1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 01 May 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 242       Contents: Re: Appletalk on Alphas  DECterm improvement request  Re: DECterm improvement request % Google/scalability isn't problem free C Re: Lexical function to set environmental variables of AlphaStation 8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....8 Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....0 Re: more questions on Cyrillic fonts and Mozilla$ Re: Sandia says alpha the best chip! Re: Slow Filesystem I/O + RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? + RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? + RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? + Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 06:27:17 -0700 $ From: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts@ewilts.org>  Subject: Re: Appletalk on AlphasC Message-ID: <1114954037.564712.286570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>   E > It is one thing to not get new software like firefox etc, but it is  evenC > worse when you stop supporting software that was available in the  past.   F HP didn't stop supporting it - they sold the product rights to anotherC company over 5 years ago.  Now perhaps they shouldn't have sold the A product off to somebody who then wanted to screw us over (anybody B remember the price quotes to certify Y2K compliance?), but in this? case, it's the fault of the product owner, not VMS Engineering.   	    .../Ed    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 03:46:32 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> $ Subject: DECterm improvement request, Message-ID: <4274892D.8C2D5EC3@teksavvy.com>  C I know that Digital/HP/whatever don't put any priority on X windows D development on VMS (even though they still do for HP-UX which is far more uptodate than VMS) but...  E I'd like to see an option on DECTERM to wake up the terminal from its R screen saver upon reception of a broadcast. (as is the case on real VT terminals).  G For instance, if I have a sleeping screen and get an email, it would be E nice to have the screen wake up automatocally without having to reach G for the CTRL keyt to turn the screen on to see who sent the email. (for ' when not working right at that screen).   O ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- S http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups K ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----    ------------------------------  * Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 08:22:06 +0000 (UTC)P From: helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)( Subject: Re: DECterm improvement request$ Message-ID: <d523je$l65$1@online.de>  5 In article <4274892D.8C2D5EC3@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei ' <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:    G > I'd like to see an option on DECTERM to wake up the terminal from its F > screen saver upon reception of a broadcast. (as is the case on real  > VT terminals). > I > For instance, if I have a sleeping screen and get an email, it would be G > nice to have the screen wake up automatocally without having to reach I > for the CTRL keyt to turn the screen on to see who sent the email. (for ) > when not working right at that screen).   F Some folks use the screen saver to lock the screen, so in that case a 3 broadcast should NOT do away with the screen saver.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 07:42:20 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> . Subject: Google/scalability isn't problem freeB Message-ID: <1114947741.61f6864f8b92d8f2482912eac2348e93@teranews>  G I recently updated my web site with a bit more VMS shark artwork, other  VMS links etc.  E To my surprise, google doesn't see any of my pages when I search, but ? looking at my web server logs, I do see some traffic coming in.   F For instance, I saw someone google for "vms+shark" and got to my site.F Doing the same search on google.com now yielded nothing pointing to my6 site. And my logs also show google bots getting to me.  H What this tells me is that while the Google service appears to always beC available, it may not be so reliable as people really think it is.    F Specifying "vaxination informatique" shows an old web site from 2 ISPsH ago that hasn't existed in years, but not my current one (which has beenD around for over a year and was indexed at some point. It isn't as ifE Google needs to choose between 2 million possible sites and only show  the most popular.   F So when people state that a gazillion small separate boxes can be justD as reliable as real large scale systems/clusters, they probably only' mean "available" instead of "reliable".   C altavista, which I stopped using because their advanced search page G constantly added junk characters at the end of search terms (and is now < really yahoo under the hood) has no problem finding my site.  C So, the fact that Google states that search results are listed in a H proprietary way is probably just a face saving way to say that since, atG any point in time, varying portions of its database are offline  search . results won't always show the same results :-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 08:28:48 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> L Subject: Re: Lexical function to set environmental variables of AlphaStation( Message-ID: <opsp3rya0bzgicya@hyrrokkin>  6 On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:58:32 -0500, David J Dachtera  " <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:   > Tom Linden wrote:  >>7 >> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:33:13 -0500, David J Dachtera % >> <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> wrote:  >> >> > Meat Loaf wrote:  >> >>  >> >> Rudolf Wingert wrote:  >> >>  >> >> > Hello, >> >> > @ >> >> > AFAIK there is an undocumented lexical function to set   >> environmental8 >> >> > variables. Does anybody know how it can be done? >> >> > " >> >> > TIA and regards R. Wingert >> >> G >> >>   F$CONTEXT  F$CSID     F$CVSI     F$CVTIME   F$CVUI     F$DEVICE A >> >>   F$DIRECTORY           F$EDIT     F$ELEMENT  F$ENVIRONMENT G >> >>   F$EXTRACT  F$FAO      F$FILE_ATTRIBUTES     F$GETDVI   F$GETJPI G >> >>   F$GETQUI   F$GETSYI   F$IDENTIFIER          F$INTEGER  F$LENGTH D >> >>   F$LOCATE   F$MESSAGE  F$MODE                F$PARSE    F$PIDG >> >>   F$PRIVILEGE           F$PROCESS  F$SEARCH   F$SETPRV   F$STRING < >> >>   F$TIME     F$TRNLNM   F$TYPE     F$USER     F$VERIFY >> >> G >> >> These are the only lexicals on my 6.2 and 7.3 Alpha's.  