1 INFO-VAX	Sat, 21 Aug 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 463       Contents:! Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ??? ! Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ???  Re: charon vax emulator???D Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 usersD RE: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 users Help Re: If OVMS is killed by HP....  Re: If OVMS is killed by HP....  Re: If OVMS is killed by HP.... + Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ... + Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ... + Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ... + Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ... + Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ... + RE: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ...  Re: questions about TZ88N-VA Re: questions about TZ88N-VA Re: questions about TZ88N-VA Re: Re, Re : set prompt P RE: Unix/VMS programming environment, was: Re: If OVMS is killed by         HP..J Re: Unix/VMS programming environment, was: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP....P Re: Unix/VMS programming environment, was: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP.... by HP  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 02:06:32 -0400  From: "Ray" <no@spam.me>* Subject: Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ???0 Message-ID: <10idpj0hkaq9c03@corp.supernews.com>  L Back in the Digital days, when the Digital UNIX boys went calling on the VMSK customers telling them that VMS was dead, UNIX was the future, and you need J to get off VMS and onto UNIX, I remember hearing a statistic that said outH of every six VMS customers that switched, only *one* switched to DigitalK UNIX. As UNIX's go, Digital UNIX wasn't bad, <sarcasm>so perhaps there were   other factors at work?</sarcasm>  ? Given this past behavior, 50% retention seems quite optimistic.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:59:31 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>* Subject: Re: A whopping 50 percent...  ???* Message-ID: <41277163.90807@tsoft-inc.com>  
 Ray wrote:  N > Back in the Digital days, when the Digital UNIX boys went calling on the VMSM > customers telling them that VMS was dead, UNIX was the future, and you need L > to get off VMS and onto UNIX, I remember hearing a statistic that said outJ > of every six VMS customers that switched, only *one* switched to DigitalM > UNIX. As UNIX's go, Digital UNIX wasn't bad, <sarcasm>so perhaps there were " > other factors at work?</sarcasm> > A > Given this past behavior, 50% retention seems quite optimistic.  >  >  >   M I've never understood expanding your customer base at the expense of another  Q segment of YOUR OWN COMPANY.  Then again, I've read about significant antagonism  Q between VMS and Unix people at DEC.  Regardless, at some level management should  T have realized that they were falling on their own sword and put a firm stop to such.  M Not quite the same as the HP issue.  It's not a different OS on the same HW,  ! it's the same OS on different HW.    --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:46:20 +0200 * From: Paul Sture <nospam@sture.homeip.net># Subject: Re: charon vax emulator??? * Message-ID: <2oocugFchsdfU1@uni-berlin.de>   Paul Repacholi wrote: @ > "Peter Weaver" <WeaverConsultingServices@sympatico.ca> writes: >  >  >>Bob Koehler wrote: >  > F >>>   Unless the Windows kernel has something better to do for severalE >>>   milliseconds.  I have not yet seen a version of Charon-VAX that - >>>   I would use in a real-time application.  >  > @ >>I would not use VMS in a true real-time application because ofB >>processes like SWAPPER that need to be there and need to be at aA >>high priority, but I know of VMS being used in almost real-time ? >>applications and I would not see any problem using CHARON-VAX E >>there. If you have a real-time application and you are using VMS on = >>a hardware VAX then I would see no problems at all going to 
 >>CHARON-VAX.  >  > I > Not a problem, just run at 17 or greater priority. Mind, you had better % > have all your pages lock in memory.  >   H Ayup. Automatic Working Set Adjustment (AWSA) is disabled for real time 
 processes.   Related discussions:. http://h71000.www7.hp.com/wizard/wiz_1162.html   ----- D In the Internals and Data Structures Manual, you will find that AWSAF processing is disabled for real time processes.  The check for this is. located in the quantum end routine (SCH$QEND). -----     And a caution re disabling ASWA:  ; http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/72final/6491/6491pro_003.html    ----3.5.8 Caution   F It is possible to circumvent the AWSA feature by using the DCL command SET WORKING_SET/NOADJUST.   D Use caution in disabling the AWSA feature, because conditions could I arise that would force the swapper to trim the process back to the value  $ of the SWPOUTPGCNT system parameter.  D Once AWSA is disabled for a process, the process cannot increase itsG working set size after the swapper trims the process to the SWPOUTPGCNT G value. If the value of SWPOUTPGNT is too low, the process is restricted . to that working set size and will fault badly.    E > Bigest problem with tight realtime on Vaxen was the time for a 780s J > vectored interupts. A Vax is an excelent RT machine if programmed right. >      --  
