1 INFO-VAX	Tue, 28 Mar 2006	Volume 2006 : Issue 174       Contents:% Re: A nice enhancement to SHOW SYSTEM  Re: Intel to sell itanium? Re: Intel to sell itanium? Re: Intel to sell itanium? Re: Intel to sell itanium? Re: Intel to sell itanium? Re: Intel to sell itanium? Re: Newbie guide? . Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS. Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS. Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS. Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS OT: Windows RG demo  Re: qman$master.dat  Re: qman$master.dat  Re: Windows RG demo   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:16:03 -0500 / From: "William Webb" <william.w.webb@gmail.com> . Subject: Re: A nice enhancement to SHOW SYSTEMI Message-ID: <8660a3a10603280416u476afaf1s6bffe7168ef8e398@mail.gmail.com>   A On 27 Mar 2006 09:52:26 -0800, Galen <gltackett@gmail.com> wrote: L > > So you want /FONT=3D(NewTimesRoman, 9, Regular).   The /WIDTH command w= ould > > specify inches - like 8.5  > < > A long time from now, in an OpenVMS Galaxy far, far, away: > C > Perhaps someday they'll even add astronomical units, light years, C > parsecs, etc., once those TBI (TBI =3D TIA for To Be Invented) 3D 8 > holographic projectors are able to achieve such sizes. > D > Just imagine a huge flashing neon-red sign visible from the entire& > solar system reading something like: > * > "Coming soon to a star system near you!" > G > (Actually that sounds a lot more like Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker book  > than it does like Star Wars.)  >  > :-)  >  >   1 C'mon, Galen- they already did "microfortnights".    What more could you want?    WWWebb   who keeps asking for  < $ DELETE/USER/PERMANENT/TERMINATE/WITH_PREJUDICE=3D(EXTREME)  J I keep looking for it in each new release, but Guy just isn't cooperating.     --C NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related  correspondence. C All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for 8 services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at# http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Mar 2006 01:54:06 -0800- From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> # Subject: Re: Intel to sell itanium? C Message-ID: <1143539646.440591.145800@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>    bob@instantwhip.com wrote:G > by the sounds of this article, they better start the alpha production > > line back up with EV79 immediately, then hire back the alpha > team and start on EV8 now ...   ? Why continue to waste bandwidth on a proposition which was very = unlikely immediately after the Alpha EOL and which has become 0 infinitely more unlikely as the time has passed.  F The Alpha team is scattered to the four winds, working for AMD, Intel, IBM and Sun.  C Even assuming you could do the impossible and re-assemble the Alpha G team, and prise the Alpha IP from Intels grasp you then get to the more  difficult question of why ?   E Restarting EV8 development today would at best deliver a processor in A 2009 but one origionally architected nearly a decade earlier. The E landscape has moved on, huge single core CPU's are rapidly becoming a E thing of the past as revisions to the x86, SPARC and Itanium roadmaps D have illustrated. It is just not efficient any longer to continue toC strive for higher and higher clock rates, better branch prediction,   more Instructions per cycle etc.  ? If EV8 had been produced and Alpha was still a viable processor G architecture then you can bet your bottom dollar that EV9/10 would have G looked more like the other simpler multi-core processors which now make E up the bulk of the units being designed for the server market. Either , that or Alpha would have been doomed anyway.  @ Even POWER6 which will be the pinnacle of large core design willC struggle to compete in its key market which is integer based server % workloads against AMD, x86 and SPARC.   E I would suggest that every time you consider sending out one of these F fantasy microprocessor postings that instead you take a dollar and buyD a lottery ticket. You have a infinitely higher chance of winning theB jackpot and being able to retire and not worry about OpenVMS/Alpha/ again than you do of seing your wish come true.    Regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:31:36 -0500 * From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com># Subject: Re: Intel to sell itanium? * Message-ID: <442948ca@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  8 "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> wrote in message= news:1143539646.440591.145800@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...  >  > G > Restarting EV8 development today would at best deliver a processor in C > 2009 but one origionally architected nearly a decade earlier. The G > landscape has moved on, huge single core CPU's are rapidly becoming a G > thing of the past as revisions to the x86, SPARC and Itanium roadmaps F > have illustrated. It is just not efficient any longer to continue toE > strive for higher and higher clock rates, better branch prediction, " > more Instructions per cycle etc. > A > If EV8 had been produced and Alpha was still a viable processor I > architecture then you can bet your bottom dollar that EV9/10 would have I > looked more like the other simpler multi-core processors which now make G > up the bulk of the units being designed for the server market. Either . > that or Alpha would have been doomed anyway. >   K Not to argue with most of what you said (which suprisingly I mostly agree), H the EV8 and EV9 were not a huge single core with higher clock rates.  InI fact, it was probably among the earliest proposals for SMT and would have L provided 8 threads of execution using both shared and seperate CPU  logic...J it was essentially where the industry has gone today.  Not suprising since2 many of the Alpha architects are at Intel and AMD.  H But I agree that an attempt to restart the Alpha CPU design is doomed toJ failure as a competing architecture to Power, AMD64 and Itanium.  While itI might have some potential to be faster than all of these 1) it would take K years to produce and ship.  2) It would take a large investment in both the K chip and system platforms.  3) its advantage in performance over the others H would probably remain too marginal to cause wholesale abandonment of theJ others - history showed that was the case for Alpha - it was almost alwaysJ the fastest, but never that much faster (or cheaper) to topple IBM or even Sun (with an inferior CPU).   B I expect x86-64 to remain competetive simply because of its binaryJ compatibility in the 32-bit space - even once hit hits the wall on how farL you can push a flying brick.  I expect Power and Itanium to duke it out long2 term for the high-performance 64-bit server space.   ------------------------------   Date: 28 Mar 2006 14:44:19 GMT( From: bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)# Subject: Re: Intel to sell itanium? + Message-ID: <48t0e3FlordpU2@individual.net>   * In article <442948ca@usenet01.boi.hp.com>,- 	"FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com> writes:  > : > "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> wrote in message? > news:1143539646.440591.145800@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...  >> >>H >> Restarting EV8 development today would at best deliver a processor inD >> 2009 but one origionally architected nearly a decade earlier. TheH >> landscape has moved on, huge single core CPU's are rapidly becoming aH >> thing of the past as revisions to the x86, SPARC and Itanium roadmapsG >> have illustrated. It is just not efficient any longer to continue to F >> strive for higher and higher clock rates, better branch prediction,# >> more Instructions per cycle etc.  >>B >> If EV8 had been produced and Alpha was still a viable processorJ >> architecture then you can bet your bottom dollar that EV9/10 would haveJ >> looked more like the other simpler multi-core processors which now makeH >> up the bulk of the units being designed for the server market. Either/ >> that or Alpha would have been doomed anyway.  >> > M > Not to argue with most of what you said (which suprisingly I mostly agree), J > the EV8 and EV9 were not a huge single core with higher clock rates.  InK > fact, it was probably among the earliest proposals for SMT and would have N > provided 8 threads of execution using both shared and seperate CPU  logic...L > it was essentially where the industry has gone today.  Not suprising since4 > many of the Alpha architects are at Intel and AMD. > J > But I agree that an attempt to restart the Alpha CPU design is doomed toL > failure as a competing architecture to Power, AMD64 and Itanium.  While it  @ BUt Alpha never competed with them before, why would that make a difference now?   K > might have some potential to be faster than all of these 1) it would take M > years to produce and ship.  2) It would take a large investment in both the  > chip and system platforms.    ? Larger than the money being flushed down the toilet on Itanium?   