1 INFO-VAX	Sun, 04 Sep 2005	Volume 2005 : Issue 494       Contents:0 RE: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)0 Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance+ Re: Microsoft to limit Windows apps on IA64 + Re: Microsoft to limit Windows apps on IA64   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  $ Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 18:36:23 +10006 From: "O'Brien Paddy" <Paddy.O'Brien@transgrid.com.au>9 Subject: RE: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) X Message-ID: <8BAD914A0B8CA84C9E94187103A1AB9E05BE9B@EX-TG2-PR.corporate.transgrid.local>  , This is a multi-part message in MIME format.  ' ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5B12B.BB930544 . Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable     . Much though I hate coming into this thread ...   [snips throughout]  
 AEF wrote:  I > And I don't recall much discussion about the levees breaking until they ( > did. Could be I just missed that part.  I > Apparently, the mayor didn't anticipate the levees not holding. Had the 2 > levees held, things would have been MUCH better.  L And had the hurricane never happened, things would have been much better to= o.  L I agree with JF.  The situation with the levees was known.  Nobody wanted b=L efore the event to plough billions into re-inforcing them.  But now that "t=L he horse has bolted", everbody wants to be the nice guy and put this extra =L money into re-building/re-inforcing them.  This was from a (UK) BBC news it=I em which URL I do not have, but easily obtained via http://news.bbc.co.uk   - > Guys won't use urinals after 24 hours pass?   L I assume that JF was making the point that we don't just pee.  Men have oth=7 er functions, as do women and the whole animal kingdom.   C > Giuliani didn't need all this help once the towers came down. Our G > Naitonal Guard wasn't largely tied up in the other disaster, Iraq.=20   L Many people believe that was a self-made disaster, created by US and aided =L by other countries, mainly UK and Australia, which is becoming another Viet=L nam.  The first priority should be one's own country.  Probably Bush would =L not lose too much "face" by using this as an excuse to pull out some percen=L tage of troops.  We (generic -- US, UK and Australia) seem now to be exacer= bating the bloodshed.   L When the tsunami occurred end of last year, many countries sent aid (civili=H an and military) to help the relief.  Would US allow that on their soil?   Regards, Paddy    G ***********************************************************************   C "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged @ and confidential information intended only for the use of the=20D addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of=20C this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise D the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,=207 distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.   C If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid=20 C immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the=20 ? individual sender except where the sender expressly and with=20 C authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid uses > virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses contained in any attachment.  < Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now$ firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"  G ***********************************************************************     ' ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5B12B.BB930544 - Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">  <HTML> <HEAD>L <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-= 1"> K <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0"> ? <TITLE>RE: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15)</TITLE>  </HEAD>  <BODY>) <!-- Converted from text/plain format -->  <BR>  D <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Much though I hate coming into this thread ...<BR> <BR> [snips throughout]<BR> <BR> AEF wrote:<BR> <BR>L &gt; And I don't recall much discussion about the levees breaking until the= y<BR> / &gt; did. Could be I just missed that part.<BR>  <BR>L &gt; Apparently, the mayor didn't anticipate the levees not holding. Had th= e<BR> 9 &gt; levees held, things would have been MUCH better.<BR>  <BR>L And had the hurricane never happened, things would have been much better to= o.<BR> <BR>L I agree with JF.&nbsp; The situation with the levees was known.&nbsp; Nobod=L y wanted before the event to plough billions into re-inforcing them.&nbsp; =L But now that &quot;the horse has bolted&quot;, everbody wants to be the nic=L e guy and put this extra money into re-building/re-inforcing them.&nbsp; Th=L is was from a (UK) BBC news item which URL I do not have, but easily obtain=F ed via <A HREF=3D"http://news.bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk</A><BR> <BR>4 &gt; Guys won't use urinals after 24 hours pass?<BR> <BR>L I assume that JF was making the point that we don't just pee.&nbsp; Men hav=@ e other functions, as do women and the whole animal kingdom.