 Paul Sture  - OS X: "It's Unix, Jim, but not as we know it"    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:24:36 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>M Subject: Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 users , Message-ID: <41276934.9070704@tsoft-inc.com>   Main, Kerry wrote:   >>-----Original Message-----3 >>From: Barry Treahy, Jr. [mailto:Treahy@MMaz.com]    >>Sent: August 20, 2004 10:56 AM >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com @ >>Subject: Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS,  >>and Tru64 users  >> >>Bob Koehler wrote: >> >>< >>>In article <q0bbi0dab5jt1imu895kk7g8hage1807m7@4ax.com>,  >>> % >>Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes:  >> >>>  >>>  >>> > >>>>Turn the clock back ten years. What the percentage of VAX  >>>> >>customers then had no  >>@ >>>>plans to move to Alpha? They weren't looking for a new home  >>>> >>they were happy with >>? >>>>VAX or at least there was no compelling reason to migrate.   >>>> >>The same is true for >>! >>>>many PA-RISC customers today.  >>>>     >>>> >>>>> >>>  Once upon a time HP-UX customers were happily running on  >>>  >>68K.  Then >>D >>>  HP not only introduced HP-UX on HPARC, they dropped support for= >>>  68K.  I'll note with distict interest whether they live   >>> 
 >>up to their  >>+ >>>  promises re: support of VAX and Alpha.  >>>  >>>  >>> @ >>I don't know anything about the HP-UX 68K history, but I'd be 
 >>willing to  < >>wager that when HPARC came out, it supported HP-UX faster  >>than on a 68K H >>system - just like VMS was faster on Alpha than VAX, when the Alpha's G >>started releasing; That hasn't been the case with Itanic, it is only  C >>gaining ground because of the Alphacide, time, and Moore's-Law...  >> >> >>Barry  >> >>--   >>@ >>Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.com@ >>Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320@ >>Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028 >>                         >> >  >  > Barry, > I > When the first Alpha's were released (Jensen AXP150 etc), they were not ' > faster than many of the bigger VAX's.  > J > It was only over time when the Alpha performance exceeded all of the VAX
 > systems. > 4 > Take a look at the relative performance levels at:A > http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/performance/perf_tps.html  > 	 > Regards  >  > Kerry Main > Senior Consultant  > HP Services Canada > Voice: 613-592-4660  > Fax: 613-591-4477  > Email: kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom . > (remove the DOT's and AT for email address)  > & > "OpenVMS has always had integrity ..  > Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .." >   O But the Alpha design had potential, even if the first ones weren't faster than  P some VAXs.  Even today, if supported, Alpha has not reached it's full potential.  O Sadly, it's not sure that the itanic and EPIC have any future potential, other  N than more cache on the CPU chip, and process shrinks.  It's definitely not as M versitle as the OOO based Alpha.  Yeah, you can pick some task the itanic is  P good for, tweek the compiler options, and say "look how fast we are".  Well, in N the real world, you're happy just to get an application working correctly.  I P doubt that many will want to get into tweeking compiler switches.  In any case, P real world working code is subject to frequent modification.  What will such do L to the optimization?  Will a lengthy time consuming optimization have to be  performed after such?   O The only reason itanic will get faster than Alphas is the lack of newer faster   Alphas.    Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:37:32 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> M Subject: RE: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64 users 9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIIEAEDLAA.tom@kednos.com>    < -----Original Message-----1 < From: David Froble [mailto:davef@tsoft-inc.com] ) < Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 8:25 AM  < To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com I < Subject: Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS, and Tru64  < users  <  <  < Main, Kerry wrote: <  < >>-----Original Message-----4 < >>From: Barry Treahy, Jr. [mailto:Treahy@MMaz.com]" < >>Sent: August 20, 2004 10:56 AM < >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com A < >>Subject: Re: Figures on Itanic migration plans by HP-UX, VMS,  < >>and Tru64 users  < >> < >>Bob Koehler wrote: < >> < >>= < >>>In article <q0bbi0dab5jt1imu895kk7g8hage1807m7@4ax.com>,  < >>> ' < >>Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes:  < >> < >>>  < >>>  < >>> ? < >>>>Turn the clock back ten years. What the percentage of VAX  < >>>> < >>customers then had no  < >>A < >>>>plans to move to Alpha? They weren't looking for a new home  < >>>> < >>they were happy with < >>@ < >>>>VAX or at least there was no compelling reason to migrate. < >>>> < >>The same is true for < >># < >>>>many PA-RISC customers today.  < >>>> < >>>> < >>>>? < >>>  Once upon a time HP-UX customers were happily running on  < >>>  < >>68K.  Then < >>F < >>>  HP not only introduced HP-UX on HPARC, they dropped support for> < >>>  68K.  I'll note with distict interest whether they live < >>>  < >>up to their  < >>- < >>>  promises re: support of VAX and Alpha.  < >>>  < >>>  < >>> A < >>I don't know anything about the HP-UX 68K history, but I'd be  < >>willing to= < >>wager that when HPARC came out, it supported HP-UX faster  < >>than on a 68K I < >>system - just like VMS was faster on Alpha than VAX, when the Alpha's H < >>started releasing; That hasn't been the case with Itanic, it is onlyE < >>gaining ground because of the Alphacide, time, and Moore's-Law...  < >> < >>	 < >>Barry  < >> < >>-- < >>B < >>Barry Treahy, Jr                       E-mail: Treahy@MMaz.comB < >>Midwest Microwave                          Phone: 480/314-1320B < >>Vice President & CIO                         FAX: 480/661-7028 < >> < >> < >  < > 
 < > Barry, < > K < > When the first Alpha's were released (Jensen AXP150 etc), they were not ) < > faster than many of the bigger VAX's.  < > L < > It was only over time when the Alpha performance exceeded all of the VAX < > systems. < > 6 < > Take a look at the relative performance levels at:C < > http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserver/performance/perf_tps.html  < >  < > Regards  < >  < > Kerry Main < > Senior Consultant  < > HP Services Canada < > Voice: 613-592-4660  < > Fax: 613-591-4477 ! < > Email: kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom / < > (remove the DOT's and AT for email address)  < > ( < > "OpenVMS has always had integrity .." < > Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .." < >  < < < But the Alpha design had potential, even if the first ones < weren't faster than B < some VAXs.  Even today, if supported, Alpha has not reached it's < full potential.  < ? < Sadly, it's not sure that the itanic and EPIC have any future  < potential, other= < than more cache on the CPU chip, and process shrinks.  It's  < definitely not as @ < versitle as the OOO based Alpha.  Yeah, you can pick some task < the itanic is A < good for, tweek the compiler options, and say "look how fast we  < are".  Well, in A < the real world, you're happy just to get an application working  < correctly.  I C < doubt that many will want to get into tweeking compiler switches.  <  In any case, > < real world working code is subject to frequent modification. < What will such do B < to the optimization?  Will a lengthy time consuming optimization < have to be < performed after such?  < C < The only reason itanic will get faster than Alphas is the lack of  < newer faster	 < Alphas.   ) Which mirrors the VAX to Alpha transition  <  < Dave <  < --6 < David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04506 < Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596@ < DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com < 170 Grimplin Road  < Vanderbilt, PA  15486  <  < --- ( < Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.< < Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A < Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004  <  --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004    ------------------------------    Date: 21 Aug 2004 05:23:05 -0500, From:     Base Cedrone <Base56@etunnels.net>
 Subject: Help , Message-ID: <41272289$1@news01.argolink.net>   Hi) exciting newsgroup! keep the info coming!    Regards  Base Cedrone Tel. +1 205 922 2019 Base@shangool.com  Base@anyclue.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:51:58 -0400 # From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> ( Subject: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP...., Message-ID: <pq-dnV7S4p_z2LrcRVn-jg@igs.net>   Nigel Barker wrote: C > On 20 Aug 2004 09:45:34 -0700, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski)  > wrote: > = >> VMS was written for clustering, and unless you have opened 8 >> yourself up to a lawsuit, it always will be the best. > = > I admire your enthusiasm Bob but on a point of history here E > clustering came along a good five years after VMS saw light of day.     H Unix clustering first saw the light of day about 25 years after unix wasF first released and it still isn't in the same class as VMS clustering.   ------------------------------   Date: 21 Aug 2004 13:18:30 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)( Subject: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP....* Message-ID: <2op0d5Fd4k39U1@uni-berlin.de>  8 In article <7v5ei0lot7sklhroobu91iuv3nm6aotlso@4ax.com>,$ 	Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes:J > On 20 Aug 2004 09:45:34 -0700, bob@instantwhip.com (Bob Ceculski) wrote: > < >>VMS was written for clustering, and unless you have opened7 >>yourself up to a lawsuit, it always will be the best.  > M > I admire your enthusiasm Bob but on a point of history here clustering came 5 > along a good five years after VMS saw light of day.   A Bob has never been one to let something like facts get in the way  of what he says.   bill   --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:36:39 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>( Subject: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP....* Message-ID: <41275DF7.40101@tsoft-inc.com>   Thomas Dzubin wrote:  _ >>>David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message news:<41242745.2020308@tsoft-inc.com>...  >>> S >>>>If the VMS developers were so aware of Unix, then why didn't they address FORK  U >>>>long ago, which can be very useful in some instances.  VMS programmers could use  R >>>>FORK, and not just for porting Unix code.  I know of several things I've done  >>>>that could have used FORK. >>>> >  >>Bob Ceculski wrote:  >>? >>>and I know several thousand things I can do on VMS that unix : >>>can't ... the top two being security and clustering ... >>>  > < > Andrew Harrison <andrew_remove_.harrison@s_u_n.com> wrote: > ; >>Since everyone except you knows that UNIX can do security 8 >>and Clustering the 998 things that you think can do on. >>VMS but cannot on UNIX better be compelling. >> > G > Ahhhh great.  We haven't had a good flamewar in comp.os.vms for a few L > months.   I'm just surprised nobody's cross-posted to any of the comp.unix
 > groups yet. E > (or cross-post to alt.folklore.computers and get the TOPS-20 people  > agitated too!) >  > Thomas Dzubin * > Calgary, Vancouver, and Saskatoon CANADA >   @ Please don't.  Enough to discuss without something so senseless.  O I was only pointing out that VMS didn't include every decent idea used in OS's.   Q If you want something to flame, try boob.  All he does is cause Andy boy to post  Q more often, which is worthless since I doubt boob understands the replies in any   case.    Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:46:47 GMT ! From: Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> 4 Subject: Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ...8 Message-ID: <2e6ei01g4kvuosd8pes474c2queivjcncj@4ax.com>  M On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:57:29 +0000 (UTC), peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN'  LANGSTOEGER) wrote:   V >In article <Lpidnekb_aaLu7vcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes: >>Bob Ceculski wrote:  >>- >>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17994  >>O >>The question now remaining is where can I get an Itanium box for a low price?  > C >A couple of weeks ago, there was a rx2600 on ebay for IIRC $1899.-   >and nobody was interested in...  P The one that someone posted a pointer to was an old first generation system with9 McKinley CPU. This will not be supported by OpenVMS V8.2.    -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur    ------------------------------  + Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:06:54 +0000 (UTC) 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)4 Subject: Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ...1 Message-ID: <newscache$lnms2i$6ou1$1@news.sil.at>   \ In article <2e6ei01g4kvuosd8pes474c2queivjcncj@4ax.com>, Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes:b >On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:57:29 +0000 (UTC), peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) wrote:W >>In article <Lpidnekb_aaLu7vcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes: P >>>The question now remaining is where can I get an Itanium box for a low price? >>D >>A couple of weeks ago, there was a rx2600 on ebay for IIRC $1899.-! >>and nobody was interested in...  > Q >The one that someone posted a pointer to was an old first generation system with : >McKinley CPU. This will not be supported by OpenVMS V8.2.  E Heck, why are we supposed to know this ? (Where is this documented ?) 7 I so far only read of rx2600 is supported by OpenVMS...    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:52:43 GMT ! From: Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> 4 Subject: Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ...8 Message-ID: <9ldei099p13r5bs9o9f6ln8egro4dh2tjs@4ax.com>  M On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:06:54 +0000 (UTC), peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN'  LANGSTOEGER) wrote:   ] >In article <2e6ei01g4kvuosd8pes474c2queivjcncj@4ax.com>, Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> writes: c >>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:57:29 +0000 (UTC), peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER) wrote: X >>>In article <Lpidnekb_aaLu7vcRVn-hA@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes:Q >>>>The question now remaining is where can I get an Itanium box for a low price?  >>> E >>>A couple of weeks ago, there was a rx2600 on ebay for IIRC $1899.- " >>>and nobody was interested in... >>R >>The one that someone posted a pointer to was an old first generation system with; >>McKinley CPU. This will not be supported by OpenVMS V8.2.  > F >Heck, why are we supposed to know this ? (Where is this documented ?)8 >I so far only read of rx2600 is supported by OpenVMS...  N It's on slide 10 of the Rolling Roadmaps presentation on the OpenVMS web site.M Specifically for V8.1 its says "Note: Last Release to support McKinley" & for . V8.2 it says "Note: No more McKinley support".  H BTW I didn't say that it wouldn't work just that it won't be a supportedJ platform. Not surprising really as it only makes sense to support shippingO systems when V8.2 actually ships at the end of the year. The McKinley CPUs were : replaced by the much faster Madison CPUs a long while ago.   -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:35:28 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>4 Subject: Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ..., Message-ID: <41276BC0.4050207@tsoft-inc.com>   GreyCloud wrote:   >  >  > John Vottero wrote:  > 3 >> "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message  - >> news:y8-dnePTp8Xz4rvcRVn-gg@bresnan.com...  >> >>>  >>> David J Dachtera wrote:  >>>  >>>  >>>> GreyCloud wrote:  >>>> >>>> >>>>> Bob Ceculski wrote:  >>>>>  >>>>>  >>>>> 0 >>>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17994 >>>>>  >>>>> L >>>>> The question now remaining is where can I get an Itanium box for a low >>>>> price? >>>> >>>> >>>>( >>>> Depends on what you consider "low". >>>>F >>>> That said, keep an ear to the ground for announcements about the  >>>> portingL >>>> classes where you pay $2600 to attend the class and port your app., and3 >>>> walk-away with the IA64 box you used in class.  >>>> >>>  >>> $2600??  Are they NUTS???  >>> $ >>> Dont' these idiots get it yet???! >>> Prices are falling... FAST!!! L >>> These delusional morons will just sink in the quick sand and become OIL! >> >> >>" >> What world are you living in??  >  >  > In the world of reality. > I >> The HP RX2600 is an enterprise class machine, not some crappy no-name  H >> piece of junk.  It has things like hot swap power supplies, hot swap E >> fans etc.  I just went to www.dell.com to see what a similar Dell  G >> machine would cost.  A Dell PowerEdge 2650 with dual Xeon CPUs, 4GB  5 >> RAM and dual 36GB disks will run you about $5,892.  >>G >> A Dell PowerEdge 3250 with dual 1.5Ghz Itaniums, 8GB RAM, 72GB disk   >> will cost you $23,815.  >>" >> $2,600 for an RX2600 is a deal. >> >  > , > But that price can come lower and it will. >  >   D With VMS license?  Ok, 8.1 is $75.  Don't know about upgrade to 8.2.  P In any case, the price includes a week of class, with people to help in porting J issues you run into.  It's not just the computer system you're paying for.  O The way I looked at it, you're paying for the class, and the computer is free.  L Can you complain about that price?  If so, let me know who you found that's @ paying you to take a system off their hands, I'll be interested.   Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  # Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:56:30 GMT ! From: Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com> 4 Subject: Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ...8 Message-ID: <qdvei0t1v95g8gi24gp6li4oepekcjdftm@4ax.com>  M On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:35:28 -0400, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:   E >With VMS license?  Ok, 8.1 is $75.  Don't know about upgrade to 8.2.   O The 8.2 SDK is also $75. It's based on the external field test version of 8.2 &  is for Alpha & Itanium. M http://www.hp.com/products1/evolution/alpha_retaintrust/openvms/products.html   L $75 is cheap but of course you get what you pay for & under the terms of theM license you can only use the software for the purpose of testing or porting & " definitely not for production use.   -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:04:23 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> 4 Subject: RE: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ...9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIEEAGDLAA.tom@kednos.com>    < -----Original Message-----* < From: Nigel Barker [mailto:nigel@hp.com]) < Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 9:57 AM  < To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 6 < Subject: Re: OpenVMS pretty darn fast on itanium ... <  < 2 < On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:35:28 -0400, David Froble < <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote: < G < >With VMS license?  Ok, 8.1 is $75.  Don't know about upgrade to 8.2.  < @ < The 8.2 SDK is also $75. It's based on the external field test < version of 8.2 & < is for Alpha & Itanium. D < http://www.hp.com/products1/evolution/alpha_retaintrust/openvms/pr
