Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young - VMS

This is a discussion on Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young - VMS ; Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article , >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: >> >>> In article , "Tom Linden" >>> writes: >>> >>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 141

Thread: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

  1. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>
    >>> In article , "Tom Linden"
    >>> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>>>> never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>>>> Alpha.
    >>>>
    >>>> Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as
    >>>> on VAX,
    >>>> a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of
    >>> lots of software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't
    >>> gratuitous. VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital
    >>> engineers just couldn't keep up with the competition.

    >>
    >>
    >> Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    >> performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    >> technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.
    >> bill
    >>

    >
    > That's one of those things that we will probably never know.
    >
    > Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    > faster than CISC.
    >


    And the the current VAX *emulators* runs faster then any
    VAX *hardware* ever did. If I understand correctly...

  2. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article <4727437E.7060900@comcast.net>,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>
    >>>In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >>>
    >>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>>>>never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>>>>Alpha.
    >>>>
    >>>>Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as on VAX,
    >>>>a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of lots of
    >>>software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't gratuitous.
    >>>VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital engineers just
    >>>couldn't keep up with the competition.

    >>
    >>
    >> Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    >> performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    >> technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.
    >>

    >
    > That's one of those things that we will probably never know.
    >
    > Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    > faster than CISC.


    Yes, they are. But, what of EPIC? The target is no longer Alpha.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  3. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article ,
    Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    > Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>> In article ,
    >>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>>
    >>>> In article , "Tom Linden"
    >>>> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>>>>> never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>>>>> Alpha.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as
    >>>>> on VAX,
    >>>>> a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of
    >>>> lots of software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't
    >>>> gratuitous. VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital
    >>>> engineers just couldn't keep up with the competition.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    >>> performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    >>> technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.
    >>> bill
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's one of those things that we will probably never know.
    >>
    >> Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    >> faster than CISC.
    >>

    >
    > And the the current VAX *emulators* runs faster then any
    > VAX *hardware* ever did. If I understand correctly...


    But the question is would that hold true if the VAX were being
    manufactured in today'sa technology? The very existence of VAX
    emulators (the commercial ones) proves that after all this time
    there is still a need and a desire to have the VAX architecture
    around. And we need not even go into how many PDP-11 systems
    both real and emulated are still in operation as well.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  4. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:45:51 -0700, wrote:

    > A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of
    > lots of
    > software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't gratuitous.
    > VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital engineers just
    > couldn't keep up with the competition.


    Rubbish, they didn't try. Notice the clock speed on z hardware or x86?
    Yes,
    I have read Hennessy's paper on the VAX, and I don't agree, based on a
    number
    of assumptions, likely to justify the mips approach, and don't forget they
    sold
    a piece to DEC, after that paper.

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  5. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:45:18 -0700, Richard B. Gilbert
    wrote:

    > Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    > faster than CISC.
    >

    Not completely true. For simple things yes. Alpha had a 3:1 bloat factor
    over VAX


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  6. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On 10/30/07 08:45, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>> never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>> Alpha.

    >> Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as on VAX,
    >> a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>

    > A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of lots of
    > software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't gratuitous.
    > VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital engineers just
    > couldn't keep up with the competition.


    Too bad that CISC-over-RISC came after the Alpha was designed...

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  7. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:45:18 -0700, Richard B. Gilbert
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    >> faster than CISC.
    >>

    > Not completely true. For simple things yes. Alpha had a 3:1 bloat
    > factor over VAX
    >
    >


    Alpha's generally needed at least three times as much RAM as a VAX to
    run the same software. That was because the executables contained more
    instructions. We still got a VERY nice speed up!

    The VAX architecture was very programmer friendly. The Alpha is less so
    if you program in machine language. That's not that big a disadvantage
    because very few of us get down to the bare metal or want to. Most of
    us just want to get our prompts back in seconds instead of minutes!

    I have a VAXstation 4000/VLC and a MicroVAX 3100. I haven't booted
    either one in years because I also have an Alphastation 200 and an
    Alphastation 600. I use one of the Alphas when I want a VMS prompt!




  8. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article <5op04lFnvtu4U4@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article ,
    > Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article , "Tom Linden"
    >>>>> writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>>>>>> never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>>>>>> Alpha.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as
    >>>>>> on VAX,
    >>>>>> a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of
    >>>>> lots of software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't
    >>>>> gratuitous. VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital
    >>>>> engineers just couldn't keep up with the competition.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    >>>> performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    >>>> technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.
    >>>> bill
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> That's one of those things that we will probably never know.
    >>>
    >>> Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    >>> faster than CISC.
    >>>

    >>
    >> And the the current VAX *emulators* runs faster then any
    >> VAX *hardware* ever did. If I understand correctly...

