at HP would be so kind to think about their loyal hobbiest oK >>customers, and come up with a nice VMS driver for a HP inkjet printer ???t >> >  > D > That was an active topic of discussion some years ago, but PCL was! > 'not invented here' so no go.  l  L Inkjet printer do have PCL, but as far as I know it is not used in 'normal' J printing. The Windows driver will send a kind of bit image to the printer.    > > And postscript is fairly portable, at least for monochrome.   P A bit more then that !!! All high-end printing and typesetting is in Postscript 8 (B/W and color). PCL is typical for low-end office work.  0 > (witness successful DECwindows printing to theH > LJ5 with HP Postscript), and even cheap on the used market.  Since PCL" > is (still) a de-facto standard,   L Yes, but dying out. Look at all HP laser printers. Almost every printer has P postscript standard as well these days (it was an expensive option), except for " the low-end windows-only printers.  ( > and now it _is_ 'invented here', maybe3 > there's a chance for DECwindows printing support.  >  > E > How about it, Fred?  Any chance of additional printer support under   > Motif/CDE/DECwindows/whatever? > 
 > Rich Jordan3   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:47:15 -0400o& From: Warren <nospam@warrenmansur.com> Subject: Re: rtr web admin/ Message-ID: <3EE4D633.9090202@warrenmansur.com>n   Hi,r  1 The procedure you specified looks almost correct.d  I RTR is installed in a way that doesn't use 'mcr'. Actually I think using iE 'mcr' would cause it not to able to parse the command line arguments.    So here's the correct method.i  L o Log into VMS machine under some username. Let's call that username 'xxxx'., o Issue 'rtr start http' without using 'mcr' o In your web browser, go to  2 http://nodename.fulldomainname:46000/rtr_main.htmlD o Enter the same username 'xxxx' and the password for that username.E o You may need to log in twice due to browser redirection. Enter the I& same username and password both times.  G Then, when the form asks for the nodename, you can just leave it blank o& because it defaults to the local node.  
 That's it!   Regards,   Warren   julien courtemanche wrote: > hello, > L > apparently rtr in this lastest version have a web admin... but I can't use > it.s >  > under my vms, I make > mc rtr start http_server > ' > under my IE  : http://mymachine:46000t > give my login password5 > and enter the rtr nodename on the rtr home page....4 > and after nothing .....i > 1 > someone have ever used this web admin for rtr ?  >  > thanks >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:36:38 -0400d( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>) Subject: Re: Running java programs in VMSv, Message-ID: <3EE54436.7010407@tsoft-inc.com>   Keith A. Lewis wrote:e  y > "Tim" <tim_a_b@hotmail.com> writes in article <ve1euh7uo0cqf9@corp.supernews.com> dated Fri, 6 Jun 2003 18:05:30 +0200:a  : >>I did eventually get the javac compiler working by using1 >>@SYS$MANAGER:JAVA$SETUP.COM and then compiling.s >>I >>So I now have a class file that was compiled by the VMS javac compiler.a >>K >>But now the problem that I am having is that 'java' cannot find the classa >>that I just created.    Owner UIC and file protection???   -- i4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com6 T-Soft, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 17:42:19 -0700t( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)/ Subject: Re: Speed of IDE controllers in DS10 ?t= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0306091642.712f6176@posting.google.com>.  X Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> wrote in message news:<bc2ef4$j6h$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>... > Mmmmmmmmm..... > S > The original disk in this DS10 was a 5400rpm 10GB Seagate. Now, I'm sure that is tQ > a slow disk. I'm now using a 7200rpm 80GB Western Digital disk with 8MB cache, eQ > and I really can't complain about the speed. I can compare it with my previous gP > PWS500 with SCSI, and the disk IO on this machine is certainly not slower, on  > the contrary!f  6 previous scsi what?  scsi, scsi2, ultra ... which one?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:59:20 -0400s* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com># Subject: Supporting  Wintel laptopss) Message-ID: <3EE50322.A68EA4CC@istop.com>I  F If someone with a wintel laptop were to plug into my lan, what sort ofH services would he be expected to need in an easily configurable option ?  G If i have a DHCP server, will the windows laptop accept all the variouswN configurations options that can come with a DHCP lease (smtp servers, printersI etc etc), or would those need to be configured manually into the laptop ?t  F Also, what printing protocols would a laptop support out of the box ? , Could it print directly to a TCPIP printer ?L Could it print to an LPR/LDP deamon on my VMS box (which would then spool to the printer) ?  @ Or woudl the above two require the installation of new drivers ?   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:32:52 -0400f* From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com>' Subject: Re: Supporting  Wintel laptopsd) Message-ID: <3EE53521.34D29B12@istop.com>    "David J. Dachtera" wrote:" > Another candidate for Samba, eh?  