Was there 8 >> >> something that you were trying to do specifically? >> >H >> > F$GETENV() is present all the way back to at least V7.2, but is not$ >> > documented in the on-line HELP. >> >H >> > I'll have to find the address to TELNET to the V8.2 nodes on the HPI >> > TestDrive cluster and check it out there. Dunno if F$SETENV() ever    >> made " >> > it into a production release. >> >/ >> http://www-vms.gsi.de/HELP/LEXICALS/F_GETENV  >>	 >> On 7.3 & >> FREJA> echo f$getenv("auto_action") >> BOOT  > @ > Hhhmmm... How 'bout F$SETENV, which is what the OP is seeking?  H I have asked about that before, and I don't think, alas, that it exists.H FWIW, on Tru64 there is the 'consvar' command, which permits reading and setting  of SRM variables. >    ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 03:25:26 -0700  From: icerq4a@spray.seA Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114943126.885234.268830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>    Alan Greig wrote:  > icer...@spray.se wrote: C > > x86 is already on the way scale to the level of IA64, IBM has a  large A > > system, Unisys have, Sun is doing a midrange (16-way) system.  Future> > > high-end systems for commercial use may not have more than
 16-socketsF > > since there are lots of cores on future chips. The latest rumour IC > > heard was that no system builder have a plan to buy the Opteron  Horus F > > chipset, which is sad, but that does not mean that we will not see > > larger x86 systems.  > G > If nobody builds Horus based systems it may well be because there are E > even better Opteron (>8 core) scaling chipsets in the wings. Or the  > rumour might be wrong.  9 What's your point? You more or less repeated what I said.   A > > Chipsets are very expensive to make and take a lot of time to  > validate. : > > As for enterprise features, Intel may still be able to
 differentiate A > > it's chips. AMD cannot really afford to make as large dies as  Intel.C > > Intel may choose to have more stuff on it's IA64 chips, such as  > cores, > > cache, better RAS features.  > > A > > I would like to buy Proliant systems with IA64 chips in a few  years.G > > The common platform is a good way to get the costs down, since IA64  > is > > not a high-volume ISA. > F > But using exactly which business logic will Intel even try to regainD > the lead over Opteron with Itanium without trying even harder with > Xeon?   E I don't understand what you mean. There is no reason Intel should not E put full efforts in making Xeon better. Actually it is what they have F done and will continue to do. That does not mean that their efforts onG Itanium change. AMD made some very good decisions in 1999, and they are C today in similar in performance with Intel and currently have lower F power usage. Intel usually makes better financial decisons but perhapsC not always the best product. AMDs process is more expensive and the F difference in margins on CPUs from AMD and Intel is today pretty huge.  @ > Intel lost. Face it. Intel is now AMD compatible and it cannotB > afford to compete against itself letting AMD take all the glory.    It does not compete with itself.; Would Intel have sold more CPUs if they only had Xeons? No.   F > The only possible chance of a future for the Itanic is if Intel sellC > it. And right now it would probably be a better bet for HP to buy  AMD.  A I guess you are joking. Today, no one but Intel can continue with E Itanium, unless HP makes a complete turn-around and want to enter the  CPU business again.    ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 03:33:44 -0700  From: icerq4a@spray.seA Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114943624.845318.296830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > Karsten Nyblad wrote: G > > Hmmmm.  One of the costs of developing computer chips is developing  new D > > semiconductor processes suitable for high speed microprocessors. Intel D > > can let their x86 business pay for that, but AMD barely have the money  > > for it,  >  > " > This is one big misundestanding.   Not it is certainly not.   > - > Alpha's last years was a very good example.   # It was a very bad example actually.    > Compaq/Digital didn't have > to worry about process.    Ooch, they certainly had to.  . > It would find a supplied of FABbing servicesG > such as Intel, Samsung, IBM etc who had good process, and then supply F > them with the blueprints for the alpha achip and ask them to produce a # > few thousand (or whatever number)  > G > AMD has 2 businesses: the FABbing and the designing. Just because you F > only hear about Opteron doesn't mean that their plants don't produce" > other chips for other customers.  G The current demand for x86-64 chips does not let AMD make other things.   & > Just like IBM's plants don't produce > only Power chips.  > C > It s true however that CPUs do require the latest and greatest in  chipF > manufacturing process. But if you have a 65nm plant that is only 50% use F > for chips, it doesn't mean you can't use it to produce lower qualityA > stuff such as flash memory etc in the spare capacity your plant  offers.   : <sigh>, are you implying that AMD has spare capacity here?   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 07:32:22 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... B Message-ID: <1114947148.a17ae803defa635616c49c543f117145@teranews>   icerq4a@spray.se wrote: G > I don't understand what you mean. There is no reason Intel should not G > put full efforts in making Xeon better. Actually it is what they have H > done and will continue to do. That does not mean that their efforts on > Itanium change.   