1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 09 Jun 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 319       Contents:1 ANN: Freeware PF_SDA V1.1 update is now available  Re: HSJ 50 patches Re: Intel selling Itanium? Re: Intel selling Itanium? Re: Intel selling Itanium? Re: Intel selling Itanium? New HP web based email package! # Re: New HP web based email package! # Re: New HP web based email package! # Re: New HP web based email package! + OpenVMS wins "advanced" technologies award! / Re: OpenVMS wins "advanced" technologies award! / Re: OpenVMS wins "advanced" technologies award! A Re: OT: IT glitch results in Cadbury chocolate glut  (SAP again!) A Re: OT: IT glitch results in Cadbury chocolate glut  (SAP again!) ( Reading SYSUAF Disuser Flag from FORTRAN3 Re: SimH 3.6-0 (problems compiling VAX using MinGW) 3 Re: SimH 3.6-0 (problems compiling VAX using MinGW)   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:21:15 -0500 - From: Hunter Goatley <goathunter@goatley.com> : Subject: ANN: Freeware PF_SDA V1.1 update is now available* Message-ID: <44894B9B.2050001@goatley.com>  B The following package has been updated in my VMS freeware archive:  
 pf_sda.zip;   Description:   SDA extension to display info about a page D                  or swap file including which processes are using it   Version:       V1.1 6   Author:        Ian Miller <MILLER@Encompasserve.org>   Architecture:  AXP,IA64    Size:          156 blocks    Language:      C  ? This version includes bug fixes and the ability to count pages.  Thanks, Ian!   http://www.process.com/openvms/   6 ftp://ftp.process.com/vms-freeware/fileserv/pf_sda.zip; http://vms.process.com/ftp/vms-freeware/fileserv/pf_sda.zip   2 ftp://ftp.tmk.com/vms-freeware/fileserv/pf_sda.zip7 http://www.tmk.com/ftp/vms-freeware/fileserv/pf_sda.zip    And on the other mirrors soon. --     Hunter ------9 Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/ B PreciseMail Anti-Spam Gateway for OpenVMS, Tru64, Solaris, & Linux9 goathunter@goatley.com     http://www.goatley.com/hunter/    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 08:28:43 -0700 ' From: "syslost" <wm.reynolds@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: HSJ 50 patches B Message-ID: <1149866923.273837.31300@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>  F I think our firmware for the hsj50s has always come in on flash cards,G pcmcia I think.  I don't remember installing patches on the controllers  themselves.   , Our hsj50s are at version 57j-1 hardware b02     Scott G. Smith wrote: L > I have a customer who has a couple of HSJ50s controlling a bunch of JBODs.K > One controller failed and was replaced by third paty maintenance.  During < > the transfer, it looks like patches to HSOF 5.1 were lost. > M > The third party hw maintainer doesn't have any information on patches.  The M > HP software contract doesn't cover the HSJs.  I can't find any info on HP's I > web site to discuss the patches, download, etc.  Of cource, this is all M > terribly old equipment, which has my customer concerned about the downlevel 	 > change.  > M > Does anyone know how to obtain these patches?  Or what problems the patches * > correct?  Any info would be appreciated.   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 06:16:33 -0700  From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk# Subject: Re: Intel selling Itanium? C Message-ID: <1149858993.313712.261450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>   F If you're on a VAX then sure.  If you're on an Alpha, it's a different; story since it requires an Industry Standard 64-bit server.    Steve   - David Turner, Island Computers US Corp wrote: 	 > All....  >  > See www.softresint.com > B > I think the future of VMS may be more obvious than people think! >  > -- >  > David B Turner > Island Computers US Corp > 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 > Savannah GA 31404  > Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 > Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  > Fax: 912 201 0402  > Email: dbturner@icusc.com  > Web: http://www.islandco.com' > ===================================== > > All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions0 > of sale. These should be read before ordering.' > http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html  > 7 > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message C > news:i9qdnZPWiIKhNRrZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com...  > > JF Mezei wrote:  > >  > > ...  > > N > > > The big question is whether Intel will announce 8086 features that allowL > > > it to scale to Superdome before or at the same time as the end of line > > > for IA64 is announced. > > J > > Exactly what scaling features do you think Itanic has that Intel's x86K > > products don't?  People like Sequent were building 32- and 64-processor L > > x86 configurations close to a decade ago (I'm not going to look up exactJ > > dates), and others could (and quite likely would) be doing so today ifH > > they hadn't gotten side-tracked by the Itanic hype (a 32- or 64-coreD > > Woodcrest machine would handily show its heels to Itanic on mostK > > workloads despite having significantly less on-chip cache and therefore I > > lower manufacturing cost, and at far lower power to boot - even lower L > > power than Montecito will require, despite its vast improvements in that