 < oducts.html  < A < $75 is cheap but of course you get what you pay for & under the  < terms of theB < license you can only use the software for the purpose of testing < or porting &$ < definitely not for production use.I I am at this moment installing on an Alpha, but interestingly the license J says that "...  Customer may only use the Software on one Integrity ServerJ that Customer has obtained from from Hp ..."  even though the kit that wasL shipped included the disks for both Architectures,  and it does say it costs $75  <  < -- < Nigel Barker! < Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur  <  < --- ( < Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.< < Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A < Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004  <  --- & Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:16:22 +0800 , From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>% Subject: Re: questions about TZ88N-VA 0 Message-ID: <87k6vsink9.fsf@k9.prep.synonet.com>  5 Alan Frisbie <Usenet01REMOVE@Flying-Disk.com> writes:    > John Reinhardt wrote:  > I >>   When using a DLT IV make sure that it hasn't been previously used on F >> with a DLT7000 (TZ89) or DLT8000 drive since they also use the sameH >> cartdridge but at a higher density (35/70GB or 40/80GB) than the TZ88D >> can handle. If this is the case, the TZ88 will give an error whenH >> trying to load the tape.  The only way I know of to remedy that is to. >> use a degauser and erase the tape manually. > ? > And it will take a *really* *powerful* degausser!   The least @ > expensive one I have found that will reliably do the job costs> > $1500.   The really good ones cost up to twice that.   I was > shocked, to say the least.  F MRI machines work well, if you can borrow one for 30 sec. BTW, you canG do a LOT of tapes in that time. Great for doing ~10,000 3480 catridges.    --  < Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda. @                                              West Australia 6076* comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.F EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 11:26:51 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>% Subject: Re: questions about TZ88N-VA , Message-ID: <412769BB.8090307@tsoft-inc.com>   Alan Frisbie wrote:    > John Reinhardt wrote:  > I >>   When using a DLT IV make sure that it hasn't been previously used on F >> with a DLT7000 (TZ89) or DLT8000 drive since they also use the sameH >> cartdridge but at a higher density (35/70GB or 40/80GB) than the TZ88D >> can handle. If this is the case, the TZ88 will give an error whenH >> trying to load the tape.  The only way I know of to remedy that is to. >> use a degauser and erase the tape manually. >  > ? > And it will take a *really* *powerful* degausser!   The least @ > expensive one I have found that will reliably do the job costs> > $1500.   The really good ones cost up to twice that.   I was > shocked, to say the least. > A > Another possible solution (which I have not tried yet) would be B > to manually unwind the first ten feet or so of the tape and passA > it over one of those ceramic/rare earth magnets.   I have one I B > removed from an old Fujitsu Eagle disk drive, so I will try that/ > the next time I need to re-initialize a tape.  >  > Alan >   I Might be easier to find a TZ89 and re-init the tape at the lower density.    Dave   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 13:18:51 -0400 " From: Glenn Everhart <gce@gce.com>% Subject: Re: questions about TZ88N-VA 4 Message-ID: <4127846e$0$21762$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>   Paul Repacholi wrote: 7 > Alan Frisbie <Usenet01REMOVE@Flying-Disk.com> writes:  >  >  >>John Reinhardt wrote:  >> >>I >>>  When using a DLT IV make sure that it hasn't been previously used on F >>>with a DLT7000 (TZ89) or DLT8000 drive since they also use the sameH >>>cartdridge but at a higher density (35/70GB or 40/80GB) than the TZ88D >>>can handle. If this is the case, the TZ88 will give an error whenH >>>trying to load the tape.  The only way I know of to remedy that is to. >>>use a degauser and erase the tape manually. >>? >>And it will take a *really* *powerful* degausser!   The least @ >>expensive one I have found that will reliably do the job costs> >>$1500.   The really good ones cost up to twice that.   I was >>shocked, to say the least. >  > H > MRI machines work well, if you can borrow one for 30 sec. BTW, you canI > do a LOT of tapes in that time. Great for doing ~10,000 3480 catridges.  >  err...F Right. For those who don't have, say, a 72D18 in the basement (and the/ few megawatts of electricity to run it) ;-) 8-) M   People near CERN, Fermilab, BNL, or the like might be able to borrow one...    