1 INFO-VAX	Thu, 06 Oct 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 557       Contents: "Get off the Itanic" Re: "Get off the Itanic" "Get off the Itanic" Re: "Get off the Itanic" Re: "Get off the Itanic"2 Re: BZIP2 (1.0.3) v. VMS -- yet another adaptation2 Re: BZIP2 (1.0.3) v. VMS -- yet another adaptation Re: Drawlib not loaded Re: Drawlib not loaded Re: Drawlib not loaded Re: Drawlib not loaded" How long for a shadow copy over CI& Re: How long for a shadow copy over CI/ Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today / Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today / Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today  Re: HP's strategy explained :  Re: HP's strategy explained : % Missed opportunity for VMS marketing.  Re: More on HSJ40 hung tapes' Re: Problems downloading Apache from HP ' Re: Problems downloading Apache from HP  Re: Process accounting status  Re: SWXCR RAID Configuration Re: Time to produce EV79s! Re: Time to produce EV79s! Re: Time to produce EV79s! RE: Time to produce EV79s! RE: Time to produce EV79s! Re: Time to produce EV79s! Re: Time to produce EV79s!' Re: VMS consultants/experts please read ' Re: VMS consultants/experts please read , Re: What is holding up linux on wall street?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?6 Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?/ Re: [F$GETQUI] How to find all execution queues   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 18:16:51 -0400 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net>  Subject: "Get off the Itanic" : Message-ID: <i8SdnX067JZIzdnenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>  E Just got this from Sun Microsystems.  It's worth a small grin; we've  0 been saying this all along; now we have company!  4 http://www.sun.com/emrkt/itanic/index.html?cid=46376   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 15:36:37 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com ! Subject: Re: "Get off the Itanic" C Message-ID: <1128551797.802975.210030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   E notice they have a hp ux  and tru64 migration program but not OpenVMS G ... they know who they can buffalo and who they can't ... but any tru64 < user should realize that vms is their best migration option?   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:21:30 GMT 3 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net>  Subject: "Get off the Itanic" < Message-ID: <_dZ0f.749$R62.469@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>  E Just got this from Sun Microsystems.  It's worth a small grin; we've  0 been saying this all along; now we have company!  4 http://www.sun.com/emrkt/itanic/index.html?cid=46376   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:02:54 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>! Subject: Re: "Get off the Itanic" + Message-ID: <434485CD.9115A845@comcast.net>    "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:  > F > Just got this from Sun Microsystems.  It's worth a small grin; we've2 > been saying this all along; now we have company! > 6 > http://www.sun.com/emrkt/itanic/index.html?cid=46376  H If nothing else, it underscores that Sun's marketing folks stride boldly6 forth to where OpenVMS marketing folks dare not tread.   Shameful...    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:21:26 GMT 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>! Subject: Re: "Get off the Itanic" < Message-ID: <GS%0f.759$R62.661@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:  > F > Just got this from Sun Microsystems.  It's worth a small grin; we've2 > been saying this all along; now we have company! > 6 > http://www.sun.com/emrkt/itanic/index.html?cid=46376  H If nothing else, it underscores that Sun's marketing folks stride boldly6 forth to where OpenVMS marketing folks dare not tread.   Shameful...    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------  * Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:26:47 -0500 (CDT)* From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda); Subject: Re: BZIP2 (1.0.3) v. VMS -- yet another adaptation 2 Message-ID: <05100518264786_20200274@antinode.org>  G    After a bit more fooling around, I've assembled a BZIP2 kit with the   usual source and binaries.  See:  +       http://antinode.org/dec/sw/bzip2.html   $       http://antinode.org/ftp/bzip2/       ftp://antinode.org/bzip2/     G    The IA64 C compiler/optimizer problem (or should I say, "the problem ? seen when using the IA64 C compiler"?) has been reported to the C TestDrive fellow who claims to have passed it along to the compiler C fellow.  IA64 users who have something other than "HP C S7.1-013 on G OpenVMS IA64 V8.2" might wish to see if they have the same difficulty.   Could be interesting.   $    As usual, complaints are welcome.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:21:12 GMT * From: sms@antinode.org (Steven M. Schweda); Subject: Re: BZIP2 (1.0.3) v. VMS -- yet another adaptation < Message-ID: <Y5_0f.752$R62.501@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>  G    After a bit more fooling around, I've assembled a BZIP2 kit with the   usual source and binaries.  See:  +       http://antinode.org/dec/sw/bzip2.html   $       http://antinode.org/ftp/bzip2/       ftp://antinode.org/bzip2/     G    The IA64 C compiler/optimizer problem (or should I say, "the problem ? seen when using the IA64 C compiler"?) has been reported to the C TestDrive fellow who claims to have passed it along to the compiler C fellow.  IA64 users who have something other than "HP C S7.1-013 on G OpenVMS IA64 V8.2" might wish to see if they have the same difficulty.   Could be interesting.   $    As usual, complaints are welcome.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  4    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-98183    382 South Warwick Street        sms@antinode-org     Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547    ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 11:56:26 -0700  From: jordan@ccs4vms.com Subject: Re: Drawlib not loaded B Message-ID: <1128538586.141682.78750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  E So essentially, all 3D support on pre EV6 systems is dropped once you E upgrade to V8.2, plus a subset of graphics cards will stop working at  all.  G Sorry to gripe but that is disappointing, and it will mean at least one C downgrade on my home systems (ZLXp-L1 to ZLXp-E2 in order to retain F graphics) and the dropping of our only work 3D capable system (a PWS).C When Display Postscript went away there was a legal requirement for E that to happen.  I suppose this cut falls under 'business reasons'...   D Time to start looking for cheap EV6 boxies again... at least I still7 have a Powerstorm 300 tucked away for that eventuality.    Rich   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:21:16 GMT  From: jordan@ccs4vms.com Subject: Re: Drawlib not loaded < Message-ID: <MIV0f.731$R62.650@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>  E So essentially, all 3D support on pre EV6 systems is dropped once you E upgrade to V8.2, plus a subset of graphics cards will stop working at  all.  G Sorry to gripe but that is disappointing, and it will mean at least one C downgrade on my home systems (ZLXp-L1 to ZLXp-E2 in order to retain F graphics) and the dropping of our only work 3D capable system (a PWS).C When Display Postscript went away there was a legal requirement for E that to happen.  I suppose this cut falls under 'business reasons'...   D Time to start looking for cheap EV6 boxies again... at least I still7 have a Powerstorm 300 tucked away for that eventuality.    Rich   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 13:21:02 -0700  From: jordan@ccs4vms.com Subject: Re: Drawlib not loaded C Message-ID: <1128543662.354921.249130@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   B Sorry, but I did not post this twice.  Of course if this note also: appears twice then google must be doing something wonky...   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:21:15 GMT  From: jordan@ccs4vms.com Subject: Re: Drawlib not loaded ; Message-ID: <ftX0f.741$R62.56@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   B Sorry, but I did not post this twice.  Of course if this note also: appears twice then google must be doing something wonky...   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 12:36:55 -0700 ' From: "syslost" <wm.reynolds@gmail.com> + Subject: How long for a shadow copy over CI B Message-ID: <1128541015.194378.19900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  E On a VAX 7000, VMS 6.2, dual cixcd dual hsj50 controllers and 9.1 gig D drives shadowed across different pairs of hsjs, how long do complete shadow copies take?    