 > > area). > > G > > Of course, IBM already offers up to 64-core x86 configurations, but J > > using a somewhat cobbled-together approach that doesn't scale superblyJ > > and uses the far less capable Pentium 4 ('Netburst') architecture (andE > > that chipset may not be capable of using the new Woodcrest server D > > parts).  Still, even that second-class product has beaten Itanic5 > > core-for-core in some up to 32-core benchmarks...  > > I > > And the 'common system interconnect' (CSI) that Intel is planning for L > > 2008 will support both Itanic and x86, so no advantage there for Itanic, > > either.  > > L > > The one real performance edge that Itanic used to hold over x86 (runningJ > > FP-intensive code) has just been erased by Woodcrest (not that OpteronL > > was all that far behind before).  Itanic is looking even more irrelevantG > > than ever these days, and I'm certainly not aware of any rabbits it 7 > > could pull out of its hat to change that situation.  > > 
 > > - bill   ------------------------------  $ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:38:00 -0400  From: "DBT" <dbturner@icusc.com># Subject: Re: Intel selling Itanium? 0 Message-ID: <128iudphr2gm7ee@news.supernews.com>   So???      --     David B Turner Island Computers US Corp 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 Savannah GA 31404  Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  Fax: 912 201 0402  Email: dbturner@icusc.com  Web: http://www.islandco.com% ===================================== < All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions. of sale. These should be read before ordering.% http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html   ' <etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message = news:1149858993.313712.261450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... H > If you're on a VAX then sure.  If you're on an Alpha, it's a different= > story since it requires an Industry Standard 64-bit server.  >  > Steve  > / > David Turner, Island Computers US Corp wrote:  > > All....  > >  > > See www.softresint.com > > D > > I think the future of VMS may be more obvious than people think! > >  > > -- > >  > > David B Turner > > Island Computers US Corp > > 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 > > Savannah GA 31404  > > Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 > > Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  > > Fax: 912 201 0402  > > Email: dbturner@icusc.com   > > Web: http://www.islandco.com) > > ===================================== @ > > All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions2 > > of sale. These should be read before ordering.) > > http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html  > > 9 > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message E > > news:i9qdnZPWiIKhNRrZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com...  > > > JF Mezei wrote:  > > > 	 > > > ...  > > > J > > > > The big question is whether Intel will announce 8086 features that allow I > > > > it to scale to Superdome before or at the same time as the end of  line > > > > for IA64 is announced. > > > L > > > Exactly what scaling features do you think Itanic has that Intel's x86@ > > > products don't?  People like Sequent were building 32- and 64-processorH > > > x86 configurations close to a decade ago (I'm not going to look up exact L > > > dates), and others could (and quite likely would) be doing so today ifJ > > > they hadn't gotten side-tracked by the Itanic hype (a 32- or 64-coreF > > > Woodcrest machine would handily show its heels to Itanic on mostC > > > workloads despite having significantly less on-chip cache and 	 therefore K > > > lower manufacturing cost, and at far lower power to boot - even lower I > > > power than Montecito will require, despite its vast improvements in  that > > > area). > > > I > > > Of course, IBM already offers up to 64-core x86 configurations, but L > > > using a somewhat cobbled-together approach that doesn't scale superblyL > > > and uses the far less capable Pentium 4 ('Netburst') architecture (andG > > > that chipset may not be capable of using the new Woodcrest server F > > > parts).  Still, even that second-class product has beaten Itanic7 > > > core-for-core in some up to 32-core benchmarks...  > > > K > > > And the 'common system interconnect' (CSI) that Intel is planning for F > > > 2008 will support both Itanic and x86, so no advantage there for Itanic, 