L >                            3) its advantage in performance over the othersJ > would probably remain too marginal to cause wholesale abandonment of the	 > others    = It never competed with them before, why would it need to now?   N >          - history showed that was the case for Alpha - it was almost alwaysL > the fastest, but never that much faster (or cheaper) to topple IBM or even > Sun (with an inferior CPU).   D When did it try?  It was the chip that one particular vendor used toE support it's OS offerings.  It could have continued in that niche and 3 still been a better (and cheaper) bet than Itanium.    > D > I expect x86-64 to remain competetive simply because of its binaryL > compatibility in the 32-bit space - even once hit hits the wall on how farN > you can push a flying brick.  I expect Power and Itanium to duke it out long4 > term for the high-performance 64-bit server space.   D Personally, I don't see the Itanium "duking it out" with anyone.  ItD will continue to be developed until Intel (or its stockholders) tireD of it or Intel just goes broke from flushing all that money down the* toilet. (The first being the more likely.)   D All of this is, of course, academic.  Nothing is going to bring backD the Alpha.  The big question really should be what's going to happen to VMS.    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: 28 Mar 2006 07:18:07 -0800- From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> # Subject: Re: Intel to sell itanium? B Message-ID: <1143559087.329258.13750@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>   FredK wrote:: > "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> wrote in message? > news:1143539646.440591.145800@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...  > >  > > I > > Restarting EV8 development today would at best deliver a processor in E > > 2009 but one origionally architected nearly a decade earlier. The I > > landscape has moved on, huge single core CPU's are rapidly becoming a I > > thing of the past as revisions to the x86, SPARC and Itanium roadmaps H > > have illustrated. It is just not efficient any longer to continue toG > > strive for higher and higher clock rates, better branch prediction, $ > > more Instructions per cycle etc. > > C > > If EV8 had been produced and Alpha was still a viable processor K > > architecture then you can bet your bottom dollar that EV9/10 would have K > > looked more like the other simpler multi-core processors which now make I > > up the bulk of the units being designed for the server market. Either 0 > > that or Alpha would have been doomed anyway. > >  > M > Not to argue with most of what you said (which suprisingly I mostly agree), J > the EV8 and EV9 were not a huge single core with higher clock rates.  InK > fact, it was probably among the earliest proposals for SMT and would have N > provided 8 threads of execution using both shared and seperate CPU  logic...L > it was essentially where the industry has gone today.  Not suprising since4 > many of the Alpha architects are at Intel and AMD. >   D The EV8 would have been a very complex single core with SMT. 8 issueE superscalar, OOE, very advanced branch prediction coming in at around - 250 million transistors but with 4 "threads".   E The threads would only have added around 10% to the core size but the C core size itself would have been very considerable. As an example a B dual core Opteron uses about 230 million transistors. The SPARC T1C processor (8 cores 4 threads per core) uses 300 million transistors D which is more than EV8 but T1 was much easier to layout and validateG because the 8 cores are simple in order cores clocked at a modest 1-1.2 & Ghz so they are not very hot or leaky.  B Paul DeMone commenting on the EV8 "It is harder to gauge the extraF burden SMT imposes on the already considerable design and verification= effort for an eight issue wide superscalar processor even one C implementing a streamlined and prescient RISC architecture like the G Alpha ISA. The potential for EV6-like schedule slips in the EV8 project A seems ominously tangible if Compaq's Alpha managers and engineers ? haven't taken to heart the lessons of that unfortunate period."   G One should not confuse the T1 and EV8 approaches, EV8 is much more like > the cancelled UltraSPARC IV which was also due to be agressive multi-issue/OOE plus SMT.   @ It has been estimated that the EV8 would have been a 8 issue 2.5F completion processor with SMT possibly doubling this to the equivalentD of a 5 completion unit. T1 completes roughly .7 of a instruction perD cycle per core with 4 threads per core. Much less agressive than EV8G but then the T1 has 8 cores so it delivers effectively 5.6 instructions + per cycle admitedly at a longer cycle time.     