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:59:16 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>/ Subject: Re: How long for a shadow copy over CI + Message-ID: <434484F4.71C8AAA2@comcast.net>    syslost wrote: > G > On a VAX 7000, VMS 6.2, dual cixcd dual hsj50 controllers and 9.1 gig F > drives shadowed across different pairs of hsjs, how long do complete > shadow copies take?   % As always, the answer is: it depends.   ; What else is going on in the cluster? ...the I/O subsystem?   : Is this first shadow-copy ever for this shadow-set member?  C How much, if any, data was changed while the member was broken out?    Spindle speed?  	 Dual CIs?   ; Any logical names set to adjust the shadow-copy throttling?    Lots o' questions...  C Might be easier/quicker to just go ahead and run one, then find the H start and completion messages in the OPCOM log, and calc. the difference between the time stamps:  > $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$CVTIME( "stop_time-start_time",, "time" )   Example:A $ WRITE SYS$OUTPUT F$CVTIME( "21:42:21.87-17:33:49.53",, "time" )  04:08:32.34    Note: E That technique can only cross a midnight boundary once. Starting with A V7.3-2, the F$DELTA_TIME() lexical appears which can subtract two H absolute date/time expressions and return the difference as a delta-time expression.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 12:24:16 -0700  From: mark_hpq@yahoo.com8 Subject: Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march todayC Message-ID: <1128540256.940230.233970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    > N > What about the customers? What about 3rd party people? What about the damage. > the strikers are doing to their own economy? >   G Most customers and 3rd party people support the HP employees on strike. D A lot of letters have been received by customers who attest of this.  @ One of the reason of the strike is that these job cuts are going to lower customer satisfaction. D The damage for the moment was minimal. Many strikers returned to the; office after the protest march to handle customer problems.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:21:43 GMT  From: mark_hpq@yahoo.com8 Subject: Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today: Message-ID: <rBW0f.735$R62.8@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   > N > What about the customers? What about 3rd party people? What about the damage. > the strikers are doing to their own economy? >   G Most customers and 3rd party people support the HP employees on strike. D A lot of letters have been received by customers who attest of this.  @ One of the reason of the strike is that these job cuts are going to lower customer satisfaction. D The damage for the moment was minimal. Many strikers returned to the; office after the protest march to handle customer problems.    ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 21:19:27 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)8 Subject: Re: HP : Massive strike and protest march today+ Message-ID: <3qiuavFf6dhqU1@individual.net>   : In article <rBW0f.735$R62.8@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>, 	mark_hpq@yahoo.com writes:  >  >>O >> What about the customers? What about 3rd party people? What about the damage / >> the strikers are doing to their own economy?  >> > I > Most customers and 3rd party people support the HP employees on strike. F > A lot of letters have been received by customers who attest of this. > B > One of the reason of the strike is that these job cuts are going! > to lower customer satisfaction.   ? Resulting in a loss of business as potential customers learn of @ the dis-satisfaction, thereby justifying not only these cuts but+ future  ones as well.  Typical union logic.    bill     --  J Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolvesD bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton   |A Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>       ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:40:17 -0400  From: Rich <none@none.com>& Subject: Re: HP's strategy explained :8 Message-ID: <e479k1tgvjlvn10lhfsij2o6c9a6m9apr4@4ax.com>    1.  Cut jobs. 2.  Save money.  3.  Shore up stock price.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:21:06 GMT  From: Rich <none@none.com>& Subject: Re: HP's strategy explained :: Message-ID: <SC11f.763$R62.6@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>    1.  Cut jobs. 2.  Save money.  3.  Shore up stock price.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:44:44 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> . Subject: Missed opportunity for VMS marketing., Message-ID: <4344ABAA.B24A3826@teksavvy.com>  G The ABC (USA) TV series "Lost" features some elaborate cave system with F some "research" project begun in 1980. It features some computers (oldG IBM mag drives seen, as well as an APPLE II used as a "console" (and it 2 is , part of the ploty, something they can't stop)  H Now, imagine if the VMS folks had gotten their act together and gave theE ABC producers some VAX 780s and VT100s with requirement that "VMS" be C mentioned in a context that it has been running without any crashes $ since 1980 and no virus can hack it.  E You would have seen some fancy research cave with DEC gear, and heard  conversations such as:  C "This thing runs on VMS and hasn't crashed since it was installed". H These days, we're used to expecting computers to crash, but VMS doesn't,D and I have to keep entering those codes every 108 minutes to preventJ xxxxxx from happening". Can't hack in because it has very strong security.    G Now, the next day, you follow up with full page ads in major newspapers  with something akin to:   H "You may have seen VMS featured in LOST yesterday, did you know that VMSC is still available, is still being developped, has state of the art 0 clustering, disaster tolerance etc etc etc etc".  H (eg: they saw "VMS" on the popular TV show, and the next day, the ownersC of VMS tell them that VMS is for real and available today on modern A machines, and still based on the high wuality ultra reliable code  written by mature engineers.)    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:48:33 -0500 2 From: David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net>% Subject: Re: More on HSJ40 hung tapes + Message-ID: <43448271.4C84671B@comcast.net>    Alan Greig wrote:  > B > Ok. a week ago I posted about a problem with tapes hung on HSJ40I > controllers. The suggested work-around of deleting the unit then adding D > it back again worked but after less than a week it re-occurred. As@ > several people emailed me to say they used to see this problemD > regularly on the HSJ40 I am trying to understand why. Firmware bugD > surely? Firmware installed is V34J-0. i couldn't find the firmwareI > immediately on the HP site so can anyone tell me the latest release and F > where I might find it? Any comments as to whether ayone recalls this, > problem being fixed by a firmware upgrade?  F I only ever had that problem when the drive encountered a bad tape and# really choked on it in a major way.    --   David J Dachtera dba DJE Systems  http://www.djesys.com/  ) Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: " http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/  ( Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/   " Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page: http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/    Coming soon:& Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 11:23:20 -0700  From: tomarsin2015@comcast.net0 Subject: Re: Problems downloading Apache from HPC Message-ID: <1128536600.545645.204010@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>    Hello F I finally was able to download the kit. Really dont understand it, but' I had no problem using a Win98 system.   Thanks for the help/input. phil   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:21:13 GMT  From: tomarsin2015@comcast.net0 Subject: Re: Problems downloading Apache from HP< Message-ID: <JIV0f.730$R62.317@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   Hello F I finally was able to download the kit. Really dont understand it, but' I had no problem using a Win98 system.   Thanks for the help/input. phil   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 20:18:07 -0200 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)& Subject: Re: Process accounting status, Message-ID: <434434ff$1@news.langstoeger.at>  t In article <1AC0f.2102$R4.275565@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Skippy" <paynoattentionto@themanbehindthe.curtain> writes:H >Have recently seen a couple of instances of Interactive processes beingB >terminated, and the resulting status message shown in ACCOUNT is: > $ >        %RMS-F-RER, file read error  J Yes, TELNET and every DECterm closed via Alt-F4 or "File" "Exit" does this> RER, but RTAs ? Never saw this so far (and also not with SSH).