<BR> <BR>J &gt; Giuliani didn't need all this help once the towers came down. Our<BR>K &gt; Naitonal Guard wasn't largely tied up in the other disaster, Iraq.<BR>  <BR>L Many people believe that was a self-made disaster, created by US and aided =L by other countries, mainly UK and Australia, which is becoming another Viet=L nam.&nbsp; The first priority should be one's own country.&nbsp; Probably B=L ush would not lose too much &quot;face&quot; by using this as an excuse to =L pull out some percentage of troops.&nbsp; We (generic -- US, UK and Austral=2 ia) seem now to be exacerbating the bloodshed.<BR> <BR>L When the tsunami occurred end of last year, many countries sent aid (civili=L an and military) to help the relief.&nbsp; Would US allow that on their soi= l?<BR> <BR> Regards, Paddy<BR> </FONT>  </P>   <FONT SIZE=3D3><BR>  <BR>K ***********************************************************************<BR>  <BR>G "This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged<BR> B and confidential information intended only for the use of the <BR>F addressees named above.  If you are not the intended recipient of <BR>G this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise<BR> F the sender.  You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, <BR>; distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.<BR>  <BR>E If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid <BR> E immediately.  Any views expressed in this email are those of the <BR> A individual sender except where the sender expressly and with <BR> G authority states them to be the views of TransGrid.  TransGrid uses<BR> B virus-scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses<BR>  contained in any attachment.<BR> <BR>@ Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now<BR>( firstname.lastname@transgrid.com.au"<BR> <BR>K ***********************************************************************<BR>  </FONT>  </BODY>  </HTML> ) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5B12B.BB930544--    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Sep 2005 12:37:31 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3o084bF3i9ggU1@individual.net>   0 In article <11hklm24cqh4r46@corp.supernews.com>,* 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: > Bill Gunshannon wrote:= >> In article <UKlSe.2608$Kk1.78@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, + >> 	"John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> writes:  >>  9 >>>"Bill Gunshannon" <bill@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message  ( >>>news:3ns694F348t0U1@individual.net... >>> = >>>>In article <ER1Se.983$pm2.725@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, . >>>>Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>  >>>>>Bill Gunshannon wrote:  >>>>>  >>>>> O >>>>>>>"They have M-16s and they're locked and loaded," she said. "These troops O >>>>>>>know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so, and  >>>>>>>I expect they will."  >>>>>> >>>>>>M >>>>>>We will see.  But it will have to wait till I stop laughing and can get  >>>>>>back up in my chair. >>>>> K >>>>>Well take it up with the governor, the mayor and the president who are F >>>>>all saying the same thing. In fact they had a discussion on WWLTVJ >>>>>(Channel 4 News New Orleans which was still streaming on the InternetJ >>>>>from makeshift studios at the bottom of their transmission tower whenK >>>>>everything else in NO was off the air) on this very subject. The mayor H >>>>>said people with your viewpoint are just plain wrong in the current >>>>>circumstances.  >>>>H >>>>Depends on what you think my viewpoint is.  I am totally in favor ofG >>>>shooting.  Anyone with a gun that isn't miltary ot law enforcement. J >>>>No questions asked.  But reality where the National Guard is concerned >>> O >>>Don't think that people have the right to carry their guns for self defense?  >>   >>  K >> No more than they can do that here and now.  I do no know anyone who can O >> legitimately claim they own a gun for self-defense.  Hunting, plinking cans, M >> shooting at targets, but not self-defense.  And most ordinary citizens are L >> not capable of it either.  Have you ever looked a man straight in the eyeM >> and then shot him?  Ordinary citizens haven't.  Criminals frequently have.  >>   >>  J >>>Shouldn't there be at least a hint of hostility before the military or  >>>police open fire? >>   >>  I >> So what, if the other guy shoots you and you don't die then it's OK to J >> shoot back?  That was a major problem in the later days of VietNam. HadK >> to call back for permission to return fire.  It didn't work there and it N >> won't work here.  Anyone in NO carrying a gun is a thug.  Ordinary citizensM >> just don't act that way.   If the police were more willing  and capable of L >> using the guns they carry there would be a lot less crime on the streets. >>   >> bill  >>   > D > That is a dangerous attitude.  Ever heard of the Second Amendment?  E Sure, and your applying your interpretation which is as flawed as the E current Supreme Court's, only in the other direction.  Under ordinary G circumstances you can't carry a gun with a carry permit.  