T Nop. I don't want to install software "just in case someone shows up with a laptop".  K I'd rather make use what is already available on my systems and just figure : out a way to give the wintel laptop the services it needs.  G The DHCP server on VMS allows one to provide a computer with a lot moreeN information than just IP address. But I suspect most DHCP clients just discard that supplemental information.   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 19:32:04 -0700r( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)' Subject: Re: Supporting  Wintel laptops:= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0306091832.6ddb0e11@posting.google.com>e  [ JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> wrote in message news:<3EE50322.A68EA4CC@istop.com>...tH > If someone with a wintel laptop were to plug into my lan, what sort ofJ > services would he be expected to need in an easily configurable option ? > I > If i have a DHCP server, will the windows laptop accept all the variousiP > configurations options that can come with a DHCP lease (smtp servers, printersK > etc etc), or would those need to be configured manually into the laptop ?h > H > Also, what printing protocols would a laptop support out of the box ? . > Could it print directly to a TCPIP printer ?N > Could it print to an LPR/LDP deamon on my VMS box (which would then spool to > the printer) ? > B > Or woudl the above two require the installation of new drivers ?  = all he needs JF is outhouse express (imap), internet exploder = (browser), and a good vt or decwindows emulator that also canI: run ssh2 (powerterm) ... vms print lan products have been : discussed in past posts as their are several out there ...? that's all windoze is good for JF, a client to a vms server ...e< you need virus scan on vms for all imap/pop clients just get9 pmdf and sophos ... this way, everyone thinks they are on > windoze while VMS provides all the security and lets you sleep
 at nights ...o   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:35:38 -0500s1 From: "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>d' Subject: Re: Supporting  Wintel laptops ' Message-ID: <3EE535EA.563CC660@fsi.net>s   JF Mezei wrote:i > H > If someone with a wintel laptop were to plug into my lan, what sort ofJ > services would he be expected to need in an easily configurable option ? > I > If i have a DHCP server, will the windows laptop accept all the variousIP > configurations options that can come with a DHCP lease (smtp servers, printersK > etc etc), or would those need to be configured manually into the laptop ?a > G > Also, what printing protocols would a laptop support out of the box ?o. > Could it print directly to a TCPIP printer ?N > Could it print to an LPR/LDP deamon on my VMS box (which would then spool to > the printer) ? > B > Or woudl the above two require the installation of new drivers ?    Another candidate for Samba, eh?   -- d David J. Dachtera  dba DJE Systemsi http://www.djesys.com/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/d   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 14:20:39 -0700b) From: machinegunkelley@hotmail.com (Mark)t Subject: TLZ10= Message-ID: <b3d4f0be.0306091320.5ef1e482@posting.google.com>W  F We want to replace a TLZ06 with a TLZ10 but according to information I8 found on the net we will need to have STABACKIT COM Vx46  ? MircroVAX 3100 40/85/96, 88/98 running OpenVMS V5.5-2, requirese STABACKIT COM Vx46  H I looked around at http://ftp1.support.compaq.com/public/vms/vax/v5.5-2/! but didnt see anything like this.l) Anyone know where I can obtain this file?t     Thank you in advance    Mark    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:28:38 -0500 / From: Chris Scheers <chris@applied-synergy.com>l Subject: Re: VAX VMS 7.33 Message-ID: <3EE4EDF6.D45461BC@applied-synergy.com>o  	 JK wrote:i >  > Hi there,t > - > I am an unix guy starting to work with VMS.e > H > I have a Microvax 3100 with a doublespeed 512byte block cd-rom player. > + > The VAX will boot from my 7.3 VAX VMS cd.v* > It asks the time and shows my devices... > J > Then when I try to restore the vms073.b saveset (or should I say install > VMS).l > The command I use:( > backup dkb400:vms073.b/saveset dka300: >  > My terminal displays:t > ; > sabkup$BKB400 is offline. Mount verification in progress.  > L > I googled for it. The only thing I found told me that my cdrom is no good. > 1 > But I can not imagine that this is the problem.o4 > I can boot from it, now it can not read the cdrom?    F When you boot from the CDROM, you are using the drivers built into the console of the VAX.e  8 Once SABACKUP is running, you are using the VMS drivers.  : The VMS drivers are much pickier than the console drivers.  G You don't say which MicroVAX 3100 you are using, but I believe that thewD earlier ones (-10, -20) had somewhat different timing than the later. ones.  This can also affect which CDROMs work.  A One thing you should be aware of: The CDROM MUST support 512 bytea< blocks.  Many PC class CDROMs only support 2048 byte blocks.  H Generally, CDROMs that are compatible with SUNs and Macs work well.  TheG DEC RRD42 is a Sony CDU-541.  The CDU-561 also works well.  Later RRD4xa0 drives are Toshiba drives.  They also work well.  