 > > > either.  > > > E > > > The one real performance edge that Itanic used to hold over x86  (runningL > > > FP-intensive code) has just been erased by Woodcrest (not that OpteronC > > > was all that far behind before).  Itanic is looking even more 
 irrelevantI > > > than ever these days, and I'm certainly not aware of any rabbits it 9 > > > could pull out of its hat to change that situation.  > > >  > > > - bill >    ------------------------------  $ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:46:07 -0400C From: "David Turner, Island Computers US Corp" <dbturner@icusc.com> # Subject: Re: Intel selling Itanium? : Message-ID: <KQfig.69230$QU3.28990@bignews8.bellsouth.net>   Charon-AXP?      --     David B Turner Island Computers US Corp 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 Savannah GA 31404  Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  Fax: 912 201 0402  Email: dbturner@icusc.com  Web: http://www.islandco.com% ===================================== < All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions. of sale. These should be read before ordering.% http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html   + "DBT" <dbturner@icusc.com> wrote in message * news:128iudphr2gm7ee@news.supernews.com... > So???  >  >  > --   >  > David B Turner > Island Computers US Corp > 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 > Savannah GA 31404  > Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 > Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  > Fax: 912 201 0402  > Email: dbturner@icusc.com  > Web: http://www.islandco.com' > ===================================== > > All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions0 > of sale. These should be read before ordering.' > http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html  > ) > <etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message ? > news:1149858993.313712.261450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... J > > If you're on a VAX then sure.  If you're on an Alpha, it's a different? > > story since it requires an Industry Standard 64-bit server.  > > 	 > > Steve  > > 1 > > David Turner, Island Computers US Corp wrote: 
 > > > All....  > > >  > > > See www.softresint.com > > > F > > > I think the future of VMS may be more obvious than people think! > > >  > > > -- > > >  > > > David B Turner > > > Island Computers US Corp  > > > 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 > > > Savannah GA 31404  > > > Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 > > > Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  > > > Fax: 912 201 0402  > > > Email: dbturner@icusc.com " > > > Web: http://www.islandco.com+ > > > ===================================== B > > > All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions4 > > > of sale. These should be read before ordering.+ > > > http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html  > > > ; > > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message G > > > news:i9qdnZPWiIKhNRrZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com...  > > > > JF Mezei wrote:  > > > >  > > > > ...  > > > > L > > > > > The big question is whether Intel will announce 8086 features that > allow K > > > > > it to scale to Superdome before or at the same time as the end of  > line  > > > > > for IA64 is announced. > > > > J > > > > Exactly what scaling features do you think Itanic has that Intel's x86 B > > > > products don't?  People like Sequent were building 32- and > 64-processorJ > > > > x86 configurations close to a decade ago (I'm not going to look up > exact K > > > > dates), and others could (and quite likely would) be doing so today  ifL > > > > they hadn't gotten side-tracked by the Itanic hype (a 32- or 64-coreH > > > > Woodcrest machine would handily show its heels to Itanic on mostE > > > > workloads despite having significantly less on-chip cache and  > therefore G > > > > lower manufacturing cost, and at far lower power to boot - even  lower K > > > > power than Montecito will require, despite its vast improvements in  > that > > > > area). > > > > K > > > > Of course, IBM already offers up to 64-core x86 configurations, but E > > > > using a somewhat cobbled-together approach that doesn't scale  superblyI > > > > and uses the far less capable Pentium 4 ('Netburst') architecture  (andI > > > > that chipset may not be capable of using the new Woodcrest server H > > > > parts).  Still, even that second-class product has beaten Itanic9 > > > > core-for-core in some up to 32-core benchmarks...  > > > > I > > > > And the 'common system interconnect' (CSI) that Intel is planning  for H > > > > 2008 will support both Itanic and x86, so no advantage there for	 > Itanic,  > > > > either.  > > > > G > > > > The one real performance edge that Itanic used to hold over x86 