And even then E you can't carry it anywhere you want.  You can't carry it on any K-12 B school property in the United States.  You can't carry it into anyF Federal Building.  You can't carry it on any Military Base.  You can'tF even carry it to my office.  Second Amendment or not, you are not free1 to carry a gun whenever and whereever you please.    > H > In the reported situation, I wouldn't blame people for going armed to ( > protect themselves and their family.    I Going where?  Nothing is opened.  No restaurants, no stores, no theaters, D Nothing.  Now, if you want to guard your house with your gun that isF perfectly legal. But if you are wandering the streets of NO with a gun. looking for things you can steal, your a thug.  I >                                      I wouldn't be pointing weapons at  I > anybody without cause.  I wouldn't even be touching the weapon without   > cause.  C A wise idea.  And I am sure if you do not brandish your firearm you B will have nothing to fear except that law enforcement will take itB away from you.  Remember, everybody is crying for the president to@ impose martial law and put armed soldiers on the streets.  Under( martial law a lot of the rules change.     > K > In many places, some police are already too willing to use the guns they  
 > carry.     Not in this country.  9 >        That's how unarmed 13 year old kids get killed.    E There are more unarmed 13 year olds killed every day bu other 13 year D olds then there are killed by the police in a year or more likely, a decade.   H >                                                        You might want & > to re-think your vigilante attitude.  F How do I have a vigilante attitude?  You are the one who wants privateH citizens roaming the streets with guns.  I want the guns, in the current- situation in NO, limited to proper authority.    > G > Nobody, police, troops, whatever, have the right to shoot at someone   > without good cause.   G Brandishing a firearm is good cause.  If you don't want to put yourself C at risk, don't put yourself in a situation where that risk is real.    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: 4 Sep 2005 12:50:03 GMT ( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) + Message-ID: <3o08rqF3i9ggU2@individual.net>   X In article <8BAD914A0B8CA84C9E94187103A1AB9E05BE9B@ex-tg2-pr.corporate.transgrid.local>,9 	"O'Brien Paddy" <Paddy.O'Brien@transgrid.com.au> writes:  > M > Many people believe that was a self-made disaster, created by US and aided  M > by other countries, mainly UK and Australia, which is becoming another Viet  > nam.     And they would be wrong.  M >       The first priority should be one's own country.  Probably Bush would  M > not lose too much "face" by using this as an excuse to pull out some percen  > tage of troops.   E Why?  There are still more than enough troops back here to handle the J situation.  It is not a problem of supply, it is a problem of utilization.' And that is a purely political problem.   M >                  We (generic -- US, UK and Australia) seem now to be exacer  > bating the bloodshed.  > M > When the tsunami occurred end of last year, many countries sent aid (civili J > an and military) to help the relief.  Would US allow that on their soil?  E It is  not needed so there is no reason to allow it.  We are not some G third world country whose military is ineffective because it's too busy F fighting local separatist rebels.  The last thing in the world we needJ now is sanatation advice from people who live in countries without running water.   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: 4 Sep 2005 07:46:27 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) C Message-ID: <1125845187.869992.269330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>    Dave Froble wrote: > AEF wrote: > > Dave Froble wrote: > >  > >>AEF wrote: > >> > >>>Dave Froble wrote:  > >>>  > >>>  > >>>>AEF wrote: > >  > > [...big snip...] > > G > >>All I'll say is that the Air Force could only be late, if they were H > >>tasked with an operation.  Until the jets flew into the WTC, the AirN > >>Force was, as far as I know, not tasked with protecting against airliners. > >  > > H > > OK. Point taken. But they were late, but once they launched I'm sureJ > > they performed as well as they could. The element of surprise is worthH > > quite a lot, of course, and our chain of command wasn't fast enough,F > > and, of course, we really weren't prepared. Sorry, I didn't intendJ > > blame the Air Force for all this. My chioce of words was poor. (Yes, IH > > know it's hard to believe, but I do make a mistake from time to time > > (!) :-)  >  > Ok > G > >>As you state, once they were called upon, they did show up.  Rather K > >>quickly.  Don't know the closest available aircraft, that would be able G > >>to respond quickly.  Say it was the F-15s from the base outside DC. L > >>What's the distance to NYC?  300 miles or so?  Best they can do is 1,650 > >  > > C > > More like 200 to 250 miles. By air it's probably closer to 200.  > >  > > I > >>MPH, and that's clean, on burner.  Clean means no missles to use when G > >>they get there.  