J > But I agree that an attempt to restart the Alpha CPU design is doomed toL > failure as a competing architecture to Power, AMD64 and Itanium.  While itK > might have some potential to be faster than all of these 1) it would take M > years to produce and ship.  2) It would take a large investment in both the M > chip and system platforms.  3) its advantage in performance over the others J > would probably remain too marginal to cause wholesale abandonment of theL > others - history showed that was the case for Alpha - it was almost alwaysL > the fastest, but never that much faster (or cheaper) to topple IBM or even > Sun (with an inferior CPU).  > D > I expect x86-64 to remain competetive simply because of its binaryL > compatibility in the 32-bit space - even once hit hits the wall on how farN > you can push a flying brick.  I expect Power and Itanium to duke it out long4 > term for the high-performance 64-bit server space.  A I expect them both to lose to SPARC at the high end and SPARC and F AMD-64 at the low end unless both Intel and IBM are planning much moreG agressive multi-core/multi-threaded processors than they have announced  in their roadmaps.   regards  Andrew Harrison    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Mar 2006 07:36:04 -0800- From: "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> # Subject: Re: Intel to sell itanium? B Message-ID: <1143560164.344419.91280@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>  @ Sorry that should have read cancelled UntraSPARC V not cancelled) UltraSPARC IV which is alive and kicking.    Andrew   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:44:00 -0500 * From: "FredK" <fred.nospam@nospam.dec.com># Subject: Re: Intel to sell itanium? , Message-ID: <442959c0$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>  8 "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@symantec.com> wrote in message< news:1143559087.329258.13750@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... >    > C > I expect them both to lose to SPARC at the high end and SPARC and H > AMD-64 at the low end unless both Intel and IBM are planning much moreI > agressive multi-core/multi-threaded processors than they have announced  > in their roadmaps. >   K Pretty good response until this gem.  Gave me a really good chuckle.  SPARC J and all its variants are the walking dead, and frankly were not even worthJ mentioning when talking about competing architectures in the future.  MIPS has a brighter future.   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:39:06 -0600 - From: "Jim MacKenzie" <jim@dusykbarlow.sk.ca>  Subject: Re: Newbie guide?+ Message-ID: <44295892$1@news.accesscomm.ca>   , Thanks for the help, all.  Wish me luck.  :)   Jim    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:12:22 -0500 ' From: Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> 7 Subject: Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS 9 Message-ID: <xIudnZ3cHJmifLXZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@libcom.com>    Bill Gunshannon wrote:; > In article <nKCdna-J9dMGGLXZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@libcom.com>, , > 	Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes: >  >>Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>3 >>>In article <FbmdncBUidFPtbXZ4p2dnA@bresnan.com>, ( >>>	GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> writes: >>>  >>> M >>>>All you have to do is look at your latest Apple PC.  Underneath the hood  G >>>>is unix.  Some say it isn't so, but it is true after much thorough  J >>>>digging.  So why not do the same with OpenVMS?  After all, the o/s is M >>>>quite compact as it is and would only require putting eye candy GUI over  L >>>>it.  Make software installing simple.  If Apple can do it to Unix, then  >>>>why not on OpenVMS?  >>>  >>> F >>>Well, let's start at the beginning.  What did the underlying OS forN >>>Mac OSX cost?  Andswer $0.00.  What does VMS cost?  Any reason to continue? >>>  >>>bill  >>>  >> >>No, that is not valid. >>G >>If it's HP producing the appliance, they own VMS and can embed it in  2 >>anything they choose.  For any cost they choose. >> >  > J > Well, of course that is true.  But then, using the same logic they couldJ > have always sold VMS cheap on small machines for small businesses.  But.H > did they?  