 > (runningF > > > > FP-intensive code) has just been erased by Woodcrest (not that Opteron E > > > > was all that far behind before).  Itanic is looking even more  > irrelevantK > > > > than ever these days, and I'm certainly not aware of any rabbits it ; > > > > could pull out of its hat to change that situation.  > > > >  > > > > - bill > >  >  >    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 08:50:39 -0700  From: etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk# Subject: Re: Intel selling Itanium? B Message-ID: <1149868239.001952.96600@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>  ? So, you're replacing an Alpha with the Charon-AXP product which & requires Industry Standard 64 systems: > % >Alpha Hardware Replacement Products: V >We provide a set of hardware replacement products for Digital Equipment Corporation'sV > (now HP) Alpha computers by means of virtualization and hardware abstraction layers.D >These hardware emulators run on industry standard 64-bit platforms. > F The context of this discussion was how to overcome the risk of Itanium( dying and, therefore, Integrity servers.   Steve   - David Turner, Island Computers US Corp wrote: 
 > Charon-AXP?  >  >  > -- >  > David B Turner > Island Computers US Corp > 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 > Savannah GA 31404  > Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 > Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  > Fax: 912 201 0402  > Email: dbturner@icusc.com  > Web: http://www.islandco.com' > ===================================== > > All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions0 > of sale. These should be read before ordering.' > http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html  > - > "DBT" <dbturner@icusc.com> wrote in message , > news:128iudphr2gm7ee@news.supernews.com...	 > > So???  > >  > >  > > -- > >  > > David B Turner > > Island Computers US Corp > > 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 > > Savannah GA 31404  > > Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 > > Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  > > Fax: 912 201 0402  > > Email: dbturner@icusc.com   > > Web: http://www.islandco.com) > > ===================================== @ > > All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions2 > > of sale. These should be read before ordering.) > > http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html  > > + > > <etmsreec@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message A > > news:1149858993.313712.261450@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... L > > > If you're on a VAX then sure.  If you're on an Alpha, it's a differentA > > > story since it requires an Industry Standard 64-bit server.  > > >  > > > Steve  > > > 3 > > > David Turner, Island Computers US Corp wrote:  > > > > All....  > > > >  > > > > See www.softresint.com > > > > H > > > > I think the future of VMS may be more obvious than people think! > > > > 
 > > > > -- > > > >  > > > > David B Turner  > > > > Island Computers US Corp" > > > > 2700 Gregory St, Suite 180 > > > > Savannah GA 31404  > > > > Tel: 912 447 6622 X201 > > > > Cell: 912 447 6622 X251  > > > > Fax: 912 201 0402 ! > > > > Email: dbturner@icusc.com $ > > > > Web: http://www.islandco.com- > > > > ===================================== D > > > > All orders are subject to the following terms and conditions6 > > > > of sale. These should be read before ordering.- > > > > http://www.islandco.com/warranty.html  > > > > = > > > > "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote in message I > > > > news:i9qdnZPWiIKhNRrZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@metrocastcablevision.com...  > > > > > JF Mezei wrote: 	 > > > > > 
 > > > > > ... 	 > > > > > N > > > > > > The big question is whether Intel will announce 8086 features that	 > > allow M > > > > > > it to scale to Superdome before or at the same time as the end of  > > line" > > > > > > for IA64 is announced.	 > > > > > L > > > > > Exactly what scaling features do you think Itanic has that Intel's > x86 D > > > > > products don't?  People like Sequent were building 32- and > > 64-processorL > > > > > x86 configurations close to a decade ago (I'm not going to look up	 > > exact M > > > > > dates), and others could (and quite likely would) be doing so today  > ifN > > > > > they hadn't gotten side-tracked by the Itanic hype (a 32- or 64-coreJ > > > > > Woodcrest machine would handily show its heels to Itanic on mostG > > > > > workloads despite having significantly less on-chip cache and 