 Good luck!  G -----------------------------------------------------------------------p$ Chris Scheers, Applied Synergy, Inc.  C Voice: 817-237-3360            Internet: chris@applied-synergy.com i   Fax: 817-237-3074s   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 00:34:07 GMTe6 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler> Subject: Re: VMS SQL clientl@ Message-ID: <cca959288cb2c0ef0e38e5d0ad103c1b@free.teranews.com>  4 In article <bc26o2$jhf$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>,2  Chris Sharman <chris.sharman@sorry.nospam> wrote:  ! > Tried various things - no luck.n1 > I should make it clear that I've never used SQLy  B Never used Structured Query Language, or never used Microsoft SQL  Server?e    H > Installed the bundled Attunity stuff - could find no documentation on K > how to use it - not sure whether it does what I want (use MS SQL data in a > my VMS application).  A I'm pretty sure you have to buy middleware for the NT server and y. possibly also additional stuff on the VMS side  I > freedts.org: got freetds-0.6.1 and the vms bits out of freetds-current. A > Got a lot of MMS warnings (1 for most modules), which I didn't  2 > understand, followed by linker warnings (below).  D Hmm. I tried this again myself and had no problems.  However, I was E using MMK rather than MMS.  If you have MMK or can get it try that.  sF Meanwhile I'll try to reproduce the issue with MMS and see if there's $ something that can be done about it.   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:31:43 GMTa6 From: "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler> Subject: Re: VMS SQL clients@ Message-ID: <d4a58a2ebad6cbd2be00720de08d99c2@free.teranews.com>  @ In article <cca959288cb2c0ef0e38e5d0ad103c1b@free.teranews.com>,8  "Craig A. Berry" <craigberry@mac.com.spamfooler> wrote:  K > > freedts.org: got freetds-0.6.1 and the vms bits out of freetds-current.rC > > Got a lot of MMS warnings (1 for most modules), which I didn't  4 > > understand, followed by linker warnings (below). > F > Hmm. I tried this again myself and had no problems.  However, I was G > using MMK rather than MMS.  If you have MMK or can get it try that.  eH > Meanwhile I'll try to reproduce the issue with MMS and see if there's & > something that can be done about it.  E Harumph.  I can reproduce the same problems you encountered if I use oF MMS.  I will try in the long run to work out whatever is going on and E do more testing with MMS.  In the short run your best bet is to grab n? MMK from http://www.madgoat.com or elsewhere and just use that.t  E BTW, the problem occurs with MMS 3.3-4; there may be a later version l< that doesn't have the problem -- dunno as I usually use MMK.   ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 20:21:08 GMTl( From: "John Hayes" <hayes1966@yahoo.com> Subject: Web Apps for VMSA; Message-ID: <U_5Fa.251300$3n5.167806@news2.central.cox.net>r  J Is there such a thing as an email server, web server application for VMS ?   John   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:27:05 -0400 * From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@istop.com> Subject: Re: Web Apps for VMSh) Message-ID: <3EE4ED8A.869D73E6@istop.com>c   John Hayes wrote:i > L > Is there such a thing as an email server, web server application for VMS ?   Yes.  N There are a few web servers available. OSU and WASD work on all VMS machines. M Apache (renamed with a  proprietary CSWS name) work only on Alpha-VMS becauseo it is done by the VMS folks.  L The recent TCPIP stack (Tcpip Services) supplied by HP/Digital provdes a pop0 and imap server for access to VMSmail mailboxes.  M ALL-IN-1 (Office Server) provides pop, imap and web access to its mail store,o# as well as document access etc etc.   N For web access to VMS mail, you can look for Yahmail which does interface with many of the web serves on VMS.   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:55:29 -0400a! From: Jim Agnew <jpagnew@vcu.edu>. Subject: Re: Web Apps for VMSh' Message-ID: <3EE4F441.17EDD25D@vcu.edu>   > Yes, email there is one built in, one for buy from pmdf by SunE microsystems, there is apache CWS webserver from HP, there is the OSUiH webserver from ohio state u, there is the uh, another one from Australia9 i'm sure someone will chip in with, I can't remember now.    enough?  ;-)   jim    John Hayes wrote:e > L > Is there such a thing as an email server, web server application for VMS ? >  > John   -- nF "4,000 years ago I made a mistake."  Elrond Half-Elven, in "Fellowship of the Ring"   ------------------------------  $ Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:49:57 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com>A Subject: RE: Web Apps for VMSoR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB058939@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----2 > From: John Hayes [mailto:hayes1966@yahoo.com]=20 > Sent: June 9, 2003 4:21 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comn > Subject: Web Apps for VMSp >=20 >=209 > Is there such a thing as an email server, web server=20e > application for VMS ?  >=20 > John >=20 >=20 John,e  ' A few pointers to add to other replies:fH http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ips/apache/csws.html (Apache)3 http://www.process.com/tcpip/pmdf.html (PMDF email)tG http://www.tmk.com/ftp/vms-freeware/wasd/ (scroll down to Yahmail - webo access to VMSmail)=20,  @ And to web enable existing host based applications, a few sample products to assist:g3 http://www.dataglider.com/solutions/openvms.html=20o( http://ebusiness.ericom.com/iOpenVms.asp   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantr Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.! Consulting & Integration Services  Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax   : 613-591-4477 Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom-     (remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)b OpenVMS DCL - the original .COMe   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 18:04:56 -0700d# From: dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley)r Subject: Re: Web Apps for VMSl= Message-ID: <1ca82fc6.0306091704.72049edf@posting.google.com>   P Jim Agnew <jpagnew@vcu.edu> wrote in message news:<3EE4F441.17EDD25D@vcu.edu>...@ > Yes, email there is one built in, one for buy from pmdf by SunG > microsystems, there is apache CWS webserver from HP, there is the OSUyJ > webserver from ohio state u, there is the uh, another one from Australia; > i'm sure someone will chip in with, I can't remember now.h here's the link  http://wasd.vsm.com.au/wasd/ Phil   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2003 19:21:53 -0700d( From: bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) Subject: Re: Web Apps for VMSr= Message-ID: <d7791aa1.0306091821.64e52b84@posting.google.com>r  k "John Hayes" <hayes1966@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<U_5Fa.251300$3n5.167806@news2.central.cox.net>...tL > Is there such a thing as an email server, web server application for VMS ? >  > John   John, if you want the best ...  3 http://www.sss.co.nz/software/purveyor/purveyor.html  , http://www.process.com/tcpip/tcpcompare.html  . http://www.process.com/tcpip/multicompare.html   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 03:32:57 GMT-L From: winston@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") Subject: Re: Web Apps for VMSc6 Message-ID: <00A2124E.C6CFF252@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>  K In article <3EE4F441.17EDD25D@vcu.edu>, Jim Agnew <jpagnew@vcu.edu> writes:e? >Yes, email there is one built in, one for buy from pmdf by Suno >microsystems, i  M Which is to say, PMDF (originally developed by Innosoft, a company bought by fL Sun and more or less folded into iPlanet (Sun-Netscape alliance company) is 6 now developed by Process Software, who do a great job.  M I say this so you don't have to worry about buying a VMS product from Sun whotK might shut it down at a whim.  Process has its eggs in the VMS basket, with-K Multinet, TCPware (and, yes, Bob, Purveyor) as well as PMDF and a VMS-basedh' antispam product about to go into beta.n  7 there is apache CWS webserver from HP, there is the OSUtI >webserver from ohio state u, there is the uh, another one from Australiam: >i'm sure someone will chip in with, I can't remember now.  