If I want a single license to use VMS on the smallest Alpha2 > available today, what will HP charge me for it?   H Wasn't the issue of this thread.  The issue, as I understood it was the G concept of a good internet interface for Joe Sixpack.  We both know HP  ' ain't gonna do it.  It was speculation.   H As for VMS, I don't have the numbers, but my understanding is that it's I rather cheap on the itanic.  I don't want to follow that thought too far.   G > Sorry, while it is a nice idea that there might be a small system VMS F > we have already been thru this dozens of times.  It just isn't goingH > to happen.  At this stage of the game we will be lucky if VMS survivesK > in the niche it currently occupies.  It isn't moving into any new niches.  >  > bill >   C Right now I don't see any initiatives to expand into potential new  I markets.  Without that, it shrinks every time an existing market shrinks.    --  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: 28 Mar 2006 08:12:05 -0600; From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) 7 Subject: Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS 3 Message-ID: <X9+uS4W0ZgB3@eisner.encompasserve.org>   V In article <48r6voFlftinU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:  E > Well, let's start at the beginning.  What did the underlying OS for M > Mac OSX cost?  Andswer $0.00.  What does VMS cost?  Any reason to continue?   F    Yes.  There has to be a bussiness case that will argue for a returnC    on investment.  In HP's case VMS will cost them $0.0, so it's an E    easy argument to make.  For other vendors there is a non-zero case G    but there are lots of folks here who could make convincing arguments     for a return on investment.   ------------------------------    Date: 28 Mar 2006 07:58:58 -0800 From: davidc@montagar.com 7 Subject: Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS C Message-ID: <1143561538.707074.223560@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>   B Given the existence of VMS Engineering as a collection of salaried< staff and harwdare investment to provide development/testing2 environments - exactly how is this a "$0.00" cost?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:27:59 -0700 " From: GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>7 Subject: Re: Opinion: I was just trying to sell OpenVMS 0 Message-ID: <BaydnaErL--A7rTZRVn-jQ@bresnan.com>   JF Mezei wrote:    > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > G >>Sorry, while it is a nice idea that there might be a small system VMS F >>we have already been thru this dozens of times.  It just isn't goingH >>to happen.  At this stage of the game we will be lucky if VMS survivesK >>in the niche it currently occupies.  It isn't moving into any new niches.  >  >  > F > I think that IA64's upcoming demise holds promise for VMS. If VMS isI > ported to he 8086, HP will not have any disincentives to hide VMS since I > every VMS sale will contribute to HP's true bottom line: its ranking in  > the 8086 marketplace.  > J > And Linux has already set the precedent for wintel assembly companies to' > deliver boxes that don't run windows.   D The latest Linux releases are easier to install on a billy box than  windows is. D I admit that the core of VMS is valuable, but keeping it out of the 6 public eye is a big mistake if HP wants to make money.     --   Where are we going?   And why am I in this handbasket?   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:07:51 -0500 - From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com>  Subject: OT: Windows RG demo, Message-ID: <4428EEA5.54C19296@teksavvy.com>  @ A new version of windows is to be made available soon. A demo is available on-line.  4 It is to be called Windows RG (Really Good edition).   You can preview it at:   http://www.antra.dk/winrg.swf   $ (needs Flash player and javascript).   ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:38:16 -0500 - From: "Jim Agnew" <brainwavesurfer@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: qman$master.datI Message-ID: <a184d6630603280638k4949b3c3xddaccac9a2e664a0@mail.gmail.com>   ' ------=_Part_185_20446935.1143556696200 , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1+ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  Content-Disposition: inline    Dear Norm...  I All the helpfull responses were already given...  In TOPS, one could edit K the disk in image mode, and I told my sysadmin that, and he totally freaked H out, until he was told it was not possible on VMS...  I did say it was a joke..  $ Thanks for parsing my parens...  ;-)  3 And have a good and happy day, and lots of coffee..    Jim   B On 3/27/06, norm.raphael@metso.com <norm.raphael@metso.com> wrote: >  >  > J > "Jim Agnew" <brainwavesurfer@gmail.com> wrote on 03/27/2006 11:59:15 AM: > G > > I suppose one could always use TECO...  (This is a joke, but one of G > > the first DEC FORTRAN compilers was written in TECO... I forget the  > details..  > >  > L > This is not a helpful response.  Now if you had suggested he ship the fil= e $ > to Larry Kilgallen for TECOing.... > J > (By the way, where does you close-parenthesis belong?  As is is not they > are 2 > mismatched and FORTRAN will issue a diagnostic.) >  > > Jim  > ; > > On 3/27/06, Chuck Aaron <caaron@cerispurdue.edu> wrote: @ > > What is the command to edit qman$master.dat to make changes? > >  > > Thanks in Advance,	 > > Chuck  >  >   ' ------=_Part_185_20446935.1143556696200 + Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 + Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable  Content-Disposition: inline   L Dear Norm...<br><br>All the helpfull responses were already given...&nbsp; =L In TOPS, one could edit the disk in image mode, and I told my sysadmin that=L , and he totally freaked out, until he was told it was not possible on VMS.=! .&nbsp; I did say it was a joke.. L <br><br>Thanks for parsing my parens...&nbsp; ;-)<br><br>And have a good an=L d happy day, and lots of coffee..<br><br>Jim<br><br><div><span class=3D"gma=L il_quote">On 3/27/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:norm.= raphael@metso.com"> L norm.raphael@metso.com</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:norm.raphael@metso.com=L ">norm.raphael@metso.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=L ote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0p= t 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> L <br><br>&quot;Jim Agnew&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:brainwavesurfer@gmail.c=L om">brainwavesurfer@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote on 03/27/2006 11:59:15 AM:<br><=L br>&gt; I suppose one could always use TECO...&nbsp;&nbsp;(This is a joke, =
 but one ofL <br>&gt; the first DEC FORTRAN compilers was written in TECO... I forget th=L e<br>details..<br>&gt;<br><br>This is not a helpful response.&nbsp;&nbsp;No=L w if you had suggested he ship the file<br>to Larry Kilgallen for TECOing..= .<br> L <br>(By the way, where does you close-parenthesis belong?&nbsp;&nbsp;As is =L is not they<br>are<br>mismatched and FORTRAN will issue a diagnostic.)<br><=L br>&gt; Jim<br><br>&gt; On 3/27/06, Chuck Aaron &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:caaro= n@cerispurdue.edu"> L caaron@cerispurdue.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt; What is the command to edit q=L man$master.dat to make changes?<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Thanks in Advance,<br>&gt; =$ Chuck<br><br></blockquote></div><br>  ) ------=_Part_185_20446935.1143556696200--    ------------------------------    Date: 28 Mar 2006 09:47:29 -0600- From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)  Subject: Re: qman$master.dat3 Message-ID: <Zx2WeK+wbaPN@eisner.encompasserve.org>   y In article <a184d6630603280638k4949b3c3xddaccac9a2e664a0@mail.gmail.com>, "Jim Agnew" <brainwavesurfer@gmail.com> writes:   K > All the helpfull responses were already given...  In TOPS, one could edit M > the disk in image mode, and I told my sysadmin that, and he totally freaked J > out, until he was told it was not possible on VMS...  I did say it was a > joke..  B Perhaps you thought it was a joke, but (with sufficient privilege) I just had no problem with   	$ MOUNT/FOREIGN $1$DQB0:  	$ TECO/INSPECT $1$DQB0:  A I am convinced it would work without the /INSPECT, but I actually 1 want to keep the data on that disk the way it is.    ------------------------------  % Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:15:14 -0500 * From: "Syltrem" <syltremzulu@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Windows RG demo0 Message-ID: <122ikm4ios944c4@corp.supernews.com>  ; "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message  & news:4428EEA5.54C19296@teksavvy.com...A >A new version of windows is to be made available soon. A demo is  > available on-line. > 6 > It is to be called Windows RG (Really Good edition). >  > You can preview it at: >  > http://www.antra.dk/winrg.swf  > & > (needs Flash player and javascript).    ' Even better than the previous versions.  ROTFL    ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2006.174 ************************