 > > therefore I > > > > > lower manufacturing cost, and at far lower power to boot - even  > lower M > > > > > power than Montecito will require, despite its vast improvements in  > > that > > > > > area).	 > > > > > M > > > > > Of course, IBM already offers up to 64-core x86 configurations, but G > > > > > using a somewhat cobbled-together approach that doesn't scale 
 > superblyK > > > > > and uses the far less capable Pentium 4 ('Netburst') architecture  > (andK > > > > > that chipset may not be capable of using the new Woodcrest server J > > > > > parts).  Still, even that second-class product has beaten Itanic; > > > > > core-for-core in some up to 32-core benchmarks... 	 > > > > > K > > > > > And the 'common system interconnect' (CSI) that Intel is planning  > for J > > > > > 2008 will support both Itanic and x86, so no advantage there for > > Itanic,  > > > > > either. 	 > > > > > I > > > > > The one real performance edge that Itanic used to hold over x86  > > (runningH > > > > > FP-intensive code) has just been erased by Woodcrest (not that	 > Opteron G > > > > > was all that far behind before).  Itanic is looking even more  > > irrelevantM > > > > > than ever these days, and I'm certainly not aware of any rabbits it = > > > > > could pull out of its hat to change that situation. 	 > > > > >  > > > > > - bill > > >  > >  > >    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 09:20:35 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com ( Subject: New HP web based email package!C Message-ID: <1149870034.994137.247180@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    https://trysecureserver.com/   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:43:38 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> , Subject: Re: New HP web based email package!) Message-ID: <op.tav0q0a5zgicya@hyrrokkin>   @ On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:20:35 -0700, <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote:   > https://trysecureserver.com/ >   ; So does this offer anything we don't already get with WASD?    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 10:10:56 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com , Subject: Re: New HP web based email package!C Message-ID: <1149873056.612089.184020@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>    Tom Linden wrote: B > On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:20:35 -0700, <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote: >   > > https://trysecureserver.com/ > >  > = > So does this offer anything we don't already get with WASD?   B yes ... support ... to some companies, unsupported freeware is not
 an option!   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:15:03 -0700 # From: "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> , Subject: Re: New HP web based email package!) Message-ID: <op.tav17dylzgicya@hyrrokkin>   @ On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:10:56 -0700, <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote:   >  > Tom Linden wrote: C >> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:20:35 -0700, <bob@instantwhip.com> wrote:  >>! >> > https://trysecureserver.com/  >> > >>> >> So does this offer anything we don't already get with WASD? > D > yes ... support ... to some companies, unsupported freeware is not > an option! > @ Well, if you think WASD is not well supported, you are mistaken.   ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 09:12:38 -0700  From: bob@instantwhip.com 4 Subject: OpenVMS wins "advanced" technologies award!A Message-ID: <1149869558.765162.13810@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>   Y http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000964    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 10:18:25 -0700  From: tomarsin2015@comcast.net8 Subject: Re: OpenVMS wins "advanced" technologies award!B Message-ID: <1149873505.397923.87810@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>  - I keep getting page not found as of 11:17 MDT    bob@instantwhip.com wrote:[ > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000964    ------------------------------  $ Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:33:00 -0400 From: norm.raphael@metso.com8 Subject: Re: OpenVMS wins "advanced" technologies award!Q Message-ID: <OF9EF486A2.2A8FD4F6-ON85257188.00604D14-85257188.00605FEF@metso.com>   : FWIW I notice this winner was nominated by Oracle, not HP.  4 bob@instantwhip.com wrote on 06/09/2006 12:12:38 PM:  1 > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do? , > command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000964 >    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:17:34 +0200 / From: Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> J Subject: Re: OT: IT glitch results in Cadbury chocolate glut  (SAP again!); Message-ID: <2f611$448966df$50db5015$29308@news.hispeed.ch>    JF mezei wrote: g >>http://news.com.com/IT+glitch+results+in+Cadbury+chocolate+glut/2100-1014_3-6081486.html?tag=nefd.top  >  > F > Remember when HP had problems because its SAP implementation stoppedL > production ? Well, now the opposite seems to have happened at Cadbury !!!! > T > Note: nobody in this newsgroup should be surprised that I spotted that article.... >  >  > --------------------H > U.K. confectionery giant Cadbury Trebor Bassett has taken a hit in itsI > profits after information technology problems caused too many chocolate  > bars to be produced.   > H > Cadbury was left with a glut of chocolate products at the start of theE > year, after the installation of a new SAP-based enterprise resource I > planning (ERP) system led to an excess of chocolate bars building up at  > the end of 2005.   >  > ...  > B >  This led to a total hit of 32 million pounds ($58.9 million) onC > Cadbury's first-quarter financial figures, 12 million pounds ($22 C > million) of which the company said was directly related to the IT  > problems.  >  > -------------------  > G > Good example of the "mission critical" nature of many IT systems that K > can cost a corporation much more money than the IT systems itself costed.  >   B And an unexpected example of that too. Surely someone should have : noticed warehouses getting full before it got so critical?   > D > Have there ever been a succesfull large scale SAP implementation ?  B About 10 years ago, the chemical manufacturer with whom I'd first I started out in IT went SAP. I got the impression it was at least in part  H a  statement that they'd "hit the big time" (20 million UKP turnover in  1976, 500 million by 1996).   H Sure enough, they did get taken over, at a very handsome price, shortly F later. If that was the aim of implementing SAP, then it was a success B :-) This was a company where a large proportion of employees held < shares, so I imagine there were quite a lot of happy people.  C P.S. I expect to hear that you have written to Cadbury offering to  ! offload some of their surplus :-)    ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:02:53 -0400 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> J Subject: Re: OT: IT glitch results in Cadbury chocolate glut  (SAP again!)9 Message-ID: <bIydnRMNzcUbERTZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@libcom.com>    JF mezei wrote: h >> http://news.com.com/IT+glitch+results+in+Cadbury+chocolate+glut/2100-1014_3-6081486.html?tag=nefd.top > F > Remember when HP had problems because its SAP implementation stoppedL > production ? Well, now the opposite seems to have happened at Cadbury !!!! > T > Note: nobody in this newsgroup should be surprised that I spotted that article.... >  >  > --------------------H > U.K. confectionery giant Cadbury Trebor Bassett has taken a hit in itsI > profits after information technology problems caused too many chocolate  > bars to be produced.   > H > Cadbury was left with a glut of chocolate products at the start of theE > year, after the installation of a new SAP-based enterprise resource I > planning (ERP) system led to an excess of chocolate bars building up at  > the end of 2005.   >  > ...  > B >  This led to a total hit of 32 million pounds ($58.9 million) onC > Cadbury's first-quarter financial figures, 12 million pounds ($22 C > million) of which the company said was directly related to the IT  > problems.  >  > -------------------  > G > Good example of the "mission critical" nature of many IT systems that K > can cost a corporation much more money than the IT systems itself costed.  >  >  > D > Have there ever been a succesfull large scale SAP implementation ?  ! That's a hell of a good question!   G My perception of SAP is that it takes most/all of the 'knowhow' out of  H running a company.  For those who don't really know what they're doing, F they think SAP will rescue them.  For those who are good at what they L do, SAP takes away their capability to apply their knowledge and experience.  E Really successful companies acquire or write applications that allow  C them to run the enterprise in the manner they wish.  SAP basically  & defines how an enterprise will be run.  4 Hey, just my personal perspective, yours may differ.  G SAP is highly successful for the 'really' high priced consultants that  $ you get stuck with, usually forever.   --  4 David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com DFE Ultralights, Inc.  170 Grimplin Road  Vanderbilt, PA  15486    ------------------------------   Date: 9 Jun 2006 10:11:59 -0700  From: eSsk8er14x@yahoo.com1 Subject: Reading SYSUAF Disuser Flag from FORTRAN C Message-ID: <1149873119.146383.149520@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   H >From FORTRAN, I'd like to get the SYSUAF disuser flag value for a given? username.  Is there a system library routine that will do this?    Thanks.    ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:44:32 GMT ( From: Alan Greig <greigaln@netscape.net>< Subject: Re: SimH 3.6-0 (problems compiling VAX using MinGW)> Message-ID: <4qbig.358390$xt.313399@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>   toby wrote:  > Alan Greig wrote:  > 
