1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 28 Nov 2004	Volume 2004 : Issue 661       Contents:" Re: DEC retail stores in the 1980s4 Re: dtrace's (Solaris 10) equivalent tool on OpenVMS Re: enhancements to TCPIP P Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer iP Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer iP Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer iP Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer iP Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer iP Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer iP Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer iP RE: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer i2 The importance of multiple ISV's in the VMS market6 Re: The importance of multiple ISV's in the VMS market  F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 28 Nov 04 10:48:49 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com + Subject: Re: DEC retail stores in the 1980s , Message-ID: <VPadnWEdopPPKDTcRVn-vQ@rcn.net>  = In article <2a9d9498.0411270400.364703a2@posting.google.com>, *    denny_rich@ameritech.net (Denny) wrote:: >David Powell <ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk> wrote in message 4 news:<uqm9q05s930faon6u1jkiubcf0s551nt21@4ax.com>...A >> In article <d0e744c9.0411231910.3ddb521@posting.google.com>,   : >>  leeroth@my-deja.com (Lee Roth)  in comp.sys.dec wrote: >>  . >> >Speaking of retail... in the pre-PC era... >> >9 >> >Anyone remember the DEC retail stores? A few of these ; >> >stores appeared about the time that the "Super Trio" of  >[ s n i p ] > E >There was one in Pittsburgh in a building somewhere near Point Park. ? >It was on the ground floor. I went in one time only in 1980 or @ >1981...spotted a copy of "Introduction to Programming", a smallB >paperback that taught the reader the intricacies of PDP8 assembly6 >programming. I wanted that to replace one I had lost.  B I have one right here next to my TTY.  That is one book that everyA wanna-be computer user/coder should have.  There's more computing B knowledge packed into that ~200-page book than in any other manual I've seen on the bookshelves.    > E >The interesting thing to me was I got the first one free for asking, F >in maybe 1968(?). I had to buy the second one. Those wiley marketeersC >had stumbled on yet another untapped source of income AND customer  >good will!   A It was about time that DEC started to sell documentation divorced  from the hard/software.    > C >Literature for sale, Floppys that you could only buy formatted and < >couldn't format on your own machine, MMJ jacks and plugs... > A >Was it maybe in the early 80's that the DEC marketeers began the 
 >takeover? > @ >Hmmm  a new thread: marketing mistakes tht contributed to DEC's- >demise. I'm sure we all have our favorites!!    You get what you pay for.    /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:05:44 +0000 (UTC) 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)= Subject: Re: dtrace's (Solaris 10) equivalent tool on OpenVMS 0 Message-ID: <newscache$lv0w7i$val$1@news.sil.at>  R In article <4Pidnd6LHKdcajXcRVn-vQ@igs.net>, "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> writes:K >One other thing it has vs. VMS....advertising & marketing.....okay then, 2  >things.  G 2 Things. Advertising & Marketing and beeing freeware now. Okay then, 3  things.    --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:33:00 +0000 (UTC) P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)" Subject: Re: enhancements to TCPIP$ Message-ID: <cocd1c$25g$1@online.de>  E In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411271030510.31556@localhost.localdomain>, ( Rob Brown <mylastname@gmcl.com> writes:   E > > I like the hash function with FTP for monitoring long transfers.  H > > But if the transfer is really long, I would FTP in batch.  However, D > > in that case, the hashmarks don't appear in the log file.  Am I F > > missing something, or is this new functionality which needs to be  > > implemented? > I > Would $ SHOW PROCESS/CONTINUOUS <batch-job> tell you that the transfer  E > is happening?  Seems to me that that would be more convenient than  E > counting hash marks in an open (and occasionally updated) log file.   > Yes, but it is then not immediately obvious how much has been  transferred.   