On burner means that they probably are out of fuel  > >>before they get there. > >  > > C > > Aren't there any bases in NJ? Billions of dollars spent on such I > > equipment and they run out of fuel in 300 miles? From NJ it would, of - > > course, be much less than even 200 miles.  > I > Regardless of what's based where, there isn't any pilots sitting in the G > cockpit, waiting for the order to scramble.  Sure, there are National ? > Guard units in many places.  They aren't constantly on alert.  > H > In all modern fighters, their top speed on afterburner isn't the speedF > that they normally fly.  Afterburners eat fuel at a stupendous rate.J > They aren't used during transit.  An F-15 could cruise at .9 mach, or ifJ > in a hurry, a bit faster.  Still, after in the air, and up to speed, sayE > 800 MPH, it's 15 minutes air time if the distance is 200 miles, and  > that's at 36,000 ft. > B > Arming the aircraft would take time.  Sidewinder missles are notB > constantly ready for use.  Loading the gun takes some time.  The( > aircraft are not sitting around armed. > H > >>I just think that saying they were late, regardless of what you were6 > >>implying, is an underserved slap at the Air Force. > >  > > F > > *** Originally, I was just saying "they were late" as the point of > > inevitablity. ***  > > K > > You turned this into something much more. You claimed, by putting words D > > into my mouth, that I was blaming the Air Force for the 9/11 WTCD > > disaster. So I was just trying to say that I was just saying, orG > > blaming them (as I unfortunately wrote), for being late. The pilots H > > almost certainly did as well as could reasonably be expected and the > > fault lies elsewhere.  >  > Sorry, I placed no words.   E Then I misspoke or you misinterpreted. Please allow my clarifications + and/or corrections. I'm not perfect. GMAFB!    > J > > I never meant to slap the Air Force. I shouldn't have written "blamingI > > them for being late". I was trying to distinguish between causing the I > > disaster and arriving too late to minimize it. My choice of words was  > > poor and I apologize.  > > G > > Maureen Dowd writes in The NY Times today, "Who on earth could have H > > known that Osama bin Laden wanted to attack us by flying planes intoH > > buildings? Any official who bothered to read the trellis of pre-9/11K > > intelligence briefs." If this really holds, then we probably could have ; > > been better prepared had the right people taken notice.  > >  > G > Ok, lets let it go.  I probably over-reacted, but blaming someone for ? > something they're not responsible for is rough.  When it's an J > organization which cannot reply, without looking worse, then someone has > to stand up for them.   A OK. I may well have misspoken. I never meant to say the Air Force E should of or could have done better. Instead of "late", I should have G said "too late to have done any good, regardless of who's to blame". If A you take the subway to work, and you get stuck in a tunnel for 90 F minutes, and arrive late, you are late. And I did misspeak a couple of times. Sorry about that.   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Sep 2005 07:59:39 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) B Message-ID: <1125845979.137668.12970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   JF Mezei wrote:  > AEF wrote:G > > Now your getting off point by going into poor planning. Suppose the C > > mayor did evacuate NO and suppose that the levees didn't break?  > J > In this particular case, the devastating destruction east of New OrleansJ > (because Katrina veered a vit east at last minute) would still have beenA > a reminder of what could have happened in terms of destruction.  > I > And had troups beem mobilised beforehand, they could have stayed in the J > region until water levsl in the lake/river were low enough and then goneH > home. They could have also sent some to patrol the evacuated city. AndL > they would still have needed to ensure anyone still in city had basic foo=
 d/medical.  C Obviously, in this case, that would have been a good idea. But your F what we call an armchair quaterback. It's easy to say what should have@ been done after the fact. You have to be judicious in mobilizing* troops. You don't want to do it too often.   >  > K > > And I don't recall much discussion about the levees breaking until they * > > did. Could be I just missed that part. > I > You missed that part big time. It was feared that the ocean swell would J > overwhelm the levees. What they didn't discuss is the flow of water fromJ > the heavy rains overwhelming the levees not necessarily immediatly sicne7 > it takes time for water to flow down into the region.  > J > However, studies made years ago had all outlined those dangers. This wasH > no surprise. And the fact that the mayor ordered evacuation of city isB > also an indiaction that they really did fear the major flooding.   OK.    > K > > Apparently, the mayor didn't anticipate the levees not holding. Had the 4 > > levees held, things would have been MUCH better. > J > It would still have been quite a disaster in Mississipi. And there wouldE > still have been large power outages in lousiana.  