 >>Wilm wrote:  >>J >>>I have a problem compiling VAX and VAX780 under Windows, using the SIMH# >>>supplied build_mingw.bat script.  >>> I >>>The VAXen will not build *unless* I copy vax_defs.h, vaxmod_defs.h and G >>>vax780_defs.h from the VAX folder into the PDP11 folder. If not, the G >>>first PDP11 module to be compiled with either VAX fails with a "file " >>>not found" error on vax_defs.h. >>> >>I had that problem as well. Also you should turn on full gcc7 >>optimization. That almost doubles the emulator speed.  >  > C > Hmm, that seems a strange omission from the Makefile. -O0 is very  > inappropriate...  F Yes, it works fine with -O3. I believe it is because mingw is not Bob ! Supnik's development environment.    > 0 >>>The gcc command generated by mingw32-make is: >>> ) >>>gcc -std=c99 -U__STRICT_ANSI__ -O0 ...  >  >    --  
 Alan Greig   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:47:57 +0200 3 From: Wilm Boerhout <w5OLD.boerhout@PAINTplanet.nl> < Subject: Re: SimH 3.6-0 (problems compiling VAX using MinGW)6 Message-ID: <44896dfd$0$18395$ba620dc5@nova.planet.nl>   Wilm wrote on 7-6-2006 16:50... I > I have a problem compiling VAX and VAX780 under Windows, using the SIMH " > supplied build_mingw.bat script.  I The cause seems to be this: in the makefile, symbols are defined for the  B VAX (and VAX780) folder names. These names are used then both for > locating the modules to build, and for the "-I" switch, as in:   VAXD = VAX/ K VAX = ${VAXD}vax_cpu.c ${VAXD}vax_cpu1.c ${VAXD}vax_fpa.c ${VAXD}vax_io.c \ 9 	${VAXD}vax_cis.c ${VAXD}vax_octa.c  ${VAXD}vax_cmode.c \  [snip]( 	${PDP11D}pdp11_vh.c ${PDP11D}pdp11_cr.cD VAX_OPT = -DVM_VAX -DUSE_INT64 -DUSE_ADDR64 -I ${VAXD} -I ${PDP11D}  ${NETWORK_OPT}  G Output from "gcc -v" (below) shows that the "I ${VAXD}" results in gcc  F not including that folder in its include path. When I manually change F "-I ${VAXD}" to "-I VAX", effectively omitting the forward slash, the  build will go fine.   D I cannot see how this has ever worked. Then again, this is my first ' experience with gcc, so what do I know?    /Wilm   > Reading specs from C:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/specsI Configured with: ../gcc/configure --with-gcc --with-gnu-ld --with-gnu-as  A --host=mingw32 --target=mingw32 --prefix=/mingw --enable-threads  : --disable-nls --enable -languages=c,c++,f77,ada,objc,java C --disable-win32-registry --disable-shared --enable-sjlj-exceptions  F --enable-libgcj --disable-java-awt --without-x --enable-java-gc=boehm , --disable-libgcj-debug --enable-interpreter 6 --enable-hash-synchronization --enable-libstdcxx-debug Thread model: win32 ! gcc version 3.4.2 (mingw-special) E   C:/MinGW/bin/../libexec/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/cc1.exe -quiet -v -I. -I  ? VAX/ -I PDP11/ -iprefix C:\MinGW\bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/  I -U__STRICT_ANSI__ -DVM_VAX -DUSE_INT64 -DUSE_ADDR64 VAX/vax_cpu.c -quiet  > -dumpbase vax_cpu.c -auxbase vax_cpu -O3 -std=c99 -version -o  D:\Temp\User/cc23aaaa.s  ignoring nonexistent directory  C "C:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/../../../../mingw32/include" / ignoring nonexistent directory "/mingw/include" / ignoring nonexistent directory "/mingw/include" E ignoring nonexistent directory "/mingw/lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/include" 7 ignoring nonexistent directory "/mingw/mingw32/include" / ignoring nonexistent directory "/mingw/include" ' *ignoring nonexistent directory "VAX/"* ) *ignoring nonexistent directory "PDP11/"* " #include "..." search starts here:" #include <...> search starts here:   . ;   C:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/../../../../include /   C:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/include  End of search list.    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.319 ************************                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    and.  Try HELP.T  <<< CWD /info-vax/2005_290.txt9 >>> 550 You are not permitted to access this directory.  <<< CWD /info-vaxk1 >>> 250 Connected to /disk$misc/decus/info-vax.k	 <<< PWD/; >>> 257 "/disk$misc/decus/info-vax" is current directory.  <<< TYPE I >>> 200 Type I ok. <<< LIST -la 2005_290.txta >>> 150 List started.o >>> 226 Transfer completed. <<< PORT 24,5,236,254,13,1754 >>> 200 Port 13.175 at Host 24.5.236.254 accepted. <<< LIST 2005_290.txtr >>> 150 List s