 HFRD/WASD.   -- Alanh -- sO ===============================================================================*0  Alan Winston --- WINSTON@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDUM  Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL   Phone:  650/926-3056 M  Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA   94025dO ===============================================================================    ------------------------------  # Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:07:12 GMTi& From: John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com>, Subject: Re: What do these Macro codes mean?2 Message-ID: <k14Fa.2195$aK7.1672@news.cpqcorp.net>   briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:.    A > The actual claim was that the penalty for unaligned data accesse> > was "in the noise" and that the penalty for unaligned branch= > destinations was significant enough to warrant alignment ofn3 > code segments at labels.  (I forget who as well).  > A > My understanding of "in the noise" was that careful measurementGC > of application performance could not detect any contribution from* > alignment issues.* > ? > It was an eye opening claim.  Since most of us would take the-@ > time to lay out data structures carefully to take advantage of@ > natural alignment but I, for one, would not have thought aboutE > inserting NOOPs in my VAX MACRO code sequences as a way to increaseF > performance. >  > 	John Briggs  
 It was me.  F If you look at the output from the VAX Pascal compiler, you'll see us G add NOPs to get various labels on aligned boundaries.  Probably wasn't gF an issue back in the VAX-11/780 days, but recent VAXen certainly like A code alignment for labels.  I believe VAX Fortran also adds NOPs.a   -- h John Reagan ' Compaq Pascal/{A|I}MACRO Project Leadero Hewlett-Packard Company    ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:29:57 -0500 ' From: Chris Olive <nospam@raytheon.com>o, Subject: Re: What do these Macro codes mean?> Message-ID: <T%6Fa.3505$c6.3338@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>   Bob Koehler wrote:j > In article <ZTKDa.3467$c6.3274@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>, Chris Olive <nospam@raytheon.com> writes: > I >>Indeed.  I always found myself feeling that VAX MACRO-32 wasn't really  H >>"assembly language" at all.  Of course on the Alpha, it isn't, but in G >>VAX days, I always thought it was between assembly and 3GL, such was r >>(is) the instruction set.  >  > G >    Well I always thought it was "assembly language", but I was reallyy@ >    impressed that the instruction set did the kinds of things J >    programmers need (CALLx subroutines, etc.) instead of just the kinds ; >    of things hardware designers need (move, add, branch).m >   F I'm going off on a tangent here, as threads sometimes do, but this is F the VERY premise Steve Gibson uses (grc.com) to write all his Windows I code in x86 assembly language.  He has some helper macros in his toolbox tC and he just essentially lines up a bunch of Win32 API calls in x86  H assembly language to write really nice, tight compact Windows programs. F   Just like I often do in MACRO-32 -- line up a bunch of CALLS system  and RTL calls.  I Any true assembly affectionados out there in the VMS world ought to look  I over Steve Gibson's stuff at grc.com under "Smaller Is Better."  Too bad aF I don't have time to dig into that a little more, but I don't.  But I > see it as the same as many MACRO-32 programmers some times do.  E Check out his THX sound program (can't remember the exact name of it lG right now), but it's something ridiculously small (like 50k) and it'll sB blow your PC computer speakers away if you have them up too high.  Totally rad...  A <We now return to our original VMS thread already in progress...>i   Chris  -----a Chris Olivei Systems Consultant' Raytheon Technical Services Corporationw Indianapolis, IN  * email: olivec(AT)indy(DOT)raytheon(DOT)com   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:01:03 -0700 & From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com>9 Subject: Re: [The Inquirer] "HP trying to dump OpenVMS ?"d/ Message-ID: <ve9ptpr0vees00@corp.supernews.com>0   Bill Todd wrote:  L > I'm talking about the processor hardware engineers who used to work for HPE > and were reported to have moved to Intel a couple (?) of years ago.w  H Have you got a reference for this? I don't remember seeing this reported	 anywhere?v   > WhileyN > such people are hardly slaves, like the Alpha EV8 team considering that theyI > moved as something of a group one can reasonably suspect that they weresH > 'given' away in the sense that an understanding was reached that theirH > careers at HP were coming to an end (due to HP's gradual exit from theL > business they were in) and that Intel was prepared to give them a place toL > continue them (presumably working on the same architecture, even - so theyJ > may have been far less upset about the situation than the EV8 team was).E > The absence of such people previously required to sustain processorcM > development would seem to make it likely to be difficult just to pick it upt$ > again as easily as Fred suggested.  C I think you misunderstand the role HP plays in Itanium development.o? There are a whole bunch of McKinley engineers working for HP in = Fort Collins. I'm sure they would love to design another spinl of PA-RISC, for example.  N > I'm pretty sure that I remember a similar reported move by some (not all) ofK > the HP compiler types (again, similar to the situation that happened withlM > many of the Alpha compiler people, though like the Alpha hardware engineers M > they didn't get to continue working on the same architecture after moving).   G I don't believe this to be true at all. HP has been dead set on keepingt@ the compiler guys - that's where the added value is for Itanium.   -- w