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 28 Nov 04 12:26:28 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Y Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer i , Message-ID: <AtOdnQ0uqpGoUTTcRVn-oA@rcn.net>  I In article <co54rl$876$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: G >In article <i8GdnU8Y9aoJQTjcRVn-pw@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: K >>In article <co2cm4$am0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: I >>>In article <8_ednfguruIPATncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: G >>>>In article <co25q6$88s$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk   wrote:K >>>>>In article <8_edncIuruJnCDncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: 2 >>>>>>In article <41A34237.55FA3814@teksavvy.com>,7 >>>>>>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:  >>>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: E >>>>>>>> HUH!!!!  Stay within the decade.  We were talking about the   >>beginnings >>>>>>>> of the PC market. >>>>>>> K >>>>>>>DEC started to shift to resellers paradigm in the 1980s. I fact, by  	 >>>>1986, ' >>>>>>>calling dec to ask to buy a vax   >>>>>>H >>>>>>This happened because DEC was going out of the VAX business.  It'sG >>>>>>exactly how DEC treated people who wanted to buy PDP-10s in 1979.  >>>>> , >>>>>Going out of the Vax business in 1986 ? >>>> >>>>Yes. >>>>, >>>>>Alpha wasn't released until about 1991. >>>>	 >>>>So?    >>>>; >>>>Jupiter wasn't cancelled until 1983; PDP-10 sales were   >>>>getting denied in 1979.  >>>> >>>> >>> 1 >>>However Vax and VMS was already there in 1979.  >>A >>So?  My point was that the policy of denying a sale had already A >>been established when a replacement architecture was years into A >>the future.  And VAX wasn't already "there" in 79.  The company C >>was still doing the 11/780 bit and trying to establish a customer A >>base for VAXes.  Since the performance sucked, there wasn't any @ >>existing customers who bought a VAX when they needed mainframe >>computing services.  >>6 >>>As I recall VAX/VMS was riding pretty high in 1986. >>; >>Compared to what?  In 1986 I was starting to study how to = >>convince current PDP-10 customers to replace their 10s with @ >>VAXes.  This was after the fiasco of "fuck you" at 1978 DECUS,: >>the Jupiter disaster, and then the idiocy that marketing5 >>developed in 1984 and 1985 they called "migration".  >> > K >1985/1986 was about the time I first worked on a VAX. The company part of   GEC I >had links to IBM mainframe systems at Chelmsford and a Mcdonald Douglas   machine J >running Pick on site. When they came to look for their next system then,  since K >they wanted a mid-range system rather than an IBM mainframe, the choice of  >a VMS system seemed obvious.   @ Of course, and it should have been.  However, by the time of the? Compaq purchase, it was clear to me that corporate was going to = treat VMS exactly the same way as they treated TOPS-10.  Just ; when they got the OS to a useful computing servicer, it had  to be destroyed.  J >The year of Unix was still something the computer press was saying would  be >next year.   A And it never would have been the OS of choice if there had been a @ company that backed an OS that did useful work without insisting. that all users constantly wrestle with the OS. >  > = >>IOW, DEC managed to piss off, alienate, and loudly announce @ >>to all current mainframe customers that they had absolutely no? >>say in the matter.  This was a 180 degree turn from corporate ? >>policy where we tried to include customer input when planning $ >>the future hardware product lines. >>> L >>>In my personal experience we were still dealing directly with Digital in  >>1989J >>>when I joined Middlesex University it wasn't until maybe 92/93 that we  >>wereF >>>forced to go through resellers (and then that was for both VAX and  >>>Alpha systems). >>H >>Palmer was supposed to strip the company of cash and all product linesD >>that had nothing to do with the customer support piece of the biz.H >>This is an educated guess based on what happened inside the company; I >>saw no documents.  >> > H >When I said dealing direct with Digital I meant purchasing VAX systems  direct8 >from Digital nothing to do with maintenance or support.  9 And how did you learn about the bugs and bug fixes in the ' version of the VMS software you bought?    /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 28 Nov 04 12:34:59 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Y Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer i , Message-ID: <VMedneFudJquUzTcRVn-pQ@rcn.net>  $ In article <41a5569a$1_3@127.0.0.1>,0    "Richard Tomkins" <tomkinsr@istop.com> wrote: >I am Richard Tomkins.F >I worked in the Digital Equipment Corporation manufacturing plant in  Kanata, & >Ontario Canada, from 1986 until 2001.E >My jobs were, Manufacturing Support Technologist, Product Engineer,   Process < >Engineer, Trainer, Consultant and CSS Technology Architect. > I >The plant was very diverse when I joined, making backplanes for PDP and   VAX G >computer systems and building various VAX computer sytems, such as the G >11/750, 11/780, 9250, 8350, 8550. We had a development laboratory that J >designed all the backplanes used in all the VAX computers, including the  ill H >timed VAX 9000 backplane modules. Over time we added the manufacture ofK >boards for VAX computers and OEM models and also took on the maufacture of  >boards for the network gear.  > J >I worked in an elite technology group that oversaw, designed and managed  the H >technology used in the manufacturing operations, there were 8 of us. WeI >designed, installed and managed the network that drove our operations in G >boards and systems. We designed and managed the computing complex (VAX J >cluster) that performed automated testing of all our VAX and PC systems,  and  >boards.   You must have had a lot of fun.    > F >The VAX Fault Tolerant Computers were maufactured exclusively in our  plant. > I >The early forays into the PC world happened under customer single source G >demands. Lots of things were tried, the VT100 thingy, the DECmate, the J >Rainbow and others. Oue first real foray into PC's on a serious level wasI >with Tandy as a partner. We also did a partner ship with Ollivetti, low   end I >desktops and laptops and notebooks. The Ollivetti laptops and notebooks   were >all recalled. > G >As the corporation consolidated its manufacturing operations over the   years,+ >more and more product was built in Kanata.  > F >We did our own low cost PC's by going to a one of our disk plants in  Tainwan I >and go tthem to cook up a strong little groups of systems, the so-called  >Tiger series. > F >I was the Product Engineer for the MicroVAX 3100 model 10 and 20, the >InfoServer 100, and 150.  > E >We also built products for Apple Computer in Kanata, desktops, laser  >printers and sub-assemblies.  > * >The last VAX shipped from Kanata in 1999. > C >The Kanata plant was the sole source plant in North America for PC # >production from about 1996 onward.  > K >I was a member of the Technical Group ATF (Advanced Technology Forum) that E >designed and developed FIS (Factory Installed Software) for ULTRIX,   OpenVMS,F >OSF/1, then Tru64 UNIX and of course, Windows and company, NextStep,  Novell, F >SCO Unix and others. This was an interplant group that met every two  monthsK >or so for a few days at different sites worlwide. I secured the budget for J >the group one year in a presentation to the corporate folks. I was told II >had 15 minutes for my presentation and money was tight, I'd be lucky to   see E >$250k. I spent almost 2 hours in the presentation and was given $1.2 	 >million.  > K >We paid a Royalty to Microsoft on every computer sold if it could run a MS K >OS. About 40% of the product was shipped without a Microsoft product, but   weC >still paid the Royalty. Take it or find another Windows source was K >Microsofts argument. Of course, there was no negotiation on this. When the K >Netscape guy said that dealing with MS was like the Godfather, one day you E >expect to wake up with a horses head in your bed, we all nodded with  >experience. > E >Windows NT development on Alpha was paid for entirely by Digital and  >employed Digital staff.  ? No, it wasn't.  I'm beginning to think that there were at least ? two groups who were doing NT development that didn't know about = each other.  Apparently this was a common management trick of = Palmer's.  Why waste money having one group do something when + you can have n groups doing the same thing.   @ Having two ongoing NT developments would explain your perceptionD that it was Digital-only and my perception that it was Gates-funded.   <snip>   /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 28 Nov 04 12:40:04 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Y Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer i , Message-ID: <VMedneBudJr5UjTcRVn-pQ@rcn.net>  , In article <vOCdnSRq0pn7EjvcRVn-rQ@igs.net>,'    "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote:  <snip>  1 >Amongst the lessons in your time is that if you   >are a hardware manufacturer5 >and you don't do your own software too, you run the  4 >risk of being toasted by your erstwhile 'partners'.  7 Exactly.  Another risk is that you can't get a software 6 bug fixed the way you need it fixed.  One of the basic7 reasons that DEC became Digital is because the software 5 was considered unnecessary for the company's success. 6 If the software started leading hardware projects, the! hardware projects were cancelled.    /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:29:43 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukY Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer i ) Message-ID: <cocjs7$nr0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   F In article <AtOdnQ0uqpGoUTTcRVn-oA@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:J >In article <co54rl$876$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:H >>In article <i8GdnU8Y9aoJQTjcRVn-pw@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:L >>>In article <co2cm4$am0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:J >>>>In article <8_ednfguruIPATncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:H >>>>>In article <co25q6$88s$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk  >wrote: L >>>>>>In article <8_edncIuruJnCDncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:3 >>>>>>>In article <41A34237.55FA3814@teksavvy.com>, 8 >>>>>>>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:  >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:F >>>>>>>>> HUH!!!!  Stay within the decade.  We were talking about the 