+ As Hoff wrote, enable virtual terminals via    $       IF arch .EQS. "VAX"  $	THEN7 $	    MCR SYSGEN CONNECT VTA0/NOADAPTER/DRIVER=TTDRIVER  $	ELSE> $	    MCR SYSMAN IO CONNECT VTA0/NOADAPTER/DRIVER=SYS$TTDRIVER $	ENDIF / $	DEFINE/SYSTEM/EXECUTIVE	TCPIP$RLOGIN_VTA	TRUE / $	DEFINE/SYSTEM/EXECUTIVE	TCPIP$TELNET_VTA	TRUE   H and your users can reconnect to the very same session (if disconnected).  G >Would this indicate something like a line error, dropping the session?   ; Could well be. But check again which kind of connections...   G >(VAX 7.1, Alpha 8.2, DECnet-IV and DECnet-Plus, UCX and TCPware, so no 9 >common denominator other than the users and the network)    Strange.   --   Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER % Network and OpenVMS system specialist  E-mail  peter@langstoeger.atF A-1030 VIENNA  AUSTRIA              I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:02:31 GMT 6 From: "Andy Bustamante" <a_c_bustamante@earthlink.net>% Subject: Re: SWXCR RAID Configuration < Message-ID: <HbX0f.1113$dB4.1072@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>  J The configuration software is available on the Alpha Firmware CDs.  You'll; need to shut down the system and run this from the console.   J You can configure a hot spare disk.  I've had mixed results in replacing aK disk "on the fly" and boot the configuration utlity.  There is a hard limit K (32 GB if I recall) on the size of a logical unit.  Not an issue when 2 & 4 L GB disks were the standard.  There is also an SWXCR utility to monitor/alterG these disks from VMS.  The CSC should be able to dig up a copy of this.    --       Andy Bustamante  Remove the ASCII 95s for e-mail     : "Shahin Yaz" <Shahinyaz@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message6 news:O5G0f.542$R62.355@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp...F > I have an Alpha 2100 with a SWXCR RAID controller, but have not beenD > able to find any documentation on how to use the config utlity. IsH > there any useful documentation / notes out there ? What is the processA > for changing a failing disk ? Is it just a matter of physically F > replacing it with a working one while the system is on-line ? and noH > other soft steps ?  Is it possible to have a spare disk installed thatH > the system will switch to automatically in the event of failure on one > of the working set ? > ) > Thanks in advance for any help on this.  > 	 > Regards  >  > Shahin >  >    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:06:12 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net># Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s! = Message-ID: <99OdnYMyp4q4udneRVn-uQ@metrocastcablevision.com>    Main, Kerry wrote: >>-----Original Message-----2 >>From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]  >>Sent: October 5, 2005 3:21 AM  >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com % >>Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s!  >> >>Main, Kerry wrote: >> >>>>-----Original Message-----; >>>>From: bob@instantwhip.com [mailto:bob@instantwhip.com]  ! >>>>Sent: October 4, 2005 9:38 PM  >>>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com # >>>>Subject: Time to produce EV79s!  >>>>C >>>>ok Sue and everyone else at HP ... after reading this, itaniums C >>>>future doesn't look bright, and it is now time to make IBM live ; >>>>up to its legal obligations and start making EV79s NOW!  >>>>B >>>>The chip improvement timeline looks like a disaster since they+ >>>>removed the alpha team from itanium ...  >>>>C >>>>Do it now or lose vms customers to IBM!  Why can't IBM have not B >>>>had NIH syndrome and bought vms for power????????  FOOLS!!!!!! >>>> >>>>- >>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26519  >>>> >>>> >>>  >>>  >>> > >>>Bob, the day after that article was printed, the following  >> >>article also >> >>>appeared: >>> , >>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26552& >>>IBM's Power 5+ to launch at 2.1GHz 1 >>>Disappointing for IBM, cheering news for Intel : >>>By Charlie Demerjian: Thursday 29 September 2005, 08:06 >>D >>It's amusing how quick Itanic boosters are to jump in glee at the " >>thought that POWER5+ may fizzle. >> >  > 
 > [snip..] > J > And just as amusing is how quick the pro "anything but Itanium" boostersJ > are to post any Itanium (or Intel in general) doom-n-gloom stories which0 > supports their theory that the sky is falling.  ; Save for the major difference in factual support behind it.    >  > :-)  > F > The reality is that all of the CPU chip vendors are currently havingJ > issues with trying to find the right balance between heat and higher cpu	 > speeds.   A Horseshit.  AMD is easily ramping up clock speeds, even in their  C dual-core chips.  Their latest 2.4 GHz mobile Athlon64 has a power  E envelope of only 35W, making it clear that the 120W envelope for the  I dual-core 2.6 GHz part will be only *very* temporary and 3 GHz or faster  F single-core parts should be imminent as well (unless they just aren't I feeling any pressure from Intel to advance single-core speeds yet - they  D may well be selling all the chips they can make at the moment at an I excellent margin, and could decide to wait until there's at least *some*  0 competitive movement that they want to counter).  G And for that matter there's some reason to suspect that IBM would have  H announced a somewhat faster introductory speed for POWER5+ (and perhaps B even bumped POWER5 a bit) had *they* been feeling any competitive D pressure to do so - but they're already selling POWER5 systems like F hotcakes (while Itanic continues to wallow around at not much greater @ performance than it had over two years ago when Madison I first G appeared, and continuing to fail to attract buyers outside those whose  , vendor has offered them little alternative).   - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:21:29 GMT ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net># Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s! < Message-ID: <ZIV0f.733$R62.669@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   Main, Kerry wrote: >>-----Original Message-----2 >>From: Bill Todd [mailto:billtodd@metrocast.net]  >>Sent: October 5, 2005 3:21 AM  >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com % >>Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s!  >> >>Main, Kerry wrote: >> >>>>-----Original Message-----; >>>>From: bob@instantwhip.com [mailto:bob@instantwhip.com]  ! >>>>Sent: October 4, 2005 9:38 PM  >>>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com # >>>>Subject: Time to produce EV79s!  >>>>C >>>>ok Sue and everyone else at HP ... after reading this, itaniums C >>>>future doesn't look bright, and it is now time to make IBM live ; >>>>up to its legal obligations and start making EV79s NOW!  >>>>B >>>>The chip improvement timeline looks like a disaster since they+ >>>>removed the alpha team from itanium ...  >>>>C >>>>Do it now or lose vms customers to IBM!  Why can't IBM have not B >>>>had NIH syndrome and bought vms for power????????  FOOLS!!!!!! >>>> >>>>- >>>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26519  >>>> >>>> >>>  >>>  >>> > >>>Bob, the day after that article was printed, the following  >> >>article also >> >>>appeared: >>> , >>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26552& >>>IBM's Power 5+ to launch at 2.1GHz 1 >>>Disappointing for IBM, cheering news for Intel : >>>By Charlie Demerjian: Thursday 29 September 2005, 08:06 >>D >>It's amusing how quick Itanic boosters are to jump in glee at the " >>thought that POWER5+ may fizzle. >> >  > 
 > [snip..] > J > And just as amusing is how quick the pro "anything but Itanium" boostersJ > are to post any Itanium (or Intel in general) doom-n-gloom stories which0 > supports their theory that the sky is falling.  ; Save for the major difference in factual support behind it.    >  > :-)  > F > The reality is that all of the CPU chip vendors are currently havingJ > issues with trying to find the right balance between heat and higher cpu	 > speeds.   A Horseshit.  AMD is easily ramping up clock speeds, even in their  C dual-core chips.  Their latest 2.4 GHz mobile Athlon64 has a power  E envelope of only 35W, making it clear that the 120W envelope for the  I dual-core 2.6 GHz part will be only *very* temporary and 3 GHz or faster  F single-core parts should be imminent as well (unless they just aren't I feeling any pressure from Intel to advance single-core speeds yet - they  D may well be selling all the chips they can make at the moment at an I excellent margin, and could decide to wait until there's at least *some*  0 competitive movement that they want to counter).  G And for that matter there's some reason to suspect that IBM would have  H announced a somewhat faster introductory speed for POWER5+ (and perhaps B even bumped POWER5 a bit) had *they* been feeling any competitive D pressure to do so - but they're already selling POWER5 systems like F hotcakes (while Itanic continues to wallow around at not much greater @ performance than it had over two years ago when Madison I first G appeared, and continuing to fail to attract buyers outside those whose  , vendor has offered them little alternative).   - bill   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:25:47 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> # Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s! , Message-ID: <43446F08.D216D4E3@teksavvy.com>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:F > The reality is that all of the CPU chip vendors are currently havingJ > issues with trying to find the right balance between heat and higher cpu9 > speeds. No one vendor has (yet) found the magic potion.     F The reality is that large volume chips strategic to the chip maker areB more likely to see the resources allocated to tackle these issues.  A The 8086 is strategic to Intel. Intel can't allow it to fall back H otherwise it loses market share to AMD and that makes the news. Intel isH measured on its 8086 market performance. Wall street hasn't noticed IA64N yet, and when they do, they will tell Intel to ditch it and focus on the 8086.  F Apple went to the 8086 because of greater assurance of availability of2 high speed chips scaled from laptop to big server.    E IA64 doesn't even try to scale down, Intel has formally said it would H pitch IA64 to high end. This locks VMS out of the biggets portion of the& market. Is that really what you want ?  A For the sake of VMS, for the success of VMS, VMS needs to be on a ; mainstream chip that is scaled from laptop to data-centre.    F Is it worth defending IA64 if it still means that VMS is restricted in& its potential market because of IA64 ?  B It is bad enough that VMS has artificial limitations on marketing,D having chip limitations on potential market is far more delibilatingJ since it ruls VMS out of the compeition for the largest potential markets.  G The health and success of VMS are far more important than continuing to C justify a wrong political decision made years ago (moving to Ia64).    ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 00:01:27 -0400' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> # Subject: RE: Time to produce EV79s! R Message-ID: <FD827B33AB0D9C4E92EACEEFEE2BA2FB70C13E@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>   > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20  > Sent: October 5, 2005 8:26 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com % > Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s!  >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote:H > > The reality is that all of the CPU chip vendors are currently having@ > > issues with trying to find the right balance between heat=20 > and higher cpu; > > speeds. No one vendor has (yet) found the magic potion.  >=20 >=20H > The reality is that large volume chips strategic to the chip maker areD > more likely to see the resources allocated to tackle these issues. >=20C > The 8086 is strategic to Intel. Intel can't allow it to fall back > > otherwise it loses market share to AMD and that makes the=20 > news. Intel is@ > measured on its 8086 market performance. Wall street hasn't=20 > noticed IA64@ > yet, and when they do, they will tell Intel to ditch it and=20 > focus on the 8086. >=20H > Apple went to the 8086 because of greater assurance of availability of4 > high speed chips scaled from laptop to big server. >=20 >=20G > IA64 doesn't even try to scale down, Intel has formally said it would > > pitch IA64 to high end. This locks VMS out of the biggets=20 > portion of the( > market. Is that really what you want ? >=20  F No, that is not what Intel stated, That is what JF interpreted without any formal reference.   F Intel has stated in formal Cust letters the Itanium market is 2-128CPUH business systems. That is quite a bit more than "high end" only systems.  C > For the sake of VMS, for the success of VMS, VMS needs to be on a ? > mainstream chip that is scaled from laptop to data-centre.=20  >=20H > Is it worth defending IA64 if it still means that VMS is restricted in( > its potential market because of IA64 ? >=20  E Again, my vote would be to invest in the OS and getting more ISV's on G board. Spending another 2-3 years on another HW port instead just seems ) to be a really tough thing to justify.=20   E For most Cust business exec's, what chip their applications run on is D likely somewhere near #123 on their list of things they worry about.  D > It is bad enough that VMS has artificial limitations on marketing,F > having chip limitations on potential market is far more delibilating< > since it ruls VMS out of the compeition for the largest=20 > potential markets. >=20> > The health and success of VMS are far more important than=20 > continuing to E > justify a wrong political decision made years ago (moving to Ia64).  >=20   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:21:23 GMT ' From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@hp.com> # Subject: RE: Time to produce EV79s! ; Message-ID: <7D11f.765$R62.40@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>    > -----Original Message-----9 > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20  > Sent: October 5, 2005 8:26 PM  > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com % > Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s!  >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote:H > > The reality is that all of the CPU chip vendors are currently having@ > > issues with trying to find the right balance between heat=20 > and higher cpu; > > speeds. No one vendor has (yet) found the magic potion.  >=20 >=20H > The reality is that large volume chips strategic to the chip maker areD > more likely to see the resources allocated to tackle these issues. >=20C > The 8086 is strategic to Intel. Intel can't allow it to fall back > > otherwise it loses market share to AMD and that makes the=20 > news. Intel is@ > measured on its 8086 market performance. Wall street hasn't=20 > noticed IA64@ > yet, and when they do, they will tell Intel to ditch it and=20 > focus on the 8086. >=20H > Apple went to the 8086 because of greater assurance of availability of4 > high speed chips scaled from laptop to big server. >=20 >=20G > IA64 doesn't even try to scale down, Intel has formally said it would > > pitch IA64 to high end. This locks VMS out of the biggets=20 > portion of the( > market. Is that really what you want ? >=20  F No, that is not what Intel stated, That is what JF interpreted without any formal reference.   F Intel has stated in formal Cust letters the Itanium market is 2-128CPUH business systems. That is quite a bit more than "high end" only systems.  C > For the sake of VMS, for the success of VMS, VMS needs to be on a ? > mainstream chip that is scaled from laptop to data-centre.=20  >=20H > Is it worth defending IA64 if it still means that VMS is restricted in( > its potential market because of IA64 ? >=20  E Again, my vote would be to invest in the OS and getting more ISV's on G board. Spending another 2-3 years on another HW port instead just seems ) to be a really tough thing to justify.=20   E For most Cust business exec's, what chip their applications run on is D likely somewhere near #123 on their list of things they worry about.  D > It is bad enough that VMS has artificial limitations on marketing,F > having chip limitations on potential market is far more delibilating< > since it ruls VMS out of the compeition for the largest=20 > potential markets. >=20> > The health and success of VMS are far more important than=20 > continuing to E > justify a wrong political decision made years ago (moving to Ia64).  >=20   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:37:01 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> # Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s! , Message-ID: <4344A9DB.B19C9582@teksavvy.com>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:H > Intel has stated in formal Cust letters the Itanium market is 2-128CPUJ > business systems. That is quite a bit more than "high end" only systems.    H Non customers saw waht the media reported. And for that IA64 to grow, itH needs to attract new customers who won't have seen those formal customer@ letters. Remember that during 2004, Intel and HP sent MANY clearF messages that IA64's market niche was being narrowed. If the media hadE mistakenly reported those announcements, both Intel and HP would have O tried to counter those misreads. Instead, they continued with the same message.    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 05:21:14 GMT - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> # Subject: Re: Time to produce EV79s! < Message-ID: <ev21f.767$R62.573@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   "Main, Kerry" wrote:H > Intel has stated in formal Cust letters the Itanium market is 2-128CPUJ > business systems. That is quite a bit more than "high end" only systems.    H Non customers saw waht the media reported. And for that IA64 to grow, itH needs to attract new customers who won't have seen those formal customer@ letters. Remember that during 2004, Intel and HP sent MANY clearF messages that IA64's market niche was being narrowed. If the media hadE mistakenly reported those announcements, both Intel and HP would have O tried to counter those misreads. Instead, they continued with the same message.    ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 12:12:37 -0700 ( From: "denny" <denny_rich@ameritech.net>0 Subject: Re: VMS consultants/experts please readC Message-ID: <1128539557.541765.220130@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    I can't resist:   G I have worked with Digital/Compaq/HP since 1978 (when I first touched a  VAX). G Since 1999, I have been DRA Consulting, providing VMS system management 4 and consulting to a small but satisfied client base.  , email me at wdrich at dra-consulting dot com regards,