The media however J > wouldn't focus their attention onto downtown new orleans and may insteadB > be shwoing buldozers clearling streets from falled branches, and% > electrical workers restoring power.    Your getting off subject again!    > / > > Guys won't use urinals after 24 hours pass?  > G > OK, let me be more graphic. In a 2-3 hours sports game, most men will F > need only to use urinals. But stay over 24 hours, and they'll need aH > toilet. Facilities in stadiums are sized with users only staying thereH > for a few hours and only a small percentage needing to use toilet. ButG > for 24 or more hours, 100% of men will need toilets. And if you doN't = > have enough to cater to 23,000 people that causes problems.   E The way you put it it sounded like you were saying that guys will pee G in the stands instead of the urinals. And you totally forgot the women. F I didn't know facilities at stadiums were so marginal. Here's what you said:   D It doesn't take einstein to know that a stadium cannot cater to thatB many people for long durations (lack of showers for one thing, andF insufficient toilets). A facility can be designed to hold a very largeG number of people for 3-4 hours, but when you hold them for more than 24   E hours, toilet requirements rise significantly because guys won't just  use urinals.  E I guess I misread you as saying "guys just won't use urinals". Sorry. G Still, you could have been more clear and included the women. It sounds , like your saying only men have this problem.   >  > G > > How do you know he isn't informing people or trying to? He could be K > > doing that on radio stations and you'd never know it from watching your  > > news channels on TV. > I > Perhaps. Nevertheless, a mayor wishing to inform a population would use F > all means possible. During our long power outage in 1998, one day, IG > walked a few km to the hardware store which had power and was able to J > watch TV (they had a whole bunch of TV setup) and got to see maps of theI > affeted areas. But it was the same speech as we would be hearing on the C > radio (except on radio you wouldn't see the maps shown during the " > regularly held news conferences)  C Well, you don't really know what's happening on the radio there, so # don't make unwarranted assumptions.    > K > The Hydro Qu=E9bec news conferences were listened to by everyone as often  > as they occured. > C > Granted perhaps BBC and CNN didn't cover them. But the candian TV G > networks covered them, and would always show summary on evening news.  > E > > Giuliani didn't need all this help once the towers came down. Our F > > Naitonal Guard wasn't largely tied up in the other disaster, Iraq. > E > Sorry, I don't accept the Iraq invasion as an excuse. Right now, it I > doesn't seem like the USA has any problem finding troups to go into the H > disaster area. So they are available. The question is that they didn'tJ > begin the staging/deployment ASAP upon realisng there was a cat 5 comingE > onto a major city. (it downgraded to 4 only in the wee hours before  > hitting land).  E Please, I never said it was an excuse. I'm just saying that the mayor G in NO has some very difficult things to deal with that Giuliani didn't.    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Sep 2005 08:05:16 -0700 $ From: "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com>9 Subject: Re: Hp Technology forum (New Orleans sept 12-15) C Message-ID: <1125846316.913200.253940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>    O'Brien Paddy wrote:0 > Much though I hate coming into this thread ... >  > [snips throughout] >  > AEF wrote: > K > > And I don't recall much discussion about the levees breaking until they * > > did. Could be I just missed that part. > K > > Apparently, the mayor didn't anticipate the levees not holding. Had the 4 > > levees held, things would have been MUCH better. > O > And had the hurricane never happened, things would have been much better too.  > w> I agree with JF.  The situation with the levees was known.  Nobody wanted before the event to plough billions into re-inforcing them.  But now that "the horse has bolted", everbody wants to be the nice guy and put this extra money into re-building/re-inforcing them.  This was from a (UK) BBC news item which URL I do not have, but easily obtained via http://news.bbc.co.uk     F Irrevlevant. We were discussing leadership of the NO mayor vs Giuliani= in the aftermath. Yes, NO's planning wasn't as good as NYC's.     / > > Guys won't use urinals after 24 hours pass?  >  > I assume that JF was making the point that we don't just pee.  Men have other functions, as do women and the whole animal kingdom.   His description was confusing.   > E > > Giuliani didn't need all this help once the towers came down. Our F > > Naitonal Guard wasn't largely tied up in the other disaster, Iraq. > > Many people believe that was a self-made disaster, created by US and aided by other countries, mainly UK and Australia, which is becoming another Vietnam.  The first priority should be one's own country.  