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------  # Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 02:31:21 GMT # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>-9 Subject: Re: [The Inquirer] "HP trying to dump OpenVMS ?"nF Message-ID: <ZpbFa.36582$G_.2122@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>  3 "Greg Cagle" <gregc@gregcagle.com> wrote in messagen) news:ve9ptpr0vees00@corp.supernews.com...M > Bill Todd wrote: >sB > > I'm talking about the processor hardware engineers who used to work for HPtB > > and were reported to have moved to Intel a couple (?) of years ago. > A > Have you got a reference for this? I don't remember seeing thisi reported > anywhere?e >w	 > > WhiledF > > such people are hardly slaves, like the Alpha EV8 team considering	 that they F > > moved as something of a group one can reasonably suspect that they wereD > > 'given' away in the sense that an understanding was reached that theirwF > > careers at HP were coming to an end (due to HP's gradual exit from thelE > > business they were in) and that Intel was prepared to give them at place toF > > continue them (presumably working on the same architecture, even - so theysF > > may have been far less upset about the situation than the EV8 team was).e= > > The absence of such people previously required to sustain 	 processornD > > development would seem to make it likely to be difficult just to
 pick it up& > > again as easily as Fred suggested. >iE > I think you misunderstand the role HP plays in Itanium development. A > There are a whole bunch of McKinley engineers working for HP int? > Fort Collins. I'm sure they would love to design another spin  > of PA-RISC, for example. >cC > > I'm pretty sure that I remember a similar reported move by someE (not all) of? > > the HP compiler types (again, similar to the situation that 
 happened with E > > many of the Alpha compiler people, though like the Alpha hardwareh	 engineers>F > > they didn't get to continue working on the same architecture after moving). >-A > I don't believe this to be true at all. HP has been dead set onc keepinggB > the compiler guys - that's where the added value is for Itanium.    D So why'd all the great Alpha compiler guys get traded to Intel for a) 7th-round draft pick and a bag of shells?o   ------------------------------  % Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 21:55:24 -0700e& From: Greg Cagle <gregc@gregcagle.com>9 Subject: Re: [The Inquirer] "HP trying to dump OpenVMS ?"$/ Message-ID: <veap7lp99qjm6b@corp.supernews.com>i   John Smith wrote:   5 > "Greg Cagle" <gregc@gregcagle.com> wrote in message + > news:ve9ptpr0vees00@corp.supernews.com...  > A >>I don't believe this to be true at all. HP has been dead set ont > 	 > keeping  > B >>the compiler guys - that's where the added value is for Itanium. >  >  > F > So why'd all the great Alpha compiler guys get traded to Intel for a+ > 7th-round draft pick and a bag of shells?   B Sorry - I wasn't clear. I was referring to the pm-HP compiler guys/ that have been working on Itanium from day one.p   -- w
 Greg Cagle gregc at gregcagle dot com   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2003.319 ************************> : >>Intel is forced to/decus/info-vax/1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.$
 <<< noop >>> 200 No-operation OK.$ <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.,	 <<< PWD; >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/info-vax" is current directory.<$ <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.e <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< PORT 24,81,78,107,255,1655 >>> 200 Port 255.165 at Host 24.81.78.107 accepted.d <<< SIZE 2002_706.txtd >>> 213 29394 <<< RETR 2002_706.txtkY >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/2002_706.txt (29394 bytes) started.i; >>> 226 Transfer completed.  27911 (8) bytes transferred. $ <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.$
 <<< noop >>> 200 No-operation OK.$ <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.,	 <<< PWD; >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/info-vax" is current directory.<$ <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.e <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< PORT 24,81,78,107,252,2015 >>> 200 Port 252.201 at Host 24.81.78.107 accepted.d <<< SIZE 2002_707.txtd >>> 213 51978 <<< RETR 2002_707.txtkY >>> 150 IMAGE retrieve of /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/2002_707.txt (51978 bytes) started.i; >>> 226 Transfer completed.  49545 (8) bytes transferred. $ <<< CWD /disk$misc/decus/info-vax/1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.$