 >>>beginnings  >>>>>>>>> of the PC market.  >>>>>>>>L >>>>>>>>DEC started to shift to resellers paradigm in the 1980s. I fact, by 
 >>>>>1986,( >>>>>>>>calling dec to ask to buy a vax  >>>>>>> I >>>>>>>This happened because DEC was going out of the VAX business.  It's H >>>>>>>exactly how DEC treated people who wanted to buy PDP-10s in 1979. >>>>>>- >>>>>>Going out of the Vax business in 1986 ?  >>>>> 	 >>>>>Yes.  >>>>> - >>>>>>Alpha wasn't released until about 1991.  >>>>> 
 >>>>>So?   >>>>> < >>>>>Jupiter wasn't cancelled until 1983; PDP-10 sales were  >>>>>getting denied in 1979. >>>>>  >>>>>  >>>>2 >>>>However Vax and VMS was already there in 1979. >>> B >>>So?  My point was that the policy of denying a sale had alreadyB >>>been established when a replacement architecture was years intoB >>>the future.  And VAX wasn't already "there" in 79.  The companyD >>>was still doing the 11/780 bit and trying to establish a customerB >>>base for VAXes.  Since the performance sucked, there wasn't anyA >>>existing customers who bought a VAX when they needed mainframe  >>>computing services. >>> 7 >>>>As I recall VAX/VMS was riding pretty high in 1986.  >>> < >>>Compared to what?  In 1986 I was starting to study how to> >>>convince current PDP-10 customers to replace their 10s withA >>>VAXes.  This was after the fiasco of "fuck you" at 1978 DECUS, ; >>>the Jupiter disaster, and then the idiocy that marketing 6 >>>developed in 1984 and 1985 they called "migration". >>>  >>L >>1985/1986 was about the time I first worked on a VAX. The company part of  >GECJ >>had links to IBM mainframe systems at Chelmsford and a Mcdonald Douglas  >machineK >>running Pick on site. When they came to look for their next system then,   >sinceL >>they wanted a mid-range system rather than an IBM mainframe, the choice of >>a VMS system seemed obvious. > A >Of course, and it should have been.  However, by the time of the @ >Compaq purchase, it was clear to me that corporate was going to> >treat VMS exactly the same way as they treated TOPS-10.  Just< >when they got the OS to a useful computing servicer, it had >to be destroyed.  >   M The Compaq purchase was much much later than the period we are talking about. L By the look of it you are now agreeing with me about the situation in 1986 -< that in 1986 Digital were not going out of the Vax business.    K >>The year of Unix was still something the computer press was saying would   >be  >>next year. > B >And it never would have been the OS of choice if there had been aA >company that backed an OS that did useful work without insisting / >that all users constantly wrestle with the OS.  >> >>> >>>IOW, DEC managed to piss off, alienate, and loudly announceA >>>to all current mainframe customers that they had absolutely no @ >>>say in the matter.  This was a 180 degree turn from corporate@ >>>policy where we tried to include customer input when planning% >>>the future hardware product lines.  >>>>M >>>>In my personal experience we were still dealing directly with Digital in   >>>1989 K >>>>when I joined Middlesex University it wasn't until maybe 92/93 that we   >>>were G >>>>forced to go through resellers (and then that was for both VAX and   >>>>Alpha systems).  >>> I >>>Palmer was supposed to strip the company of cash and all product lines E >>>that had nothing to do with the customer support piece of the biz. I >>>This is an educated guess based on what happened inside the company; I  >>>saw no documents. >>>  >>I >>When I said dealing direct with Digital I meant purchasing VAX systems   >direct 9 >>from Digital nothing to do with maintenance or support.  > : >And how did you learn about the bugs and bug fixes in the( >version of the VMS software you bought? > J I was just responding to your "had nothing to do with the customer supportK piece of the biz." by clarifying that we were buying hardware directly from G Digital rather than through resellers. We were also buying hardware and + software maintenance directly from Digital.     E In this discussion you seem to be mixing up the 1980s with the 1990s.   