    >


    >But the question is would that hold true if the VAX were being
    >manufactured in today'sa technology?


    You would need to find someway to produce RISC like instructions from the VAX
    instructions and pass them to a RISC core (as modern x86 processors do)
    only then can you start looking at optimisations such as out of order execution.
    As I recall discussions on this subject in comp.arch concluded that this would
    be more difficult for the VAX instruction set than for the x86 instruction
    set.

    Yes with modern chip manufacturing you would get a faster VAX than any which
    was ever manufactured but Power and other RISC architectures would still be
    much faster.



    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

    >The very existence of VAX
    >emulators (the commercial ones) proves that after all this time
    >there is still a need and a desire to have the VAX architecture
    >around. And we need not even go into how many PDP-11 systems
    >both real and emulated are still in operation as well.
    >





    >bill
    >
    >--
    >Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    >bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >University of Scranton |
    >Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


  9. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article ,
    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    > In article <5op04lFnvtu4U4@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>In article ,
    >> Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    >>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>>>> In article ,
    >>>>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In article , "Tom Linden"
    >>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>>>>>>> never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>>>>>>> Alpha.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as
    >>>>>>> on VAX,
    >>>>>>> a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of
    >>>>>> lots of software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't
    >>>>>> gratuitous. VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital
    >>>>>> engineers just couldn't keep up with the competition.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    >>>>> performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    >>>>> technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.
    >>>>> bill
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> That's one of those things that we will probably never know.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    >>>> faster than CISC.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> And the the current VAX *emulators* runs faster then any
    >>> VAX *hardware* ever did. If I understand correctly...

    >>

    >
    >>But the question is would that hold true if the VAX were being
    >>manufactured in today'sa technology?

    >
    > You would need to find someway to produce RISC like instructions from the VAX
    > instructions and pass them to a RISC core (as modern x86 processors do)
    > only then can you start looking at optimisations such as out of order execution.
    > As I recall discussions on this subject in comp.arch concluded that this would
    > be more difficult for the VAX instruction set than for the x86 instruction
    > set.
    >
    > Yes with modern chip manufacturing you would get a faster VAX than any which
    > was ever manufactured but Power and other RISC architectures would still be
    > much faster.


    Which, of course, does not mean not commercially viable. "Power and other
    RISC architectures" are all faster than Itanium and yet........

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  10. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article <5oovujFnvtu4U3@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article <4727437E.7060900@comcast.net>,
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>> In article ,
    >>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>>
    >>>>In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>>>>>never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>>>>>Alpha.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as on VAX,
    >>>>>a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of lots of
    >>>>software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't gratuitous.
    >>>>VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital engineers just
    >>>>couldn't keep up with the competition.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    >>> performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    >>> technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's one of those things that we will probably never know.
    >>
    >> Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    >> faster than CISC.

    >
    >Yes, they are. But, what of EPIC? The target is no longer Alpha.
    >

    That's the big difference.

    VAX -> Alpha was seen as producing improved performance.
    Alpha -> Itanium is seen as a forced move where continued Alpha development
    would have produced better performance.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

    >bill
    >
    >--
    >Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    >bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >University of Scranton |
    >Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


  11. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article <5op8n6Fnkn47U1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article ,
    > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >> In article <5op04lFnvtu4U4@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>>In article ,
    >>> Jan-Erik Söderholm writes:
    >>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> In article , "Tom Linden"
    >>>>>>> writes:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:35:30 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> We welcomed the move from RSX-11M on PDP-11/44 to go to VMS on VAX but
    >>>>>>>>> never thought we'd see anything better until we experienced OpenVMS on
    >>>>>>>>> Alpha.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as
    >>>>>>>> on VAX,
    >>>>>>>> a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of
    >>>>>>> lots of software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't
    >>>>>>> gratuitous. VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital
    >>>>>>> engineers just couldn't keep up with the competition.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    >>>>>> performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    >>>>>> technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.
    >>>>>> bill
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's one of those things that we will probably never know.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do consider, however, the fact that RISC architectures are generally
    >>>>> faster than CISC.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> And the the current VAX *emulators* runs faster then any
    >>>> VAX *hardware* ever did. If I understand correctly...
    >>>

    >>
    >>>But the question is would that hold true if the VAX were being
    >>>manufactured in today'sa technology?