Probably Bush would not lose too much "face" by using this as an excuse to pull out some percentage of troops.  We (generic -- US, UK and Australia) seem now to be exacerbating the bloodshed.  G I was merely saying that the NO mayor has many difficult things to deal B with that Giuliani didn't, a reduction of available National Guard. being one of them, and the need for them, too.   >  > When the tsunami occurred end of last year, many countries sent aid (civilian and military) to help the relief.  Would US allow that on their soil?   > Bill Gunshannon made an excellent reply to this. See his post.  D Hey, weren't you one who recently (a few weeks ago) complained about off-topic posts? :-)   ------------------------------   Date: 4 Sep 2005 06:16:35 -0700  From: already5chosen@yahoo.com' Subject: Re: Itanium Solutions Alliance B Message-ID: <1125839795.520084.54640@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>   Alan Greig wrote:  > E > How much businesss did HP do in AMD64 last year? More than Itanium.  >  >  > -- > Alan Greig  . Depends what you mean by "HP AMD64 businesss".    There are 3 logical definitions: 1. Opteron servers. 0 2. Opteron servers + EMT64-capable Xeon servers.2 3. All Opteron, Athlon64 and Turion based systems.  @ Of course, by 2nd definitions, Itanium is not in the same leage.@ By 3rd definition the picture is not so obvious, but taking intoD account HP's last year's success with A64-based DTR laptops, I'd bet against Itanium.8 However, IMO, the first definition is the most relevant.  ? By 1st definition last year HP definitly made more (a lot more) D business with Itanium than with AMD64. Looks like HP's Opteron sellsF didn't take off until 3Q2004. AFAIR, in 1Q2004 HP Opteron division was& outsold by Sun - what an embarassment!  D As to now, the numbers are close - in 1Q2005 HP sold ~$125M worth ofE Opteron servers. I'd imagine that Itanium sails are in the same range 	 +/- $10M.    ------------------------------  # Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 06:23:03 GMT   From: CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>4 Subject: Re: Microsoft to limit Windows apps on IA64( Message-ID: <431A92C7.50409@prodigy.net>   JF Mezei wrote:    > Karsten Nyblad wrote:  > C >>currently confined to.  The current Windows on IA64 is not a full G >>Windows.  It lacks many of the features used by desktop users, and M$ J >>says it is going to stay that way.  That also means that Windows on IA64J >>is in a position, where it could get killed should x86-64 start to scale >>to large machines. >  > J > Makes one wonder if Intel/HP should be allowed to advertise "Windows" asI > being available on IA64.  Perhaps they should be forced to qualify this O > with "A subset of Windows" or a "variant of Windows" runs on that IA64 thing.   @ Microsoft can (and do) define "Windows" as whatever they please.  2 It's a moving target -- deliberately so, I expect.   --  D The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt toC minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.    ------------------------------   Date: 4 Sep 2005 08:19:02 -0500 - From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) 4 Subject: Re: Microsoft to limit Windows apps on IA643 Message-ID: <K5qX2m2lRPkS@eisner.encompasserve.org>   K In article <431A92C7.50409@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> writes:  > JF Mezei wrote:  >  >> Karsten Nyblad wrote: >>  D >>>currently confined to.  The current Windows on IA64 is not a fullH >>>Windows.  It lacks many of the features used by desktop users, and M$K >>>says it is going to stay that way.  That also means that Windows on IA64 K >>>is in a position, where it could get killed should x86-64 start to scale  >>>to large machines.  >>   >>  K >> Makes one wonder if Intel/HP should be allowed to advertise "Windows" as J >> being available on IA64.  Perhaps they should be forced to qualify thisP >> with "A subset of Windows" or a "variant of Windows" runs on that IA64 thing. > B > Microsoft can (and do) define "Windows" as whatever they please. > 4 > It's a moving target -- deliberately so, I expect.  C Actually, Microsoft goes further by continually _renaming_ Windows. B This gives them the out of saying "you are not running Windows NT,/ you are running Windows XP Datacenter Edition".   C Aside from the "Open" gaffe, VMS retains its name with each version E connoting similarity, compatibility, etc.  The only instance I recall C of non-compatibility of features in successor versions is the awful D case of Display Postscript, which was caused by inadequate lawyering& rather than undisciplined programming.   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2005.494 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ,VN=lEذY+v%;BxvbfA͒G{gb}<)- p`,`Yc&BΝ3v@cf&`4n8Z|6XM?n?v sdYf`~dUpaɞaN6;_l'LYy.N΍G{]vV c1kPf-BC3;^?
j6kAU{$Yk?g5rv<{rG͗
xx
>}_@g

y:ۂ@/0h6ƙ`h
G^Zw`JOEu'xG{̞"mJkTsfugEs
\4-Jv8[
J8>VX{?OG2O?r8G=ܗ_ffu{pyy/A0i:7砆.//}d<=
Za7
x}N?k`"y3ϻ@ɫn%{؉7{G Эo^e0/j֗V.?j^9ZgZEęOx=hw3G{2?9}A̶X4mSzD
m\'<GgKӍ3ޣ!|zL<#&]'j(~h=qc
 kyWgX0B{ k
g醭h-:Ut؝۽Y@.\=\ˈDmvveMȞFʊUwZ<?)\w ּL[q/7ͨ>`		  |;</Eu	t_(<[[[H
 r	?,^)dvB1p8оc2'->I#Un5	[T]/]从["/Z-xZܓ