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University     >/BAH  > ( >Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.   ------------------------------  ! Date: Sun, 28 Nov 04 13:04:34 GMT  From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Y Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer i , Message-ID: <DNqdnaVbg9-_SDTcRVn-og@rcn.net>  I In article <cocjs7$nr0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: G >In article <AtOdnQ0uqpGoUTTcRVn-oA@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: K >>In article <co54rl$876$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: I >>>In article <i8GdnU8Y9aoJQTjcRVn-pw@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: G >>>>In article <co2cm4$am0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk   wrote:K >>>>>In article <8_ednfguruIPATncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: I >>>>>>In article <co25q6$88s$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk   >>wrote:F >>>>>>>In article <8_edncIuruJnCDncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com  writes: 4 >>>>>>>>In article <41A34237.55FA3814@teksavvy.com>,9 >>>>>>>>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote: ! >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: G >>>>>>>>>> HUH!!!!  Stay within the decade.  We were talking about the   >>>>beginnings >>>>>>>>>> of the PC market.	 >>>>>>>>> J >>>>>>>>>DEC started to shift to resellers paradigm in the 1980s. I fact,  by   >>>>>>1986, ) >>>>>>>>>calling dec to ask to buy a vax   >>>>>>>>J >>>>>>>>This happened because DEC was going out of the VAX business.  It'sI >>>>>>>>exactly how DEC treated people who wanted to buy PDP-10s in 1979.  >>>>>>> . >>>>>>>Going out of the Vax business in 1986 ? >>>>>>
 >>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>. >>>>>>>Alpha wasn't released until about 1991. >>>>>> >>>>>>So?    >>>>>>= >>>>>>Jupiter wasn't cancelled until 1983; PDP-10 sales were   >>>>>>getting denied in 1979.  >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 3 >>>>>However Vax and VMS was already there in 1979.  >>>>C >>>>So?  My point was that the policy of denying a sale had already C >>>>been established when a replacement architecture was years into C >>>>the future.  And VAX wasn't already "there" in 79.  The company E >>>>was still doing the 11/780 bit and trying to establish a customer C >>>>base for VAXes.  Since the performance sucked, there wasn't any B >>>>existing customers who bought a VAX when they needed mainframe >>>>computing services.  >>>>8 >>>>>As I recall VAX/VMS was riding pretty high in 1986. >>>>= >>>>Compared to what?  In 1986 I was starting to study how to ? >>>>convince current PDP-10 customers to replace their 10s with B >>>>VAXes.  This was after the fiasco of "fuck you" at 1978 DECUS,< >>>>the Jupiter disaster, and then the idiocy that marketing7 >>>>developed in 1984 and 1985 they called "migration".  >>>> >>> J >>>1985/1986 was about the time I first worked on a VAX. The company part  of   >>GEC K >>>had links to IBM mainframe systems at Chelmsford and a Mcdonald Douglas  	 >>machine L >>>running Pick on site. When they came to look for their next system then,  >>since K >>>they wanted a mid-range system rather than an IBM mainframe, the choice   of >>>a VMS system seemed obvious.  >>B >>Of course, and it should have been.  However, by the time of theA >>Compaq purchase, it was clear to me that corporate was going to ? >>treat VMS exactly the same way as they treated TOPS-10.  Just = >>when they got the OS to a useful computing servicer, it had  >>to be destroyed. >> > 9 >The Compaq purchase was much much later than the period   >we are talking about.   Yes.  : >By the look of it you are now agreeing with me about the  >situation in 1986 -= >that in 1986 Digital were not going out of the Vax business.   A No,no,no.  It was going out of the Vax business.  It wasn't clear D that it was trying to get out of the VMS business.  There were hints0 but those hints could have meant something else.   >  > L >>>The year of Unix was still something the computer press was saying would  >>be
 >>>next year.  >>C >>And it never would have been the OS of choice if there had been a B >>company that backed an OS that did useful work without insisting0 >>that all users constantly wrestle with the OS. >>>  >>> ? >>>>IOW, DEC managed to piss off, alienate, and loudly announce B >>>>to all current mainframe customers that they had absolutely noA >>>>say in the matter.  This was a 180 degree turn from corporate A >>>>policy where we tried to include customer input when planning & >>>>the future hardware product lines. >>>>> K >>>>>In my personal experience we were still dealing directly with Digital   in   >>>>1989L >>>>>when I joined Middlesex University it wasn't until maybe 92/93 that we  >>>>wereH >>>>>forced to go through resellers (and then that was for both VAX and  >>>>>Alpha systems). >>>>J >>>>Palmer was supposed to strip the company of cash and all product linesF >>>>that had nothing to do with the customer support piece of the biz.J >>>>This is an educated guess based on what happened inside the company; I >>>>saw no documents.  >>>> >>> J >>>When I said dealing direct with Digital I meant purchasing VAX systems  >>direct: >>>from Digital nothing to do with maintenance or support. >>; >>And how did you learn about the bugs and bug fixes in the ) >>version of the VMS software you bought?  >>K >I was just responding to your "had nothing to do with the customer support H >piece of the biz." by clarifying that we were buying hardware directly  from' >Digital rather than through resellers.   B yes, Compaq didn't want manufacturing nor, apparently, developmentB business when they bought DEC out.  They were primarily interested1 in [what we used to call the] hotline facilities.   & > ... We were also buying hardware and, >software maintenance directly from Digital. >  > F >In this discussion you seem to be mixing up the 1980s with the 1990s.  A I am talking about both times.  You seem to be, too.  :-)  Please B note that the phrase you questioned was in a paragraph that talkedE about what _Palmer_ did before the Compaq buyout.  Thus, that comment ! couldn't have been about the 80s.      /BAH  ' Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.    ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:44:36 +0000 (UTC)  From: david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.ukY Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer i ) Message-ID: <cocrp4$q9q$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>   F In article <DNqdnaVbg9-_SDTcRVn-og@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:J >In article <cocjs7$nr0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:H >>In article <AtOdnQ0uqpGoUTTcRVn-oA@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:L >>>In article <co54rl$876$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:J >>>>In article <i8GdnU8Y9aoJQTjcRVn-pw@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:H >>>>>In article <co2cm4$am0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk  >wrote: L >>>>>>In article <8_ednfguruIPATncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:J >>>>>>>In article <co25q6$88s$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk 	 >>>wrote: G >>>>>>>>In article <8_edncIuruJnCDncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com   >writes:5 >>>>>>>>>In article <41A34237.55FA3814@teksavvy.com>, : >>>>>>>>>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:" >>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:H >>>>>>>>>>> HUH!!!!  Stay within the decade.  We were talking about the  >>>>>beginnings  >>>>>>>>>>> of the PC market. 
 >>>>>>>>>>K >>>>>>>>>>DEC started to shift to resellers paradigm in the 1980s. I fact,   >by  >>>>>>>1986,* >>>>>>>>>>calling dec to ask to buy a vax 	 >>>>>>>>> K >>>>>>>>>This happened because DEC was going out of the VAX business.  It's J >>>>>>>>>exactly how DEC treated people who wanted to buy PDP-10s in 1979. >>>>>>>>/ >>>>>>>>Going out of the Vax business in 1986 ?  >>>>>>>  >>>>>>>Yes.  >>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>Alpha wasn't released until about 1991.  >>>>>>>  >>>>>>>So?   >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Jupiter wasn't cancelled until 1983; PDP-10 sales were  >>>>>>>getting denied in 1979. >>>>>>>  >>>>>>>  >>>>>>4 >>>>>>However Vax and VMS was already there in 1979. >>>>> D >>>>>So?  My point was that the policy of denying a sale had alreadyD >>>>>been established when a replacement architecture was years intoD >>>>>the future.  And VAX wasn't already "there" in 79.  The companyF >>>>>was still doing the 11/780 bit and trying to establish a customerD >>>>>base for VAXes.  Since the performance sucked, there wasn't anyC >>>>>existing customers who bought a VAX when they needed mainframe  >>>>>computing services. >>>>> 9 >>>>>>As I recall VAX/VMS was riding pretty high in 1986.  >>>>> > >>>>>Compared to what?  In 1986 I was starting to study how to@ >>>>>convince current PDP-10 customers to replace their 10s withC >>>>>VAXes.  This was after the fiasco of "fuck you" at 1978 DECUS, = >>>>>the Jupiter disaster, and then the idiocy that marketing 8 >>>>>developed in 1984 and 1985 they called "migration". >>>>>  >>>>K >>>>1985/1986 was about the time I first worked on a VAX. The company part   >of  >>>GECL >>>>had links to IBM mainframe systems at Chelmsford and a Mcdonald Douglas 