 Denny Rich   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:21:19 GMT ( From: "denny" <denny_rich@ameritech.net>0 Subject: Re: VMS consultants/experts please read< Message-ID: <PIV0f.732$R62.262@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   I can't resist:   G I have worked with Digital/Compaq/HP since 1978 (when I first touched a  VAX). G Since 1999, I have been DRA Consulting, providing VMS system management 4 and consulting to a small but satisfied client base.  , email me at wdrich at dra-consulting dot com regards,
 Denny Rich   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 20:34:06 -0400 ! From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) 5 Subject: Re: What is holding up linux on wall street? + Message-ID: <di1rdu$c68$1@panix3.panix.com>   3 In article <FcR0f.13898$_P7.3818@news.cpqcorp.net>, 3 Keith Parris  <keithparris_NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:  >Al Dykes wrote:B >> OpenVMS is, as I understand it, the standard for stock exchangeG >> trading floor systems.  The first full SEC-sanctioned stock exchange B >> to open in 27 years opened about 4 years ago (The InternationalK >> Securities Exchange, NY) and the floor system was a Scandanavian package  >> running on OpenVMS. >  >OMX, from Sweden. > C >> HP did a benchmark for them recently that demonstrated 1 million  >> quotes/sec. >  >Yep.  > ? >> At least some of the backend systems were Oracle on Windows.  > H >While there are some Windows boxes in less-critical roles (but I don't F >recall any with Oracle Server), the back-end is built around OpenVMS H >systems including an OpenVMS multi-site disaster-tolerant cluster with  >Oracle Rdb as the database.    E The surveillance system that was written for the startup was built on B Oracle running on a Windows server and that's how it ran when they@ went live. It got about a GB a day of transaction data from OMX.  2 The database could be running on anything by now.   8 Surveillance analysist desktops were Windows, of course.  F I guess it depends on the definition of "backend".  We always referred to it as that. --    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m   ! Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.    ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 10:35:20 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? C Message-ID: <1128533720.106892.306640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    Bill Todd wrote: > AEF wrote: > > Bill Todd wrote: > >  > >>Main, Kerry wrote: > >>  > >>>>-----Original Message-----: > >>>>From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]& > >>>>Sent: September 29, 2005 3:03 PM > >>>>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com E > >>>>Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce?  > >>>> > >>>>"Main, Kerry" wrote: > >>>> > >>>>@ > >>>>>1. Although it would be nice, Itanium does not need to be > >>>> > >>>>the leader in  > >>>> > >>>>@ > >>>>>latest speeds-n-feeds in order to be successful.  It just > >>>> > >>>>needs to be  > >>>> > >>>>K > >>>>>competitive. Heck, Sun has proven that over the years and as slow as  > >>>>>SPARC was,  > >>>> > >>>>J > >>>>There is a big difference here. SPARC was succesfull, considered the? > >>>>"industry standard" for Unix and was widely regarded as a  > >>>>safe platform. > >>>>L > >>>>IA64 has none of those attributes. It doesn't have an established userJ > >>>>base, it is new and already talk of killing it because it just isn'tK > >>>>what it promised it would be. And more importantly, HP and Intel have G > >>>>already started to cannabalise it by limiting its market niche to K > >>>>supercomputers, and then there is the writing on the wall with the 64 > > >>>>bit 8086 which Intel swore woudl never happen, coming to > >>>>further reduce > >>>>IA64's remaining niche.  > >>>> > >>>  > >>> 1 > >>>Wow, where have you been getting this stuff?  > >>L > >>I'll answer that question just to keep you honest, Kerry - though that's > >>always a difficult task. > >>J > >>"There is a big difference here" indeed, and he goes on to explain it, > >>point by point:  > >>K > >>"SPARC was successful" - very much so, to the point that it established E > >>a loyal user base large enough to have weathered years of sub-par G > >>performance and still remain the largest single Unix customer base.  > >  > > 2 > > Uh, Kerry also said that SPARC was successful. > J > Don't try so hard to be obtuse.  Kerry tried to claim that because SPARCI > was successful despite sub-par performance Itanic could be as well.  JF B > observed that the situations were totally different:  being veryI > successful (based in part on a history of very competitive performance)   A I don't recall JF saying anything about "a history of competitive 
 performance".   H > is what *allows* a platform to ride through even an extended period ofD > inferiority, and has nothing to do with whether an *unestablished* > platform can do the same.  >  > - bill    4 OK. But to slightly alter Kerry's argument somewhat:  F If Windows can be successful, almost anything can. This is, of course,G NOT to say that this means Itanium WILL be successful. It's just to say E that NOT being the highest-speed/lowest-heat/(add your own here) chip  doesn't guarantee its doom.    ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:56:31 GMT 6 From: "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.spyderbyte.com>? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? = Message-ID: <jtU0f.90366$SL.2208530@twister.southeast.rr.com>   ' <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message  = news:1127997942.208024.216130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... C > We all read about all these big vms users so excited that vms was B > moving to an "industry standard" platform ... they all knew thatC > itanium wasn't even close to alpha and never will be according to H > DEC engineering reports, but they persisted in their idiocy regardless
 > ... why? > B > And more importantly, know that they see itanium as the farce it5 > is, why are they not demanding alpha startup again?      Bob,   Are you using any Itaniums?   G I arun two of them. They work just a well for me as the Alphas I have.  H Might not be as fast, I don't know, but they have been just as reliably.  K I wonder how many of you Itanium whiners are actually using one.  My guess  M is very few if any.  Of all the people/companies I know using them I haven't   heard one complaint...not one!  M So in one hand we have whiners who aren't using Itaniums and in the other we  1 have companies using Itaniums with no complaints.   L If you're running an Itanium and have complaints please forgive, I've never  heard from you.      Ken   % _____________________________________  Kenneth Farmer <>< 336-736-7376 3 www.OpenVMS.org | dba.OpenVMS.org | dcl.OpenVMS.org  HP OpenVMS News and Info   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:58:30 GMT 6 From: "Kenneth Farmer" <kfarmer@NOSPAM.spyderbyte.com>? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? = Message-ID: <avU0f.90382$SL.2208735@twister.southeast.rr.com>   ; "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message  & news:433C3A74.1EC6333D@teksavvy.com... > "Main, Kerry" wrote:J >> 1. Although it would be nice, Itanium does not need to be the leader inH >> latest speeds-n-feeds in order to be successful.  It just needs to beG >> competitive. Heck, Sun has proven that over the years and as slow as 