    >>
    >> You would need to find someway to produce RISC like instructions from the VAX
    >> instructions and pass them to a RISC core (as modern x86 processors do)
    >> only then can you start looking at optimisations such as out of order execution.
    >> As I recall discussions on this subject in comp.arch concluded that this would
    >> be more difficult for the VAX instruction set than for the x86 instruction
    >> set.
    >>
    >> Yes with modern chip manufacturing you would get a faster VAX than any which
    >> was ever manufactured but Power and other RISC architectures would still be
    >> much faster.

    >
    >Which, of course, does not mean not commercially viable. "Power and other
    >RISC architectures" are all faster than Itanium and yet........
    >

    But then that is the 64 Million dollar question - how much longer is Itanium
    going to remain commercially viable ? For that matter if you include all it's
    development costs is Itanium actually commercially successful ?


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

    >bill
    >
    >--
    >Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    >bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >University of Scranton |
    >Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


  12. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >
    > Let's not revise history, VMS on Alpha was never quite the same as on VAX,
    > a lot was lost in the gratuitous migration


    Well, at least there's a company that sells a PL/I compiler.

    The only thing different I note on a regular basis is the DBG> prompt
    after entering a DCL command when I use ^Y to exit a program I'm
    debugging.


  13. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article <5oorjkFns754U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

    > Sadly, we will never know, but I would be most interested in what the
    > performance of a VAX (or a PDP-11, for that matter) made with today's
    > technology (process size, speed-ups, etc.) would be.


    Are you sure about that? I know what the performance of my SIMH
    VAXen are. And last I heard someone was still looking at doing an
    FPGA based "microcoded" VAX (what goes around comes around).

    IMHO an FPGA based VAX could cheaply outperform a 9000. But a lot
    of applications will run out of P0 space.


  14. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >
    > You would need to find someway to produce RISC like instructions from the VAX
    > instructions and pass them to a RISC core (as modern x86 processors do)
    > only then can you start looking at optimisations such as out of order execution.


    As I recall, that's how DEC described the CPU blocks in the 9000.


  15. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > You would need to find someway to produce RISC like instructions from the VAX
    > instructions and pass them to a RISC core (as modern x86 processors do)



    When you consider the various complex instructions that were added to
    the 8086 (such as those to support video and many others), it shows that
    "hardware" can still outperform software for certain types of operations.

    I believe that some of the instructions that have been added to the 8086
    in recent years are far more complex in nature than whatever VAX had.

    The main reason that IA64 failed commercially is that it isn't
    compatible with windows, and the main reason Intel and AMD worked so
    hard to get the 8086 to perform admirably despite its "toy controller"
    architecture is that the installed base of software was just too large
    to let go.

    Apple managed its architecture transitions admirably, altough the
    PowerPC to 8086 transition dropped support for pre OS-X applications.
    The 68k to PowerPc happened while Apple was still doing well. The
    PowerPc to 8086 is different because the MAC was pretty lethargic and
    decimated due to bad Apple management. (Scully was to Apple what Palmer
    was to DEC). With the return of Steve Jobs, he essentially relaunched
    the MAC computer and did a significant marketing campaign and quickly
    introduced a totally new operating system (OS-X) that brought the MAC
    back into a leadership position, well ahead of Windows.

    Apple's experience shows that with proper leadership and the right
    software, you can manage transitions fairly well.


    I think that Windows on IA64 failed because Microsoft was simply
    incapable of doing what Apple did with its seamless translators,
    probably due in part to how messy Windows and Windows drivers are.


    The VAX to Alpha transition costed VMS a lot of applications. This might
    have been reduced to some extent if VEST (or whatever its name is this
    week) had been included as part of the OS right from the start it and
    written such that Digital could have encouraged people to use it
    (instead of warning it was somewhat of a kludge etc etc).

    And of course, the lack of a "relaunch of VMS" campaign meant that any
    loss of customers who coudln't migrate easily was not compensated by gains.


    Remember that in the 1980s, of the strengths of VMS was its software
    inventory. The VAX to Alpha migration, along with Palmer sabotaged this
    great asset leaving VMS with "leftovers" of software.


    One thing was missing from VAX though: IEEE floating point. Could IEEE
    instructions have been added to VAX architecture/chips relatively easily ?

  16. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    JF Mezei wrote:

    > The main reason that IA64 failed commercially...


    Did it ?
    Or do you want it to ?