 >>>machineM >>>>running Pick on site. When they came to look for their next system then,   >>>sinceL >>>>they wanted a mid-range system rather than an IBM mainframe, the choice  >of   >>>>a VMS system seemed obvious. >>> C >>>Of course, and it should have been.  However, by the time of the B >>>Compaq purchase, it was clear to me that corporate was going to@ >>>treat VMS exactly the same way as they treated TOPS-10.  Just> >>>when they got the OS to a useful computing servicer, it had >>>to be destroyed.  >>>  >>: >>The Compaq purchase was much much later than the period  >>we are talking about.  >  >Yes.  > ; >>By the look of it you are now agreeing with me about the   >>situation in 1986 - > >>that in 1986 Digital were not going out of the Vax business. > B >No,no,no.  It was going out of the Vax business.  It wasn't clearE >that it was trying to get out of the VMS business.  There were hints 1 >but those hints could have meant something else.  >   K Sorry I don't equate investigating possible future hardware strategies with > a policy of denying sales and getting out of the Vax business.N You might reasonably make that claim after or even slightly before the release of Alpha but not in 1986. K Similarly on the OS side you might reasonably claim a policy of denying VMS K sales in favour of first Unix and then Microsoft sales but again this would ) only be supportable some time after 1986.   H Unlike Compaq and HP with Itanic I don't see Digital as a company which : burned it's bridges to jump to a new untried architecture.       >> >>M >>>>The year of Unix was still something the computer press was saying would   >>>be  >>>>next year. >>> D >>>And it never would have been the OS of choice if there had been aC >>>company that backed an OS that did useful work without insisting 1 >>>that all users constantly wrestle with the OS.  >>>> >>>>@ >>>>>IOW, DEC managed to piss off, alienate, and loudly announceC >>>>>to all current mainframe customers that they had absolutely no B >>>>>say in the matter.  This was a 180 degree turn from corporateB >>>>>policy where we tried to include customer input when planning' >>>>>the future hardware product lines.  >>>>>>L >>>>>>In my personal experience we were still dealing directly with Digital  >in 	 >>>>>1989 M >>>>>>when I joined Middlesex University it wasn't until maybe 92/93 that we  	 >>>>>were I >>>>>>forced to go through resellers (and then that was for both VAX and   >>>>>>Alpha systems).  >>>>> K >>>>>Palmer was supposed to strip the company of cash and all product lines G >>>>>that had nothing to do with the customer support piece of the biz. K >>>>>This is an educated guess based on what happened inside the company; I  >>>>>saw no documents. >>>>>  >>>>K >>>>When I said dealing direct with Digital I meant purchasing VAX systems  	 >>>direct ; >>>>from Digital nothing to do with maintenance or support.  >>> < >>>And how did you learn about the bugs and bug fixes in the* >>>version of the VMS software you bought? >>> L >>I was just responding to your "had nothing to do with the customer supportI >>piece of the biz." by clarifying that we were buying hardware directly   >from ( >>Digital rather than through resellers. > C >yes, Compaq didn't want manufacturing nor, apparently, development C >business when they bought DEC out.  They were primarily interested 2 >in [what we used to call the] hotline facilities. > ' >> ... We were also buying hardware and - >>software maintenance directly from Digital.  >> >>G >>In this discussion you seem to be mixing up the 1980s with the 1990s.  > B >I am talking about both times.  You seem to be, too.  :-)  PleaseC >note that the phrase you questioned was in a paragraph that talked F >about what _Palmer_ did before the Compaq buyout.  Thus, that comment" >couldn't have been about the 80s. >   @ Yes I didn't really see the relevance of that to the discussion.M My only foray into the 90s was my mention of 92/93 in order to show that not 0G everyone was being forced to buy through resellers during the late 80s.1      
 David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University         >  >/BAH  > ( >Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.   ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:18:38 GMTe! From: Nigel Barker <nigel@hp.com>pY Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer ie8 Message-ID: <4i1kq0d7bi54286ceokdlis2aqlv5q3gp5@4ax.com>  8 On Sun, 28 Nov 04 12:40:04 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:  - >In article <vOCdnSRq0pn7EjvcRVn-rQ@igs.net>,n( >   "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com> wrote: ><snip>d > 2 >>Amongst the lessons in your time is that if you  >>are a hardware manufacturero6 >>and you don't do your own software too, you run the 5 >>risk of being toasted by your erstwhile 'partners'.n >o8 >Exactly.  Another risk is that you can't get a software7 >bug fixed the way you need it fixed.  One of the basic-8 >reasons that DEC became Digital is because the software6 >was considered unnecessary for the company's success.7 >If the software started leading hardware projects, the " >hardware projects were cancelled.  P During the early nineties the New Software Group under David Stone made quite anN effort to promote Digital as a software company. The company strategy then wasK to increase revenue & profit from software. Here is a contemporary magazine4 article describing the strategyoD http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SMG/is_n1_v11/ai_9786191   -- Nigel Barker Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur.   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:29:25 -0500t' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>pY Subject: RE: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer ioR Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB4E96BC@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----7 > From: jmfbahciv@aol.com [mailto:jmfbahciv@aol.com]=20a! > Sent: November 28, 2004 7:35 AMy > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com @ > Subject: Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any=20* > individual tohave acomputer in his home" >=20& > In article <41a5569a$1_3@127.0.0.1>,2 >    "Richard Tomkins" <tomkinsr@istop.com> wrote: > >I am Richard Tomkins.J > >I worked in the Digital Equipment Corporation manufacturing plant in=20	 > Kanata,o( > >Ontario Canada, from 1986 until 2001.I > >My jobs were, Manufacturing Support Technologist, Product Engineer,=20o	 > Processe> > >Engineer, Trainer, Consultant and CSS Technology Architect. > >h  	 [snip ..]d   > >lA > >We paid a Royalty to Microsoft on every computer sold if it=20r > could run a MSB > >OS. About 40% of the product was shipped without a Microsoft=20 > product, but=20k > weE > >still paid the Royalty. Take it or find another Windows source waseA > >Microsofts argument. Of course, there was no negotiation on=20h > this. When the9 > >Netscape guy said that dealing with MS was like the=20  > Godfather, one day youG > >expect to wake up with a horses head in your bed, we all nodded with- > >experience. > >,G > >Windows NT development on Alpha was paid for entirely by Digital andL > >employed Digital staff. >=20A > No, it wasn't.  I'm beginning to think that there were at leastcA > two groups who were doing NT development that didn't know abouti? > each other.  Apparently this was a common management trick ofi? > Palmer's.  Why waste money having one group do something wheng- > you can have n groups doing the same thing.i >=20B > Having two ongoing NT developments would explain your perceptionF > that it was Digital-only and my perception that it was Gates-funded. >=20   Nope - Richard was right.   A All of the Alpha Windows NT OS daily porting, testing, packaging,-F marketing etc (*.*) was paid for and delivered by Digital resources inH Digital facilities. Microsoft received an OS license fee for every AlphaG server shipped if it was capable of running Windows NT. As I understand<E it, the same went for the other vendors like IBM and MIPS before theymH also determined it was not the business they wanted to be in and dropped( Windows support on their RISC platforms.  E Microsoft did do some of the Alpha NT Backoffice LP porting / testing G like SQL Server, Exchange etc, so perhaps that is what you are thinkinge about?   Regardse  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660O Fax: 613-591-4477t kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:14:06 -0500e# From: "John Smith" <a@nonymous.com>s; Subject: The importance of multiple ISV's in the VMS markete, Message-ID: <7r2dndM185mDUjTcRVn-1A@igs.net>  L http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&ncid=1208&e=4&u=/zd/200 41126/tc_zd/139822  I ...."For example, Oracle Executive Vice President Keith Block admitted innJ videotaped testimony that the company cuts software costs by as much as 70I percent when competition is fierce enough to warrant it. Anybody who wentnJ into licensing negotiations with Oracle this past year and didn't use that. information should now be kicking themselves."    L Too bad the only heavy-duty RDBMS products for VMS are both owned by Oracle.G VMS customers have very little leverage in this case...who else are youtI going to purchase a database for the 1 million tpm oltp or data warehouse  system you are building? CA?  J Yes I know that Mimer and MySQL are out there too, but in the absence of aH truly thriving VMS market there ain't going to be the choice that begets true competition for VMS users.d   ------------------------------  + Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:09:48 +0000 (UTC)lP From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)? Subject: Re: The importance of multiple ISV's in the VMS marketp$ Message-ID: <cocpns$kre$1@online.de>  9 In article <7r2dndM185mDUjTcRVn-1A@igs.net>, "John Smith"  <a@nonymous.com> writes: w  N > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&ncid=1208&e=4&u=/zd/200 > 41126/tc_zd/139822 > L > ....."For example, Oracle Executive Vice President Keith Block admitted inL > videotaped testimony that the company cuts software costs by as much as 70K > percent when competition is fierce enough to warrant it. Anybody who wenteL > into licensing negotiations with Oracle this past year and didn't use that0 > information should now be kicking themselves." >  > N > Too bad the only heavy-duty RDBMS products for VMS are both owned by Oracle.I > VMS customers have very little leverage in this case...who else are you>K > going to purchase a database for the 1 million tpm oltp or data warehouse8 > system you are building? CA?  I On the other hand, if you really need Rdb for your business, the license r consts are probably peanuts.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2004.661 ************************