 >> SPARC was,  >  > F > There is a big difference here. SPARC was succesfull, considered theJ > "industry standard" for Unix and was widely regarded as a safe platform. > H > IA64 has none of those attributes. It doesn't have an established userF > base, it is new and already talk of killing it because it just isn'tG > what it promised it would be. And more importantly, HP and Intel have C > already started to cannabalise it by limiting its market niche to G > supercomputers, and then there is the writing on the wall with the 64 I > bit 8086 which Intel swore woudl never happen, coming to further reduce  > IA64's remaining niche.  > G > Sun saw the writing on the wall and the demand from customers to have I > Solaris on the 8086. Not only did it revoke its decision to abandon the ; > 8086, but it has now embraced the 8086 platform big time.  > F > It is time for VMS to do the same. It cannot succeed on a low volumeC > small market niche platform. VMS would be far mroe succesful on a C > mainstream platform where its future would no longer always be in J > question. If Intel and AMD stop making 8086s,  VMS won't be alone in theF > dark, it will be in good company with some 95% of the market. EG: It > won't happen.     8 How many Itaniums are you running or responsible for JF?     Ken   % _____________________________________  Kenneth Farmer <>< 336-736-7376 3 www.OpenVMS.org | dba.OpenVMS.org | dcl.OpenVMS.org  HP OpenVMS News and Info   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:31:25 -0400 ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? = Message-ID: <h4udnY1psOSSt9neRVn-pw@metrocastcablevision.com>    Kenneth Farmer wrote: ) > <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message  ? > news:1127997942.208024.216130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...  > C >>We all read about all these big vms users so excited that vms was B >>moving to an "industry standard" platform ... they all knew thatC >>itanium wasn't even close to alpha and never will be according to H >>DEC engineering reports, but they persisted in their idiocy regardless
 >>... why? >>B >>And more importantly, know that they see itanium as the farce it5 >>is, why are they not demanding alpha startup again?  >  >  >  > Bob, >  > Are you using any Itaniums?  > I > I arun two of them. They work just a well for me as the Alphas I have.  J > Might not be as fast, I don't know, but they have been just as reliably.  H Reluctant as I may be to associate myself with much that Bob says, I'll F observe that he wasn't suggesting that Itanics are *unreliable*:  his H statement (especially given the associated context in this environment) C was clearly that they were not a good *performance* substitute for  8 Alpha, and you've said nothing above to contradict that.   > B > I wonder how many of you Itanium whiners are actually using one.  H Don't be such a moron.  What's going on here is nothing like 'whining': I   it's perfectly valid criticism.  And it's directed at least as much at  G the *decision* to scrap Alpha for an inferior replacement as at Itanic  - per se (save for perhaps a couple of cranks).   B cHumPaq screwed up royally, broke long-standing and very explicit C promises to its customer base, actively lied about its reasons and  D justifications, severely damaged VMS sales in the process, outright I killed Tru64 as a consequence, and has never uttered one word of apology  H to its users or offered any hint of an inclination to try to compensate G for the damage it did (e.g., by doing something to try to reinvigorate  C VMS even just to the point of returning to its somewhat precarious   pre-Alphacide health).  H As for the ability to evaluate relative Itanic performance, that's what E benchmarks are for - and non-Itanic owners can study them as well as  F Itanic owners can (in fact, arguably better, given that a significant I percentage of the relatively small Itanic customer base likely haven't a  > clue what they're missing in that area:  you obviously don't).      My guess O > is very few if any.  Of all the people/companies I know using them I haven't    > heard one complaint...not one!  I Criticizing one's own decisions isn't all that common a trait, you know.  G   People tend to live with them and even attempt to find ex post facto  E justification for them unless there's just no way to ignore the fact  % that they were down-right disastrous.   H Having purchased Itanic isn't an utter disaster, at least not yet.  And D there's a pretty good chance that even if Intel winds up dumping it E people will get enough useful life out of their systems that they'll  H mostly just have paid the price of using a somewhat inferior system and G still having to make a second transition down the road - which will be  F painful and possibly career-limiting for individuals but likely won't  put any companies under.  E No, most of the criticism here is still directed at cHumPaq, and the  D specific (and entirely justified) Itanic criticism is more a way of ? providing solid evidence to back it up.  If/when cHumPaq takes  G significant steps to rectify the damage that the Alphacide created, at  G least a large portion of the pointed Itanic criticism should fade away.    - bill   ------------------------------  # Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:22:11 GMT ( From: Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? < Message-ID: <TBW0f.737$R62.314@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   Kenneth Farmer wrote: ) > <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message  ? > news:1127997942.208024.216130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...  > C >>We all read about all these big vms users so excited that vms was B >>moving to an "industry standard" platform ... they all knew thatC >>itanium wasn't even close to alpha and never will be according to H >>DEC engineering reports, but they persisted in their idiocy regardless
 >>... why? >>B >>And more importantly, know that they see itanium as the farce it5 >>is, why are they not demanding alpha startup again?  >  >  >  > Bob, >  > Are you using any Itaniums?  > I > I arun two of them. They work just a well for me as the Alphas I have.  J > Might not be as fast, I don't know, but they have been just as reliably.  H Reluctant as I may be to associate myself with much that Bob says, I'll F observe that he wasn't suggesting that Itanics are *unreliable*:  his H statement (especially given the associated context in this environment) C was clearly that they were not a good *performance* substitute for  8 Alpha, and you've said nothing above to contradict that.   > B > I wonder how many of you Itanium whiners are actually using one.  H Don't be such a moron.  What's going on here is nothing like 'whining': I   it's perfectly valid criticism.  And it's directed at least as much at  G the *decision* to scrap Alpha for an inferior replacement as at Itanic  - per se (save for perhaps a couple of cranks).   B cHumPaq screwed up royally, broke long-standing and very explicit C promises to its customer base, actively lied about its reasons and  D justifications, severely damaged VMS sales in the process, outright I killed Tru64 as a consequence, and has never uttered one word of apology  H to its users or offered any hint of an inclination to try to compensate G for the damage it did (e.g., by doing something to try to reinvigorate  C VMS even just to the point of returning to its somewhat precarious   pre-Alphacide health).  H As for the ability to evaluate relative Itanic performance, that's what E benchmarks are for - and non-Itanic owners can study them as well as  F Itanic owners can (in fact, arguably better, given that a significant I percentage of the relatively small Itanic customer base likely haven't a  > clue what they're missing in that area:  you obviously don't).      My guess O > is very few if any.  Of all the people/companies I know using them I haven't    > heard one complaint...not one!  I Criticizing one's own decisions isn't all that common a trait, you know.  G   People tend to live with them and even attempt to find ex post facto  E justification for them unless there's just no way to ignore the fact  % that they were down-right disastrous.   H Having purchased Itanic isn't an utter disaster, at least not yet.  And D there's a pretty good chance that even if Intel winds up dumping it E people will get enough useful life out of their systems that they'll  H mostly just have paid the price of using a somewhat inferior system and G still having to make a second transition down the road - which will be  F painful and possibly career-limiting for individuals but likely won't  put any companies under.  E No, most of the criticism here is still directed at cHumPaq, and the  D specific (and entirely justified) Itanic criticism is more a way of ? providing solid evidence to back it up.  If/when cHumPaq takes  G significant steps to rectify the damage that the Alphacide created, at  G least a large portion of the pointed Itanic criticism should fade away.    - bill   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 15:46:44 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com ? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? C Message-ID: <1128552404.152853.323950@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   ( no, are they cheaper than ds10l's yet???  3 I am waiting to see all of these $2,000 itaniums we 0 were promised would appear ... as off yet I have4 seen none ... but we are now starting to look beyond5 the ds10l's and I see nothing beyond the rx1600 early 3 developers box that is out there now that justifies 6 license fees and a migration form alpha ... all I have< heard is Intel stating that the itaniums were for "big iron": users, which means I guess forget all the small and medium7 vms user base ... if this does not change in the coming : years, we will have to run the ds series to its conclusion< and then most likely run a vms emulator on an amd peecee ...; it is up to HP to give the non big iron users an option ...    ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:55:27 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> ? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? 0 Message-ID: <11k90l93g9t9m6b@corp.supernews.com>   Kenneth Farmer wrote: ) > <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message  ? > news:1127997942.208024.216130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...  > C >>We all read about all these big vms users so excited that vms was B >>moving to an "industry standard" platform ... they all knew thatC >>itanium wasn't even close to alpha and never will be according to H >>DEC engineering reports, but they persisted in their idiocy regardless
 >>... why? >>B >>And more importantly, know that they see itanium as the farce it5 >>is, why are they not demanding alpha startup again?  >  >  >  > Bob, >  > Are you using any Itaniums?  > I > I arun two of them. They work just a well for me as the Alphas I have.  J > Might not be as fast, I don't know, but they have been just as reliably.  A It's not an issue of fast, or reliable.  It's an issue of future  F availability.  The stories keep coming, and each one paints a picture  less favorable than the last.   E If VMS users were still able to get Alpha, or even VAX systems, they  I would have the idea that DEC/Compaq/HP would continue to producr systems  I as long as there were buyers.  The owners of VMS would have CONTROL over  : the future availability of CPUs.  That's not the case now.  * > I wonder how many of you Itanium whiners  C As Bill points out elsewhere, that's a pretty cheap shot.  Someone  9 doesn't agree with you, they're automatically a 'whiner'?   % What's your definition of a 'whiner'?   D Was I a whiner 3 years ago when I predicted that AMD's HAMMER would D force Intel to defend their x86 turf?  If saying something and time G proves it correct is whining, just what is the statements of those who  9 time has shown to be in error?  What should we call them?   $ > are actually using one.  My guess O > is very few if any.  Of all the people/companies I know using them I haven't    > heard one complaint...not one!  E No, I'm not using an itanic.  I have no current needs for one.  If I  G did, I would have no problems with using one.  Assuming they are still  D available.  They're available today, and I hope they continue to be E available, since the future of VMS currently depends upon them to be  D available.  But, if I had to bet the farm, based upon current Intel  actions, no way!   --  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: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:01:54 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) ? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? L Message-ID: <rdeininger-0510052201530001@user-uinj4v9.dialup.mindspring.com>  C In article <1128552404.152853.323950@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,  bob@instantwhip.com wrote:  ) >no, are they cheaper than ds10l's yet???   G Yes, Itaniums are cheaper than DS10L's were, when DS10L's were for sale I new.  Your milage may vary in the used market.  I wouldn't surprise me if B you can buy used DS10L systems cheaper than new Integrity systems.    4 >I am waiting to see all of these $2,000 itaniums we >were promised would appear   I I don't recall seeing any such promise.  I heard predictions for a couple G of years that VMS Itanium systems would be substantially less expensive G than comparable Alpha systems.  And that has come to pass.  But I never A heard of a $2000 system being planned, or announced, or promised.    >... as off yet I have5 >seen none ... but we are now starting to look beyond 6 >the ds10l's and I see nothing beyond the rx1600 early4 >developers box that is out there now that justifies( >license fees and a migration form alpha  D The rx1600 isn't an "early developers [sic] box".  It's a productionC system and thousands are in use running several different operating . systems, including VMS.  Ditto for the rx1620.  F I can't talk about future systems that are in the works; if you have aI need for such information, please contact OpenVMS product management, and H be prepared to sign an NDA.  Or just wait for the public announcements. G (Please be aware that nobody in the OpenVMS organization is involved in 1 the timing of announcements for new HP hardware.)     E The rx1620 outperforms the DS10L pretty much across the board.  It is J cheaper than the DS10L was.  Both systems support the same VMS feature set for the most part.  F If you have a substantive problem with these systems, you've failed to9 express it coherently.  So I can't offer any suggestions.    > ... all I have >heard    I You mean "all you have chosen to hear"?  Several VMS people have provided ( detailed information here and elsewhere.  7 >is Intel stating that the itaniums were for "big iron"  >users,   J You put "big iron" in quotation marks.  Who are you quoting?  Probably notI Intel, I've never seen them say that about Itanium.  Are you quoting your  own misconceptions?   4 >which means I guess forget all the small and medium >vms user base    G Well, this is where you've gotten confused.  HP continues to design and H sell new entry-level Itanium systems, and VMS continues to support them.  * >... if this does not change in the coming; >years, we will have to run the ds series to its conclusion = >and then most likely run a vms emulator on an amd peecee ... < >it is up to HP to give the non big iron users an option ...   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:21:12 GMT ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> ? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? < Message-ID: <sS%0f.756$R62.643@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   Kenneth Farmer wrote: ) > <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote in message  ? > news:1127997942.208024.216130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...  > C >>We all read about all these big vms users so excited that vms was B >>moving to an "industry standard" platform ... they all knew thatC >>itanium wasn't even close to alpha and never will be according to H >>DEC engineering reports, but they persisted in their idiocy regardless
 >>... why? >>B >>And more importantly, know that they see itanium as the farce it5 >>is, why are they not demanding alpha startup again?  >  >  >  > Bob, >  > Are you using any Itaniums?  > I > I arun two of them. They work just a well for me as the Alphas I have.  J > Might not be as fast, I don't know, but they have been just as reliably.  A It's not an issue of fast, or reliable.  It's an issue of future  F availability.  The stories keep coming, and each one paints a picture  less favorable than the last.   E If VMS users were still able to get Alpha, or even VAX systems, they  I would have the idea that DEC/Compaq/HP would continue to producr systems  I as long as there were buyers.  The owners of VMS would have CONTROL over  : the future availability of CPUs.  That's not the case now.  * > I wonder how many of you Itanium whiners  C As Bill points out elsewhere, that's a pretty cheap shot.  Someone  9 doesn't agree with you, they're automatically a 'whiner'?   % What's your definition of a 'whiner'?   D Was I a whiner 3 years ago when I predicted that AMD's HAMMER would D force Intel to defend their x86 turf?  If saying something and time G proves it correct is whining, just what is the statements of those who  9 time has shown to be in error?  What should we call them?   $ > are actually using one.  My guess O > is very few if any.  Of all the people/companies I know using them I haven't    > heard one complaint...not one!  E No, I'm not using an itanic.  I have no current needs for one.  If I  G did, I would have no problems with using one.  Assuming they are still  D available.  They're available today, and I hope they continue to be E available, since the future of VMS currently depends upon them to be  D available.  But, if I had to bet the farm, based upon current Intel  actions, no way!   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-04504 Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596> DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com 170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:21:35 GMT 5 From: rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) ? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? ; Message-ID: <PS%0f.760$R62.74@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   C In article <1128552404.152853.323950@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,  bob@instantwhip.com wrote:  ) >no, are they cheaper than ds10l's yet???   G Yes, Itaniums are cheaper than DS10L's were, when DS10L's were for sale I new.  Your milage may vary in the used market.  I wouldn't surprise me if B you can buy used DS10L systems cheaper than new Integrity systems.    4 >I am waiting to see all of these $2,000 itaniums we >were promised would appear   I I don't recall seeing any such promise.  I heard predictions for a couple G of years that VMS Itanium systems would be substantially less expensive G than comparable Alpha systems.  And that has come to pass.  But I never A heard of a $2000 system being planned, or announced, or promised.    >... as off yet I have5 >seen none ... but we are now starting to look beyond 6 >the ds10l's and I see nothing beyond the rx1600 early4 >developers box that is out there now that justifies( >license fees and a migration form alpha  D The rx1600 isn't an "early developers [sic] box".  It's a productionC system and thousands are in use running several different operating . systems, including VMS.  Ditto for the rx1620.  F I can't talk about future systems that are in the works; if you have aI need for such information, please contact OpenVMS product management, and H be prepared to sign an NDA.  Or just wait for the public announcements. G (Please be aware that nobody in the OpenVMS organization is involved in 1 the timing of announcements for new HP hardware.)     E The rx1620 outperforms the DS10L pretty much across the board.  It is J cheaper than the DS10L was.  Both systems support the same VMS feature set for the most part.  F If you have a substantive problem with these systems, you've failed to9 express it coherently.  So I can't offer any suggestions.    > ... all I have >heard    I You mean "all you have chosen to hear"?  Several VMS people have provided ( detailed information here and elsewhere.  7 >is Intel stating that the itaniums were for "big iron"  >users,   J You put "big iron" in quotation marks.  Who are you quoting?  Probably notI Intel, I've never seen them say that about Itanium.  Are you quoting your  own misconceptions?   4 >which means I guess forget all the small and medium >vms user base    G Well, this is where you've gotten confused.  HP continues to design and H sell new entry-level Itanium systems, and VMS continues to support them.  * >... if this does not change in the coming; >years, we will have to run the ds series to its conclusion = >and then most likely run a vms emulator on an amd peecee ... < >it is up to HP to give the non big iron users an option ...   ------------------------------  % Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:41:43 -0400 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? , Message-ID: <43449CE9.8FC76999@teksavvy.com>   Robert Deininger wrote: I > Yes, Itaniums are cheaper than DS10L's were, when DS10L's were for sale  > new.      F And new 1gig drives were sellling for less than CAD $1000 when Digital8 was still sellling new 154meg RD54s for about CAD $9000.  A If your purpose is to cover your butt and try to justify the IA64 H decisions, then of course, you will ensure that Alpha and PaRisc systemsB will be priced uncompetitively to give some incentive to go to the unwanted IA64.  G If your purpose is to sell what your customers want, you then find ways F to make your Alpha and PaRisc systems move down in price to match your6 competition (IBM and SUN and DELL in case you forgot).    F Ia64 was probably something similar to OSI and X.400.  At the time, itA seemed like a good idea with potential for full featured standard F networking and email. But by the time those products became available.0 TCPIP and SMTP had already taken over the world.  H Had IA64 materialised in the mid 1990s, perhaps it could have become theD industry standard and used the massive Y2K replacement cycle to makeE IA64 the standard architecture from desktop to data centre.  A decade @ later, when IA64 actually became usable commercially (eg: forgetJ Merced), it was way too late and the 8086 was now the entrenched standard.  @ Look at how much it costed DEC to wait too long before admitting? OSI/X.400 weren't going to make it and start to focus on TCPIP.     G It is useless to try to push IA64 upcurrant. It's missed the train. Too F little, too late. Lacks market acceptance. And the very arguments usedD to murder Alpha are coming back to bite IA64 because they apply even
 more to IA64.   D Customers have not forgotten the betrayal when Alpha's beheading wasB announced on June 25 2001. And when they see those arguments applyD equally to IA64, why should they have any confidence that IA64 has a long bright future ?   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:21:19 GMT - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> ? Subject: Re: Why did VMS users go along with the itanium farce? < Message-ID: <3D11f.764$R62.287@news-virt.s-kddi1.home.ne.jp>   Robert Deininger wrote: I > Yes, Itaniums are cheaper than DS10L's were, when DS10L's were for sale  > new.      F And new 1gig drives were sellling for less than CAD $1000 when Digital8 was still sellling new 154meg RD54s for about CAD $9000.  A If your purpose is to cover your butt and try to justify the IA64 H decisions, then of course, you will ensure that Alpha and PaRisc systemsB will be priced uncompetitively to give some incentive to go to the unwanted IA64.  G If your purpose is to sell what your customers want, you then find ways F to make your Alpha and PaRisc systems move down in price to match your6 competition (IBM and SUN and DELL in case you forgot).    F Ia64 was probably something similar to OSI and X.400.  At the time, itA seemed like a good idea with potential for full featured standard F networking and email. But by the time those products became available.0 TCPIP and SMTP had already taken over the world.  H Had IA64 materialised in the mid 1990s, perhaps it could have become theD industry standard and used the massive Y2K replacement cycle to makeE IA64 the standard architecture from desktop to data centre.  A decade @ later, when IA64 actually became usable commercially (eg: forgetJ Merced), it was way too late and the 8086 was now the entrenched standard.  @ Look at how much it costed DEC to wait too long before admitting? OSI/X.400 weren't going to make it and start to focus on TCPIP.     G It is useless to try to push IA64 upcurrant. It's missed the train. Too F little, too late. Lacks market acceptance. And the very arguments usedD to murder Alpha are coming back to bite IA64 because they apply even
 more to IA64.   D Customers have not forgotten the betrayal when Alpha's beheading wasB announced on June 25 2001. And when they see those arguments applyD equally to IA64, why should they have any confidence that IA64 has a long bright future ?   ------------------------------   Date: 5 Oct 2005 21:48:09 -0200 6 From: peter@langstoeger.at (Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOEGER)8 Subject: Re: [F$GETQUI] How to find all execution queues, Message-ID: <43444a19$1@news.langstoeger.at>  ` In article <434321DC.1DD9C0A5@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys.nospam@comcast.net> writes:( >Huh??? WHat are you looking for then???  ? See the initial post. I'm looking for a keyword for F$GETQUI to C *ONLY* get execution queues (just like the keyword "GENERIC" to get J generic queues *ONLY*). I couldn't believe that this keyword is not there. How inconsistent...   H >What kinds of execution queues are there other than PRINTER, SERVER and
 >TERMINAL?   I don't care ;-)H I have only PRINTER queues and I'm using "SYMBIONT" just for the case...  F >       You can specify more than one keyword. If you do not specify aF >       keyword with the /DEVICE qualifier, all printer, terminal, and$ >       server queues are displayed. >     A >Notice that SYMBIONT is not a valid keyword for /DEVICE=keyword.   A Yup. But we're discussing about the not existent flag "EXECUTION" F and not about "SYMBIONT". (And /DEVICE without any keyword is symbiont as you quoted above)  F >....or is it that you want a keyword that specifies not only symbiont. >queues, but non-generic batch queues as well?  M No. I separate batch and symbiont queues. And this works ("BATCH" "SYMBIONT") 9 But I also want to separate generic and execution queues. J And this doesn't work with keywords only (as there is no "EXECUTION" word, only "GENERIC").   >What's wrong with:  > 6 >$ GEN_QUE = F$GETQ( DSP_QUE, QUE_GEN, QNAM, FRZ_CTX )F >$ IF GEN_QUE THEN go get the next one	! Skip the non-execution queues  K A better/another example for a question to jump over. I already posted one. J But originally I thought there must be a keyword "EXECUTION" or similar...   So, thanks for responding    --   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   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.557 ************************