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:49:21 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>  Subject: Re: Re, Re : set prompt, Message-ID: <412760F1.1050603@tsoft-inc.com>   Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:   > David Froble wrote:  > G >> I have a strange dislike of 'wasting' a 'real' system like VMS on a  J >> user interface.  When I think about it, it seems strange.  What better H >> for a user interface than the best system available?  Guess it comes H >> from the time when the best user interface was a TTY.  At least that  >> beat punched cards. >  > E > I couldn't agree wit you more, but you've just opened the door for  J > another flame war from VMS purist that cannot accept that VMS has been, K > and continues to be, an awesome back-end and back-bone to a company, but  K > using it to drive desktops (outside of character cell terminal sessions)  > > is a lost cause and a waste of valuable system resources.... >  >  > Barry  >   O Yeah, it's sort of a subconscious feeling of wasting valuable system resources.   K In any case, a large part of the user interface as we know it today is the  J display.  This is where I put my money (when I have to).  As big as I can Q afford.  Well, as big as I can afford without affecting the aviation budget.  :-)   M As for the rest, I recently put together a PC for under $300.  Without using  N ancient used hardware I don't think you'll find a VMS system to use as a user  interface at such a price.  O But, I'm using LK-411 keyboards.  Wish such were available at near PC keyboard  F prices.  Second most important part of user interface is the keyboard.   Dave   -- O4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roadt Vanderbilt, PA  15486,   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:05:44 -0700T# From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>eY Subject: RE: Unix/VMS programming environment, was: Re: If OVMS is killed by         HP..M9 Message-ID: <NDEMLKKEBOIFBMJLCECIIEAGDLAA.tom@kednos.com>   L there is also poll() which operates on streams, but it also has limitations.   < -----Original Message----- < From: Z [mailto:z@no.spam]) < Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 9:42 AMa < To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.ComiD < Subject: Re: Unix/VMS programming environment, was: Re: If OVMS is& < killed by HP.... by HP.... by HP.... <  <  < David Froble wrote:tI < >>> I cannot imagine an OS without ASTs or something similar.  Timers, r: < >>> I/O completion, and such, how are such done on Unix? < K < >> The traditional method is to use select(). Unlike on VMS, select() on -J < >> Unix works on a wide range of device types; which is yet another Unix < * < > Uhh.... Ok, ... what does select() do? < / < http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?select+2g <  < ---p( < Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.< < Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).A < Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004r <  ---u& Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.: Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).? Version: 6.0.735 / Virus Database: 489 - Release Date: 8/6/2004s   ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:28:20 -0400 ( From: David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>S Subject: Re: Unix/VMS programming environment, was: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP....-, Message-ID: <41275C04.2000004@tsoft-inc.com>   Simon Clubley wrote:  Y > In article <412614D8.9050404@tsoft-inc.com>, David Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:- > R >>Ok, I'll ask some possible stupid questions.  I've never used any brand of Unix 0 >>so I'm not aware of Unix programing practices. >>I >>I cannot imagine an OS without ASTs or something similar.  Timers, I/O  2 >>completion, and such, how are such done on Unix? >> >> > L > The traditional method is to use select(). Unlike on VMS, select() on UnixI > works on a wide range of device types; which is yet another Unix to VMS  > porting issue. > L > As for fork(), my main interest for it's presence in VMS is to aid Unix to > VMS porting. >  > Simon. >  >   & Uhh.... Ok, ... what does select() do?   -- e4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Roade Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  % Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 09:41:57 -0700I From: Z <z@no.spam>SY Subject: Re: Unix/VMS programming environment, was: Re: If OVMS is killed by HP.... by HP 0 Message-ID: <10ieuq44a0j3q0f@corp.supernews.com>   David Froble wrote:-G >>> I cannot imagine an OS without ASTs or something similar.  Timers,  8 >>> I/O completion, and such, how are such done on Unix?  I >> The traditional method is to use select(). Unlike on VMS, select() on oH >> Unix works on a wide range of device types; which is yet another Unix  ( > Uhh.... Ok, ... what does select() do?  - http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?select+2e   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.463 ************************