C Yes it does. Intel is under Wall Street Casino pressure to increase E profits. Wall Street knows that the 8086 line is competitive and that > profits are under pressure. This means that Intel needs to cutA unprofitable or expensive products that don't perform in order to B maintain global profitability in line with the value of its stock.  C Also, there is a new CEO stepping in and he has also stated that he = would be looking at ways to reduce costs and increse profits.   H Now, you have a high cost and low volume chip that requires a tremendousF amount of human resources to have it just keep up with the Jones', andA you have the 8086 that is moving up very fast in performnance and C scalability due to AMD forcing Intel's hand. And Intel is currently H lagging AMD in that market and AMD is capturing customers such as HP and IBM (as well as Sun).   H Hard fact: IA64 is the only living architecture not dual-core right now.C Even the 8086 now has it. Yes, IA64 will have it later this year or I early in 2006. But fact remains that IA64 is lagging other architectures.   H Intel needs to focus human resources on one platform to get at least oneB of its architectures to become a leader instead of having both lagE behind competitors. And to Intel, the 8086 is far more important than H IA64, especially since by 2007, the 8086 should be able to scale just asE well as IA64 in the 64 bit world and thus IA64 won't have any markets  that the 8086 can't handle.   F But right now, image/ego and relationship with HP and SGI require someG face saving moves to gracefully exit from IA64 without hurting too many F people. So this means continued statements to make people like Rob andE Kerry happy about IA64 (while the rest of the world knows how to read  between the lines).   H Intel and HP's actions in IA64 in 2004 are not consistant with a will toF expand IA64's market, at a time when should HP/Intel had really wanted> IA64 to succeed, they would have been expanding IA64's market.    A Lets face it, complain.os.vms isn't the only place where there is G serious questioning of the viability of IA64.  And HP/Intel have done a C very good job in the past 18 months in managing those rumours. They G haven't killed them, they have managed them.  Both Intel and HP have PR G and marketing machines that would have been able to kill those rumours. F And Intel wouln't have continued statements confirming it was lowering* expectation of market niche size for IA64.    D Right now, Intel and HP would do better by just admitting IA64 was aF failure and move on as fast as possible to catch up to AMD in the 8086F market. Alpha and PARisc have enough oumph left to bridge the gap. ButF the more you wait before making the announcement, the less you will beD able to bridge the gap and you will lose customers, especially if HP- really does stop Alpha sales later this year.    ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 10:00:32 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> A Subject: RE: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECF07@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20  > Sent: May 1, 2005 7:32 AM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com C > Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business....  >=20 > icerq4a@spray.se wrote: A > > I don't understand what you mean. There is no reason Intel=20  > should notB > > put full efforts in making Xeon better. Actually it is what=20 > they have B > > done and will continue to do. That does not mean that their=20 > efforts on > > Itanium change.  >=20E > Yes it does. Intel is under Wall Street Casino pressure to increase G > profits. Wall Street knows that the 8086 line is competitive and that @ > profits are under pressure. This means that Intel needs to cutC > unprofitable or expensive products that don't perform in order to D > maintain global profitability in line with the value of its stock. >=20E > Also, there is a new CEO stepping in and he has also stated that he ? > would be looking at ways to reduce costs and increse profits.  >=20B > Now, you have a high cost and low volume chip that requires a=20 > tremendousH > amount of human resources to have it just keep up with the Jones', andC > you have the 8086 that is moving up very fast in performnance and E > scalability due to AMD forcing Intel's hand. And Intel is currently > > lagging AMD in that market and AMD is capturing customers=20 > such as HP and > IBM (as well as Sun).  >=20B > Hard fact: IA64 is the only living architecture not dual-core=20 > right now.E > Even the 8086 now has it. Yes, IA64 will have it later this year or ? > early in 2006. But fact remains that IA64 is lagging other=20  > architectures. >=20@ > Intel needs to focus human resources on one platform to get=20 > at least oneD > of its architectures to become a leader instead of having both lagG > behind competitors. And to Intel, the 8086 is far more important than ? > IA64, especially since by 2007, the 8086 should be able to=20  > scale just as G > well as IA64 in the 64 bit world and thus IA64 won't have any markets  > that the 8086 can't handle.  >=20   JF -  G That analogy would be similar to telling Ford that they need to move to ? only one model of car to improve their overall focus and reduce  expenses.=20  G As far as pressure on Intel from Wall Street goes, check out the recent  announcements:   From Intel: > April 20, 2005 - "Intel rakes in $9.4 billion in three months"+ http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3D22654   	 From AMD:   2 January 18, 2005 - "AMD turns in $30 million loss"+ http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3D20783   A April 13, 2005 - "AMD posts loss, will spin off memory-chip unit" H http://news.com.com/AMD+posts+loss%2C+will+spin+off+memory-chip+unit/210$ 0-1006_3-5669787.html?tag=3Dnefd.top    B Now, based on the above, while there will always be pressure to doA better, who do you think (Intel or AMD) is feeling the heat more?    Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 07:29:49 -0700 * From: "Alan Greig" <greigaln@netscape.net>A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114957789.199754.197710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>    icer...@spray.se wrote:  > G > I don't understand what you mean. There is no reason Intel should not G > put full efforts in making Xeon better. Actually it is what they have E > done and will continue to do. That does not mean that their efforts  onE > Itanium change. AMD made some very good decisions in 1999, and they  are   F Of course it does. The Itanium was to become the new Industry StandardE Architecture remember? That term has been dropped now from everything ; other than a few VMS powerpoint slides. X64 is the new ISA.   A One could argue that Intel have won even bigger than AMD and have C played a bizarre long term strategic game. With the lure of Itanium @ they've managed to kill Alpha and PA-RISC and now hold HP by theB unmentionables. Sun realised the danger in time and jumped ship to- Opteron. Carly and Curly screwed up big time.   = > Would Intel have sold more CPUs if they only had Xeons? No.   E If Intel had better Xeons right now AMD wouldn't be selling nearly so C many high end chips so yes Intel would be selling more CPUs and AMD  less.   C > > The only possible chance of a future for the Itanic is if Intel  sellE > > it. And right now it would probably be a better bet for HP to buy  > AMD. > C > I guess you are joking. Today, no one but Intel can continue with G > Itanium, unless HP makes a complete turn-around and want to enter the  > CPU business again.   @ "No one but Intel" - Oh dear oh dear. HP depends on Intel for anF inferior product only it has platforms which have no (public at least)& "Plan B". No wonder Carly was sacked.  --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 08:43:21 -0700 * From: "Alan Greig" <greigaln@netscape.net>A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114962201.666193.156440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>    Main, Kerry wrote:   > F > That analogy would be similar to telling Ford that they need to move toA > only one model of car to improve their overall focus and reduce  > expenses.   F Nope because HP is the car maker and Intel the engine manufacturer. ItE is a bit like Ford telling an engine manufacturer (Intel) to build an > engine for it alone which is not as good as engines either the@ competition (AMD)currently has or the engine builder already has# planned for Ford and everyone else.   F Ford could offer a customer a choice of three engines - 1) (AMD) whichG runs on standard fuel, is very efficient and has a top speed of 120mph, ? 2) (Intel Xeon) which also uses standard fuel, is slightly less C efficient but has roughly the same top speed and 3) (Itanium) which G runs on special hard to get hold of fuel,  is inefficient and has a top - speed of 70mph downhill with the wind behind.   % Which engines will be market leaders?   B > As far as pressure on Intel from Wall Street goes, check out the recent > announcements: > 
 > From Intel: @ > April 20, 2005 - "Intel rakes in $9.4 billion in three months"+ > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22654   ; Intel are making money in areas where they have very little C competition. Without the billions poured into Itanic what would the  profits be?   : http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/19/technology/intel_analysis/E "Outgoing Intel CEO Craig Barrett said the strong results were driven A by demand for chips in mobile products, such as wireless laptops. B Barrett is retiring next month and will be replaced by Intel chief  operating officer Paul Otellini.  C Eric Ross, analyst with ThinkEquity Partners, said healthy sales of D wireless notebooks was extremely good news since chips used in theseD devices are more profitable than those for standard PCs and servers,: the computers used to build corporate computer networks. "  4 > January 18, 2005 - "AMD turns in $30 million loss"+ > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20783   E Naturally! Intel Are using their vast profits from other areas to try B and put AMD under pressure financially while they try and catch up technically.   > D > Now, based on the above, while there will always be pressure to doC > better, who do you think (Intel or AMD) is feeling the heat more?   G Neither. Funnily enough I suspect they both feel pretty smug right now. ! Well except for the Itanic folks.  --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 08:54:52 -0700  From: icerq4a@spray.seA Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114962892.073238.201540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>    Alan Greig wrote:  > Main, Kerry wrote: > = > Intel are making money in areas where they have very little  > competition.  F Really?, Intel usually makes the most money on it's CPU and especiallyA on it's x86 CPUs. Do they have very little competition in the CPU B business and in the x86 business? Intel usually have lots of other; loosing businesses including the network/wireless business.   8 > Without the billions poured into Itanic what would the
 > profits be?   D Not much different I would say. The money put into Itanium is pretty9 small compared to what they have invested in other areas.    ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 08:46:54 -0700  From: icerq4a@spray.seA Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114962414.244717.152010@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Alan Greig wrote:  > icer...@spray.se wrote:  > > E > > I don't understand what you mean. There is no reason Intel should  not D > > put full efforts in making Xeon better. Actually it is what they haveG > > done and will continue to do. That does not mean that their efforts  > onG > > Itanium change. AMD made some very good decisions in 1999, and they  > are  >  > Of course it does.   Well, I don't agree.  ? > > Would Intel have sold more CPUs if they only had Xeons? No.  > G > If Intel had better Xeons right now AMD wouldn't be selling nearly so E > many high end chips so yes Intel would be selling more CPUs and AMD  > less.   D I don't think so. The only thing thing Xeon was late with was 64-bitD support, it would not have been better in performance or power usageF and such. It looks like you are saying that AMD has only gained marketB share because of Intel decisions. I don't agree with that, AMD hasD gained market share (although I think its total share is still lower= now than it was in 2000) because it has engineered a good and F competetive product. AMD is a great company and I see no reason why itF shouldn't be able to engineer a better product than Intel from time to+ time. You are downplaying AMD's capability.   E > > > The only possible chance of a future for the Itanic is if Intel  > sellG > > > it. And right now it would probably be a better bet for HP to buy  > > AMD. > > E > > I guess you are joking. Today, no one but Intel can continue with E > > Itanium, unless HP makes a complete turn-around and want to enter  the  > > CPU business again.  > B > "No one but Intel" - Oh dear oh dear. HP depends on Intel for anA > inferior product only it has platforms which have no (public at  least)' > "Plan B". No wonder Carly was sacked.   0 I don't know what that have to with what I said.   ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 09:09:38 -0700  From: icerq4a@spray.seA Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... C Message-ID: <1114963778.161708.314710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    JF Mezei wrote:  > icerq4a@spray.se wrote: E > > I don't understand what you mean. There is no reason Intel should  not D > > put full efforts in making Xeon better. Actually it is what they haveG > > done and will continue to do. That does not mean that their efforts  on > > Itanium change.  > E > Yes it does. Intel is under Wall Street Casino pressure to increase G > profits. Wall Street knows that the 8086 line is competitive and that @ > profits are under pressure. This means that Intel needs to cutC > unprofitable or expensive products that don't perform in order to D > maintain global profitability in line with the value of its stock.  B If Itanium would begin to seriously hurt Intel's financials then IB would agree with you, but I think that is very unlikely to happen,C because even today it is fairly small in comparison to other things 	 Intel do.   ? > Now, you have a high cost and low volume chip that requires a 
 tremendousD > amount of human resources to have it just keep up with the Jones',  G Intel have had less people in the past and continue to have less people ? on Itanium than on x86. Very few of Intels 80000 people work on  Itanium.  E > Hard fact: IA64 is the only living architecture not dual-core right  now.E > Even the 8086 now has it. Yes, IA64 will have it later this year or < > early in 2006. But fact remains that IA64 is lagging other architectures.   I agree with this,? being late with dual-core on a server oriented CPU is not good.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 13:14:28 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>A Subject: Re: Maybe HP should get out of the hardware business.... = Message-ID: <_IadnZUwSbbrk-jfRVn-uQ@metrocastcablevision.com>    icerq4a@spray.se wrote:    ...   G >>If Intel had better Xeons right now AMD wouldn't be selling nearly so E >>many high end chips so yes Intel would be selling more CPUs and AMD  >>less.  >  >  > I don't think so.    I do.   4   The only thing thing Xeon was late with was 64-bit	 > support   G No, it's also *very* late to the on-chip routing and memory-controller  I party.  POWER4/4+ have had them since late 2001 (though the complete set  F of on-chip memory features only arrived with POWER5 last year), USIII F has had the latter since 2002 IIRC, EV7 got both features in January, * 2003, and Opteron got them 3 months later.  C Xeon won't get them until 2007 (with the cancellation of the Alpha  H Tukwila project even that date is starting to look iffy for Itanic, but  Xeon should still make it).   A Intel has had the Alpha team for almost 4 years now.  Had it not  A frittered their efforts away on Itanic it could have applied the  F technology which they brought with them (already fully-developed, and E Intel has the rights to put it to use) to P4/Xeon - which is in fact  C what a lot of us expected them to do (though with Itanic) when the  I technology-transfer took place, and we expected it to appear right about   now.  = > it would not have been better in performance or power usage  > and such.   G Why not?  If Intel hadn't been counting on Itanic to start taking over  B Xeon's server duties, it might have had the sense to realize that D extending the Prescott pipeline from the already-long Northwood 20+ > stages to 30+ stages in the pursuit of higher clock rates (as I distinguished from performance) for marketing purposes would be severely  G counter-productive in the server space (the Alpha team could certainly  @ have told them that had they not been focused solely on Itanic).  >   It looks like you are saying that AMD has only gained market# > share because of Intel decisions.   G No, he's saying that AMD has gained market share because its decisions  B were *better* than Intel's.  Had both companies made equally good E decisions (as Intel clearly *could* have, especially with the talent  G which Compaq donated to them), their market shares would have remained  	 constant.    - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 03:36:42 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> 9 Subject: Re: more questions on Cyrillic fonts and Mozilla , Message-ID: <427486DF.50BAF323@teksavvy.com>  / Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:   I > In the meantime (this is getting off-topic, so one last question): does G > anyone know what the exact meaning of the names in the font-directory ; > file is and how they correspond to font sizes in Mozilla?   C http://ns.yud.co.kr/share/usr_share/gnome/help/gfontsel/C/xlfd.html    you can also look at: ' http://www.x.org/X11R6.8/doc/fonts.html   E Although VMS is not up to date with X, the doc should still be mostly 8 applicable (except for newer font handling versatility).  O ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- S http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups K ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----    ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 02:39:11 -0700  From: icerq4a@spray.se- Subject: Re: Sandia says alpha the best chip! C Message-ID: <1114940351.449277.101760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   C That is pretty old news to me, and it did not change what the Alpha ! people were working on that much.    ------------------------------  % Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 04:38:07 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com>   Subject: Re: Slow Filesystem I/O0 Message-ID: <11795becudal36b@corp.supernews.com>   Bill Todd wrote: > Dave Froble wrote: >  > ...  > G >> Well, Ok, the way I read it is that some of the hardware on top end  E >> stuff is able to mask problems with writing large amounts of data  F >> quickly.  Get a bunch of cache and battery backup and you can mask G >> slower write performance, whether based on the filesystem design or  G >> other.  Only problem would be if you rammed the data at the storage :/ >> for a long period of time, say several days.e >> >> What did I miss?v >  > F > 1.  Stable write-back controller cache can *help* write performance I > somewhat, but (as Rob himself noted) it still has latency on the order fK > of a millisecond, so *at best* it can improve upon the latency of a fast eJ > disk by a factor of less than 10.  Write-back system cache, as I noted, K > can improve upon the latency of a fast disk by a factor of 100 or more - fH > plus whatever additional gains you get from not having to write out a K > significant amount of data at all (the data that gets deleted while it's bH > still in the cache), plus whatever the far greater write bandwidth to 9 > system cache gets you in terms of avoiding bottlenecks.u  ' Ok, I see the point about system cache.e  E The latest caching that VMS has seems to do a decent job.  I've seen !H cases of significant overall improvement, which is really apparent when  you turn off the caching.  :-)  G > Rob's contention was not the entirely reasonable one that write-back f7 > controller cache can *help* mask *some* of the major eH > default-write-performance handicap that VMS has compared with systems D > that use larger and better-streamed write-back buffering:  it was E > (first) that it masked the problem "for the most part" and (later) 1H > flatly that "the 'problem' of a slow filesystem is a non-problem" and J > "Won't matter how slow the filesystem is, the hardware will be there to A > mask it".  It's pretty incompetent to claim that spotting your dH > competition a 10:1 write-latency advantage (and an even greater write H > bandwidth advantage) is a 'non-problem' simply because you've reduced F > that handicap from more like 100:1 if you didn't use the controller D > caching at all - but then I'm guessing that Rob doesn't have much H > experience with modern Unix performance (and possibly that you don't, 
 > either).  % No, I don't have any Unix experience.6  E I'm guessing that it's very dependant upon the type of workload.  As e@ I've said elsewhere, some people use computer storage as a data ? destination, while others use it much more as a source of data.   H > 2.  Your 'long period of time' is nothing like 'several days'.  Let's D > take RMS's pathetic 8 KB default buffer as an example.  If you're C > stuffing sequential-file data at the disk as fast as RMS can (by fJ > default) destage it synchronously, you're placing that 8 KB on the disk E >  each disk revolution (i.e., every 4 - 6 ms. with a 15K or 10K rpm sA > FC/SCSI drive).  That's a data rate of a measly 1.3 - 2 MB/sec.k  E I've been into tuning systems for 30 years, though there wasn't much iD that you could on RSTS.  A serious system manager will not have the C default out-of-the-box settings.  It's always been a case of using eI memory to ease the bottlenecks.  For RMS, large and multiple buffers can sE be the difference between getting work done, and just being a heater.-  H > Well, that measly 1.3 - 2 MB/sec amounts to a not-so measly 4.7 - 7.2 I > GB/hour, and that's just the data rate that you want to *improve upon* uH > by using the write-back controller cache.  So if, for example, you're I > shooting just for the 10x improvement that Rob was boasting about (not nK > the 100x improvement you can get by using a system cache) you're talking uC > about gobbling up 40 - 60 GB of cache, per hour, per application tC > (because since you're accepting data about 5x faster than you'll IA > eventually be able to get rid of it to disk after taking queue aG > optimizations into account, most of the data that you stuff into the T? > cache during the hour will still be there at the hour's end).  > D > No, not all applications will stress the controller cache to this I > degree, so by all means decrease that amount by as much as an order of  I > magnitude (as long as you just want to cater to *average* environments 0K > rather than to the most demanding ones, anyway):  then on average you'll GK > fill up only 4 - 6 GB of cache per hour, per application.  Just how much 2J > (mirrored and battery-backed, of course) cache did you say you had, and G > just how much more expensive was it than unmirrored, volatile system nK > memory which also, not so incidentally, could be put to better uses when d > they had priority? > K > 3.  Then comes the question of what happens when your long (or, as noted .F > above, perhaps not-so-long) period of time is up, and your cache is D > full:  what does your data rate drop back to then?  Well, in this C > example, right back to 2.6 - 4 MB/sec (I'm assuming that queuing aH > optimizations will be able to double the IOPS for the disk, though if E > the disk is being shared with other applications both this and the tH > original 1.3 - 2 MB/sec figures should be reduced somewhat to account E > for additional seek overhead) - and that's where Spiralog came in, eH > because (even as implemented, and I believe that improvements on that J > were possible) it should have been able to sustain 20 - 40 MB/sec under K > that kind of load (the disks we're talking about here are today's disks, eJ > not those from Spiralog's era), which is where my comment about happily J > buying 5x - 20x as much disk just to compensate for the deficiencies of & > VMS's default data-handling came in. > B > The bottom line is that hardware cannot *wholly* compensate for J > poorly-designed data-handling, and just compensating *partially* is not J > cheap (large amounts of mirrored, battery-backed controller cache, many J > times as many disks - these are not down-in-the-noise expenses, even in  > a high-end system).  > K > Boasting that VMS doesn't perform as pitifully as it used to compared to  H > Unix if you throw enough expensive hardware at it (which Unix doesn't E > require) is not exactly the best way to win converts, I'll suggest.k   Agreed.S  H > You're right:  I don't like Rob.  While I don't consider him to be as K > much of an active sleaze as I've found Kerry and often Terry to be, they ,F > all vigorously defended the Alphacide while studiously ignoring (or G > actively attempting to spin away) mounting evidence that it was just lA > what we suspected it was, and continue to do so to this day by oH > uncritically touting Itanic (though I've heard that Terry may finally H > have seen something of the light in this area).  Kerry has an obvious H > job-related motive for pimping for cHumPaq and my impression was that K > Terry hoped to acquire one, whereas Rob's motivation is less clear:  for CJ > some reason he seems to develop organizational allegiances which cannot = > be weakened by any factual evidence - which I guess may be  G > characteristic of faith-based rather than analytical minds but which RJ > still doesn't explain the strength of the allegiance in the first place. > I > If Rob were simply an uncritical, enthusiastic supporter of the things yG > that he (for whatever reason) decides are worthy of his support, I'd uH > find him a lot more tolerable.  It's his continual attempt to portray @ > them as *relatively* far better than they are compared to the K > competition which causes me to slap him down hard, though without any of dJ > the distortions (intentional or sloppy - it's often hard to tell) which J > he himself so readily indulges in to support his (current) pet products G > (as we saw with Alpha, while his allegiance to organizations remains gG > steadfast, his allegiance to particular products can turn on a dime).   I The part that I really don't understand are the people who, just because nF something may not be good for them, can totally ignore it, or deny it.  H Anybody with 1/10 of a brain could see, years ago, that if AMD would be G reasonable successful with Hammer, that Intel would be vastly affected .D by that success, since Intel was moving in another direction, IA-64.  E Hey, I watched VAX and Alpha get marginalized by IA-32, and the main  D reason was volumn, not capability.  Many more people were replacing I typewriters and calculaters that were doing the traditional computing of h the 1975-1985 timeframe.  G The same applications were still on x86, and anything else just wasn't oA going to compete in terms of quantity.  If you cannot compete on f( quantity, you just don't compete at all.  G It wasn't ever a question of the capabilities of IA-64.  It has always h= been whether IA-64 could provide anything that x86 could not.e  G It's not Opteron that will directly affect itanic.  It's Intel's chips a> that are made to compete with Opteron that will affect itanic.  D How these people can ignore the really hugh event of Intel doing an # abrupt U-turn is just unbelievable.d  B How they can presume that it cannot happen again is beyond belief.  I And I'm just a casual observer, not somebody that watches all this stuff   every day, all day long.  H > I really don't give a damn whether people like the way I treat Rob or H > not:  as with cHumPaq, I'll stop when, and only when, I see some real H > attempt to make amends for what are (going on 4 years now) continuing G > transgressions (not to suggest that Rob's are anything comparable in  I > significance to cHumPaq's, but they both exude a similar stench).  But mH > I'm as careful with the facts when responding to Rob as I am in other G > situations - not that I give a damn about people who can't recognize   > that, either.  >  > - bill     --  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  15486e   ------------------------------   Date: 01 May 2005 09:13:14 GMT$ From: "Doc." <doc@openvms-rocks.com>4 Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS?7 Message-ID: <Xns9649723B7CB4Adcovmsrox@212.100.160.126>c  % %NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Main, Kerry wrote in  I news:FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECEEE@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net    <snip>  H > Even when the article stated that one of the more well know hackers atI > that event stated he only trusted OpenVMS to store his files (which youiG > would think implies a very good understanding of OpenVMS), you simply E > poo-poo this as not being important as *you* had not heard of him??   A Do *you* know who he is Kerry, and why his "testimony" is biased?M   <spoiler space>r                                                        / It was Terry Shannon with a joke business card.      Doc. -- hG OpenVMS:     Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems. G http://www.openvms-rocks.com    Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.d   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 09:52:30 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com>M4 Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS?R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECF06@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----. > From: Doc. [mailto:doc@openvms-rocks.com]=20 > Sent: May 1, 2005 5:13 AMA > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 6 > Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS? >=20) > %NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Main, Kerry wrote in=20y@ > news:FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECEEE@tayexc19.americas.
 > cpqcorp.netq >=20 > <snip> >=20B > > Even when the article stated that one of the more well know=20 > hackers at= > > that event stated he only trusted OpenVMS to store his=20h > files (which youA > > would think implies a very good understanding of OpenVMS),=20d > you simplyG > > poo-poo this as not being important as *you* had not heard of him??s >=20C > Do *you* know who he is Kerry, and why his "testimony" is biased?e >=20 > <spoiler space>i >=20   Re: Terry and business card ..  E ..mmm, while that *may* be true (what about the Belgian francs or wasDG that fiction?), it does not change my point in that without knowing whowH is at a public hacking event like this, how can anyone just assume it isD nothing but script kiddies and rookies with no experience other thanE hacking *nux or Windows systems using all the typical attack methods?    Regardsl  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultants HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660l Fax: 613-591-4477s kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 14:08:21 GMT:( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <3dk66lF6tufjdU1@individual.net>  R In article <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECF06@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>,* 	"Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: > I >               , it does not change my point in that without knowing whotJ > is at a public hacking event like this, how can anyone just assume it isF > nothing but script kiddies and rookies with no experience other thanG > hacking *nux or Windows systems using all the typical attack methods?a  @ Statistical evidence is in my favor.  I can rely on the relative= obscurity of VMS in the real world to point to a much smallernB number of likely VMS hackers compared to Unix and Windows hackers.B Unless your going to tell us now that the infamous 411,000 systems) is off by at least 2 orders of magnitude.h   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>   l   ------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 10:37:17 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> 4 Subject: RE: What is Different or Special About VMS?R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECF09@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----$ > From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu=20A > [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannont > Sent: May 1, 2005 10:08 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com 6 > Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS? >=20 > In article=20o@ > <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECF06@tayexc19.americas.cpqc > orp.net>,s, > 	"Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: > >=20B > >               , it does not change my point in that without=20
 > knowing whoeB > > is at a public hacking event like this, how can anyone just=20 > assume it isH > > nothing but script kiddies and rookies with no experience other than< > > hacking *nux or Windows systems using all the typical=20 > attack methods?  >=20B > Statistical evidence is in my favor.  I can rely on the relative? > obscurity of VMS in the real world to point to a much smaller'D > number of likely VMS hackers compared to Unix and Windows hackers.D > Unless your going to tell us now that the infamous 411,000 systems+ > is off by at least 2 orders of magnitude.t >=20 > bill >=20  F Heck, for all you or I know, NSA, FBI and whoever else (foreign types)< with real experience on many platforms may have attended to:   - take note of who is theren - learn new tricks they can usee. - try out new things they have been developing  D Or, as you stated, it could have been rookie *nix/Windows types thatA only know the typical ftp/telnet hacks published on the Internet.r  J Since neither of us know for sure, it is pure speculation on your part.=20  . The reality is likely somewhere in the middle.   :-)o   Regards   
 Kerry Main Senior Consultantv HP Services Canada Voice: 613-592-4660t Fax: 613-591-4477  kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom (remove the DOT's and AT)=20  $ "OpenVMS has always had integrity .. Now, Integrity has OpenVMS .."   ------------------------------   Date: 1 May 2005 15:14:14 GMT-( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)4 Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?, Message-ID: <3dka25F6uab6jU1@individual.net>  R In article <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECF09@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>,* 	"Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes: >  >> -----Original Message-----z% >> From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu=20aB >> [mailto:bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon >> Sent: May 1, 2005 10:08 AMd >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com7 >> Subject: Re: What is Different or Special About VMS?e >>=20r >> In article=20A >> <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB5ECF06@tayexc19.americas.cpqcc >> orp.net>,- >> 	"Main, Kerry" <kerry.main@hp.com> writes:e >> >=20hC >> >               , it does not change my point in that without=20= >> knowing whoC >> > is at a public hacking event like this, how can anyone just=20. >> assume it issI >> > nothing but script kiddies and rookies with no experience other than = >> > hacking *nux or Windows systems using all the typical=20  >> attack methods? >>=20 C >> Statistical evidence is in my favor.  I can rely on the relativeo@ >> obscurity of VMS in the real world to point to a much smallerE >> number of likely VMS hackers compared to Unix and Windows hackers.dE >> Unless your going to tell us now that the infamous 411,000 systemsi, >> is off by at least 2 orders of magnitude. >>=20  >> bill  >>=20  > H > Heck, for all you or I know, NSA, FBI and whoever else (foreign types)> > with real experience on many platforms may have attended to:  H I have no doubt that NSA and FBI were represented (although not publiclyG I am sure) at this event.  I also have no doubt they didn't spend their0$ time trying to capture VMS's "root".   >  > - take note of who is thereh  B Primary mission.  And one I am sure the real hackers know which isD why I said I would be more concerned about the ones who wren't there than the one who were.  ! > - learn new tricks they can uses  B I doubt much of anything come out at DEFCON that NSA isn't alreadyA aware of.  That's one of the differences between the DEFCON geekso and real professionals.6  0 > - try out new things they have been developing  D Thay have all the facilities they need to try "things they have beenD developing" in a secure environment.  Why would they bother going to? Las Vegas except maybe to gamble a bit on the taxpayers dollar?i   > F > Or, as you stated, it could have been rookie *nix/Windows types thatC > only know the typical ftp/telnet hacks published on the Internet.u  $ The statistically most likely event.   > L > Since neither of us know for sure, it is pure speculation on your part.=20 > 0 > The reality is likely somewhere in the middle.  D Maybe so, but it still doesn't change the fact that placing a lot of8 value on DEFCON over NIST/NSA/DISCON looks pretty silly.   bill p   --  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>       ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.242 ************************