  17. RE: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Tom Linden [mailto:tom@kednos.company]
    > Sent: October 30, 2007 11:28 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young
    >
    > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:45:51 -0700, wrote:
    >
    > > A lot of software was lost (and was made worse by DEC then selling of
    > > lots of
    > > software which was ported) but the transition to Alpha wasn't

    > gratuitous.
    > > VAX performance even with the best efforts of the Digital engineers

    > just
    > > couldn't keep up with the competition.

    >
    > Rubbish, they didn't try. Notice the clock speed on z hardware or x86?
    > Yes,
    > I have read Hennessy's paper on the VAX, and I don't agree, based on a
    > number
    > of assumptions, likely to justify the mips approach, and don't forget
    > they
    > sold
    > a piece to DEC, after that paper.
    >
    > --
    > PL/I for OpenVMS
    > www.kednos.com


    Relative performance of VAX vs. Alpha comparison:
    http://h18002.www1.hp.com/alphaserve.../perf_tps.html

    Regards


    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-592-4660
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.




  18. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    Main, Kerry wrote:
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER [mailtoeter@langstoeger.at]
    >> Sent: October 26, 2007 3:36 PM
    >> To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    >> Subject: RE: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young
    >>
    >> In article
    >> >> t>, "Main, Kerry" writes:
    >>> What is this fascination you have with the main page on HP.com?

    >>
    >> What is your fascination with JF postings?
    >> Only because he is still putting the finger in the wound
    >> (while all other got bored repeating itself pointing to the obvious
    >> and stopped years ago)?
    >>
    >> Don't shoot the messenger...
    >>
    >> (though I often get bored of JF postings, too)
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
    >> Network and OpenVMS system specialist
    >> E-mail peter@langstoeger.at
    >> A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a
    >> realist

    >
    > Well, its one thing to constantly say its raining, but when the sun
    > comes out occasionally, there is nothing wrong with recognizing that
    > a bit of sun shine is a good thing. Enjoy it.



    I'm sure the condemned prisoner too enjoys the last rays of sunshine and his
    last cigarette as they tie him to the post in front of the firing squad.


    --
    OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV base,
    and less than 0.5 Gorhams of installed systems.



  19. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    On Oct 30, 6:15 pm, "John Smith" wrote:
    > Main, Kerry wrote:
    > >> -----Original Message-----
    > >> From: Peter 'EPLAN' LANGSTOeGER [mailtoe...@langstoeger.at]
    > >> Sent: October 26, 2007 3:36 PM
    > >> To: Info-...@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > >> Subject: RE: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    >
    > >> In article
    > >> > >> t>, "Main, Kerry" writes:
    > >>> What is this fascination you have with the main page on HP.com?

    >
    > >> What is your fascination with JF postings?
    > >> Only because he is still putting the finger in the wound
    > >> (while all other got bored repeating itself pointing to the obvious
    > >> and stopped years ago)?

    >
    > >> Don't shoot the messenger...

    >
    > >> (though I often get bored of JF postings, too)

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Peter "EPLAN" LANGSTOEGER
    > >> Network and OpenVMS system specialist
    > >> E-mail pe...@langstoeger.at
    > >> A-1030 VIENNA AUSTRIA I'm not a pessimist, I'm a
    > >> realist

    >
    > > Well, its one thing to constantly say its raining, but when the sun
    > > comes out occasionally, there is nothing wrong with recognizing that
    > > a bit of sun shine is a good thing. Enjoy it.

    >
    > I'm sure the condemned prisoner too enjoys the last rays of sunshine and his
    > last cigarette as they tie him to the post in front of the firing squad.


    Oh, stop it already. What are you? JF? Besides: It's not even a
    reasonable scenario for the actual case described.

    ^Y

    [...]

    AEF


  20. Re: Happy Anniversary VMS - 30 years young

    AEF wrote:
    >
    > On Oct 30, 6:15 pm, "John Smith" wrote:
    > > Main, Kerry wrote:
    > > [snip]
    > > > Well, its one thing to constantly say its raining, but when the sun
    > > > comes out occasionally, there is nothing wrong with recognizing that
    > > > a bit of sun shine is a good thing. Enjoy it.

    > >
    > > I'm sure the condemned prisoner too enjoys the last rays of sunshine and his
    > > last cigarette as they tie him to the post in front of the firing squad.

    >
    > Oh, stop it already. What are you? JF? Besides: It's not even a
    > reasonable scenario for the actual case described.


    Yeah. Besides, these days they use lethal injection by default.

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast