6-core CPU on the horizon - VMS

This is a discussion on 6-core CPU on the horizon - VMS ; JF Mezei wrote: > Neil Rieck wrote: > >> I just bought an HP-Pavilion with a quad-core (q6000) @ 2.4 GHz for >> $650 > > Out of curiosity, does HP's wintel box offer anything that Dell or > Lenovo ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45

Thread: 6-core CPU on the horizon

  1. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    >> I just bought an HP-Pavilion with a quad-core (q6000) @ 2.4 GHz for
    >> $650

    >
    > Out of curiosity, does HP's wintel box offer anything that Dell or
    > Lenovo or others don't have ?


    not sure about the pavilion stuff, but HP has good support on their
    business and workstation series machines.

    > Do you feel comfortable buying from a company that is destroying VMS's
    > chances ?


    Can you explain the overlap between VMS and a windows workstation?

  2. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Le 27-02-2008, à propos de
    Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    Cydrome Leader écrivait dans comp.os.vms :
    > JKB wrote:
    >> Le 26-02-2008, ? propos de
    >> Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    >> Cydrome Leader ?crivait dans comp.os.vms :
    >>> JKB wrote:
    >>>> Le 26-02-2008, ? propos de
    >>>> Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    >>>> Cydrome Leader ?crivait dans comp.os.vms :
    >>>>> JKB wrote:
    >>>>>> Le 26-02-2008, ? propos de
    >>>>>> 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    >>>>>> Neil Rieck ?crivait dans comp.os.vms :
    >>>>>>> For anyone watching competing technologies, Intel has a 6-core CPU on
    >>>>>>> the horizon.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...processor.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes and ? My Sparc T1000 uses 8-cores CPU (and 4 threads by core)
    >>>>>> for a long time...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> and each "thread" is about the speed of a 486.
    >>>>
    >>>> Nope. This server is a database server and runs faster than all x64
    >>>> I have tried.
    >>>>
    >>>> JKB
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Each thread is horribly slow, there's just lots of them. shut off 30 cores
    >>> and see how that machine handles.

    >>
    >> I have a lot of T1000 and I have done a lot of tests before buying
    >> this kind of material. I have made some tests to see degradation due
    >> to SMP architecture. This degradation is not important and when you
    >> know what you do with this material, you can achieve very good
    >> performances in parallel computation (or with multithreaded
    >> softwares). Each thread is not horribly slow as you say, and its
    >> performance is good even when load average is high. I think you
    >> haven't tried this material.
    >>
    >> JKB
    >>
    >> PS: [OT], thus for me,

    >
    > bull****.
    >
    > run a compile on a t1000. it's like stepping back into the 1990s. You can
    > read the compiler jabber as it slowly scrolls by.
    >
    > threaded stuff seems happy on such a machine, but for single processes
    > that want CPU, it's really really slow.


    And ? If you buy a 32 threads-CPU without using multithreaded
    programs, you're idiot.

    --
    Le cerveau, c'est un véritable scandale écologique. Il représente 2% de notre
    masse corporelle, mais disperse à lui seul 25% de l'énergie que nous
    consommons tous les jours.

  3. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    On Feb 27, 11:40*am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    [...snip...]
    >
    > > Do you feel comfortable buying from a company that is destroying VMS's
    > > chances ?

    >
    > Can you explain the overlap between VMS and a windows workstation?
    >


    An instance of JF's humor :-)

    The HP-Pavilion (which runs Windoz) and VMS are both marketed by HP.

    Neil Rieck


  4. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Feb 27, 11:40 am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > [...snip...]
    >
    >>>Do you feel comfortable buying from a company that is destroying VMS's
    >>>chances ?

    >>
    >>Can you explain the overlap between VMS and a windows workstation?
    >>

    >
    >
    > An instance of JF's humor :-)
    >
    > The HP-Pavilion (which runs Windoz) and VMS are both marketed by HP.
    >
    > Neil Rieck
    >



    BZZZZZZZZT!!!! WRONG!!!!!! Only one of the above is marketed by HP.
    Maybe Sue can find you someone at HP who can sell you VMS but they
    clearly do not market it.


  5. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Cydrome Leader wrote:

    > Can you explain the overlap between VMS and a windows workstation?


    VMS used to be in the workstation business and used to be way ahead of
    Windows in OFFICE APPLICATIONS.

    Since HP isn't interested in growing VMS and prefers to let it die
    quietly, HP is ruining my skill sets and I am worthless on the
    marketplace and have to re-learn everything and move to another platform.

    Do you seriously think that I will ever want to purchase anything from HP ?

    One of the reasons Marcello was able to convince Curly to postpone the
    killing of VMS in 2000 is the fact that Compaq would not be able to
    convert VMS customers to other Compaq product and those customers would
    be lost forever.


    What we have been told here is that VMS will not be ported beyond that
    IA64 contraption. When you consider key applications such as Cerner have
    abandonned ship already, it looks as if the downward trend for VMS will
    accelerate.

    One must not reward HP's handling of VMS by buying other HP products.
    The HP folks like stallard/livermore would likely have told the board
    that they would be able to salvage much of the VMS customer base and
    keep them as HP customers. They must be proven wrong.

    The least we can do is help punish those people at HP who think VMS can
    be slowly abandonned and customer moved to other HP products.

    Every customer who moves from VMS to another HP product helps support
    the killing of VMS. Every customer who visible moved from VMS to a
    competitor (IBM/Sun/Dell) helps maintain VMS alive.

  6. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    JKB wrote:
    > Le 27-02-2008, ? propos de
    > Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    > Cydrome Leader ?crivait dans comp.os.vms :
    >> JKB wrote:
    >>> Le 26-02-2008, ? propos de
    >>> Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    >>> Cydrome Leader ?crivait dans comp.os.vms :
    >>>> JKB wrote:
    >>>>> Le 26-02-2008, ? propos de
    >>>>> Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    >>>>> Cydrome Leader ?crivait dans comp.os.vms :
    >>>>>> JKB wrote:
    >>>>>>> Le 26-02-2008, ? propos de
    >>>>>>> 6-core CPU on the horizon,
    >>>>>>> Neil Rieck ?crivait dans comp.os.vms :
    >>>>>>>> For anyone watching competing technologies, Intel has a 6-core CPU on
    >>>>>>>> the horizon.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...processor.html
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes and ? My Sparc T1000 uses 8-cores CPU (and 4 threads by core)
    >>>>>>> for a long time...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> and each "thread" is about the speed of a 486.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Nope. This server is a database server and runs faster than all x64
    >>>>> I have tried.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> JKB
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Each thread is horribly slow, there's just lots of them. shut off 30 cores
    >>>> and see how that machine handles.
    >>>
    >>> I have a lot of T1000 and I have done a lot of tests before buying
    >>> this kind of material. I have made some tests to see degradation due
    >>> to SMP architecture. This degradation is not important and when you
    >>> know what you do with this material, you can achieve very good
    >>> performances in parallel computation (or with multithreaded
    >>> softwares). Each thread is not horribly slow as you say, and its
    >>> performance is good even when load average is high. I think you
    >>> haven't tried this material.
    >>>
    >>> JKB
    >>>
    >>> PS: [OT], thus for me,

    >>
    >> bull****.
    >>
    >> run a compile on a t1000. it's like stepping back into the 1990s. You can
    >> read the compiler jabber as it slowly scrolls by.
    >>
    >> threaded stuff seems happy on such a machine, but for single processes
    >> that want CPU, it's really really slow.

    >
    > And ? If you buy a 32 threads-CPU without using multithreaded
    > programs, you're idiot.


    It takes an idiot to miss the point that lots of "newer faster" processors
    are in fact slowers than previous generation CPU for the huge number of
    tasks that are not multithreaded.




  7. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >> Can you explain the overlap between VMS and a windows workstation?

    >
    > VMS used to be in the workstation business and used to be way ahead of
    > Windows in OFFICE APPLICATIONS.


    used to ahead? when, 20 years ago?

    > Since HP isn't interested in growing VMS and prefers to let it die
    > quietly, HP is ruining my skill sets and I am worthless on the
    > marketplace and have to re-learn everything and move to another platform.


    You're ruining your skills by not letting go, and refusing to learn new
    things.

    > Do you seriously think that I will ever want to purchase anything from HP ?


    I really don't care. You've had decade to learn more current skills, and
    now you're all upset because that was a bad move?

    > One of the reasons Marcello was able to convince Curly to postpone the
    > killing of VMS in 2000 is the fact that Compaq would not be able to
    > convert VMS customers to other Compaq product and those customers would
    > be lost forever.
    >
    >
    > What we have been told here is that VMS will not be ported beyond that
    > IA64 contraption. When you consider key applications such as Cerner have
    > abandonned ship already, it looks as if the downward trend for VMS will
    > accelerate.
    >
    > One must not reward HP's handling of VMS by buying other HP products.
    > The HP folks like stallard/livermore would likely have told the board
    > that they would be able to salvage much of the VMS customer base and
    > keep them as HP customers. They must be proven wrong.
    >
    > The least we can do is help punish those people at HP who think VMS can
    > be slowly abandonned and customer moved to other HP products.
    >
    > Every customer who moves from VMS to another HP product helps support
    > the killing of VMS. Every customer who visible moved from VMS to a
    > competitor (IBM/Sun/Dell) helps maintain VMS alive.


    I'm not following how people migrating off VMS keeps VMS alive. In my
    book, VMS was dead when the VAX I used was chopped up for scrap and left
    in a hallway.

  8. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Cydrome Leader wrote:

    > I'm not following how people migrating off VMS keeps VMS alive. In my
    > book, VMS was dead when the VAX I used was chopped up for scrap and left
    > in a hallway.


    The bet/promise at HP is that they will be able to convert VMS customers
    to HP customers and retain them.

    If VMS customers who are leaving VMS move to other HP products and
    services, then HP's VPs will be able to point to the success of
    converting VMS customers to HP customers and accelerate the de-emphasis
    of VMS to quicken the move from VMS.

    On the other hand, if VMS customers move to other vendors, then HP may
    be forced to rethink if de-emphasis philosophy for VMS and try to retain
    customers on VMS as long as possible.

    But I think it is too late now. When HP told/allowed Cerner to abandon
    VMS last summer, it probably sent VMS into an irreversible, inevitable
    decline.

  9. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >> I'm not following how people migrating off VMS keeps VMS alive. In my
    >> book, VMS was dead when the VAX I used was chopped up for scrap and left
    >> in a hallway.

    >
    > The bet/promise at HP is that they will be able to convert VMS customers
    > to HP customers and retain them.
    >
    > If VMS customers who are leaving VMS move to other HP products and
    > services, then HP's VPs will be able to point to the success of
    > converting VMS customers to HP customers and accelerate the de-emphasis
    > of VMS to quicken the move from VMS.


    so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    > On the other hand, if VMS customers move to other vendors, then HP may
    > be forced to rethink if de-emphasis philosophy for VMS and try to retain
    > customers on VMS as long as possible.


    so in this case, HP can just go ahead and drop VMS because nobody's using
    it anymore.

    It doesn't matter what they do or who you buy from. VMS is going away.

    > But I think it is too late now. When HP told/allowed Cerner to abandon
    > VMS last summer, it probably sent VMS into an irreversible, inevitable
    > decline.


    It might be nice if VMS ran on something other than a the already dead but
    never really killed off alpha platform.


  10. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Cydrome Leader wrote:

    > so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.


    No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.

  11. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >
    >>so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    >
    >
    > No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    > customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.


    If HP is hoping to transition VMS customers to HP-UX, they are in deep
    trouble. ;-)


  12. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>
    >>> I'm not following how people migrating off VMS keeps VMS alive. In
    >>> my book, VMS was dead when the VAX I used was chopped up for scrap
    >>> and left in a hallway.

    >>
    >> The bet/promise at HP is that they will be able to convert VMS
    >> customers to HP customers and retain them.
    >>
    >> If VMS customers who are leaving VMS move to other HP products and
    >> services, then HP's VPs will be able to point to the success of
    >> converting VMS customers to HP customers and accelerate the
    >> de-emphasis of VMS to quicken the move from VMS.

    >
    > so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate
    > VMS.
    >
    >> On the other hand, if VMS customers move to other vendors, then HP
    >> may be forced to rethink if de-emphasis philosophy for VMS and try
    >> to retain customers on VMS as long as possible.

    >
    > so in this case, HP can just go ahead and drop VMS because nobody's
    > using it anymore.
    >
    > It doesn't matter what they do or who you buy from. VMS is going away.
    >
    >> But I think it is too late now. When HP told/allowed Cerner to
    >> abandon VMS last summer, it probably sent VMS into an irreversible,
    >> inevitable decline.

    >
    > It might be nice if VMS ran on something other than a the already
    > dead but never really killed off alpha platform.


    The would be the dead but not yet killed Itanium I guess

    Dweeb



  13. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

    > If HP is hoping to transition VMS customers to HP-UX, they are in deep
    > trouble. ;-)


    Wall Street Casino Analysts don't care about the IA64 based enterprise
    division for HP. It is small potatoes, and HP never puts much emphasis
    on it, and makes sure its numbers are published in such a way that
    nobody can draw conclusions about products, except for the disk business
    in which HP is still interested.

    What is important however is how people such as Livermore and Stallard
    are seen by the CEO (currently Hurd). They have allegedly made nifty
    powerpoint presentations showing that they could retain customers if VMS
    were allowed to dwindle to extinction. So they are the ones who stand to
    lose status with Hurd if their promises turn out to be false. And if
    Hurd loses respect for these two, he might then be opened to listening
    to some people at lower ranks who would show VMS was still a valuable
    asset worth developping.

    If ex-VMS customers remain with VMS, it will only strenghten Livermore
    and Stallard's positions within HP and this rteduce chances that HP
    might change its policy of allowing VMS to dwindle to extinction.

  14. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    In article <47c5e3fc$0$10264$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >> so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    >
    > No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    > customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.


    So, let's look at this from HP's point of view. They have, maybe, 100,000
    VMS customers in the world and a potential for 0 more. They have several
    million Windows customers and a potentiol for maybe a billion more. Can
    you say "insignificant"? I thought you could.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  15. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    In article <47C5E558.9090808@comcast.net>,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    >>
    >>
    >> No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    >> customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.

    >
    > If HP is hoping to transition VMS customers to HP-UX, they are in deep
    > trouble. ;-)


    I don't think the number of remaining VMS customers is significant enough
    that they care one way or the other. Who knows, they may have already
    made the consciuous decision by this point that it is better to just let
    the whiners go and concentrate on new business. The argument that HP
    should be shunned for letting VMS die is not likely to sway any CIO or
    CEO that I have ever met. Most of them probably don't even know what
    VMS is.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  16. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >
    >> so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    >
    > No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    > customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.


    how many tens of dollars is the VMS market worth these days?



  17. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    On Feb 27, 6:31 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    > > Cydrome Leader wrote:

    >
    > >> so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    >
    > > No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    > > customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.

    >
    > how many tens of dollars is the VMS market worth these days?


    I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but there are only two ways to get
    OpenVMS ported to other platforms like x86-64.

    1) HP will need to pay professional programmers to do it. Since this
    will be expensive, it will also require a business plan with an ROI of
    3-4 years.

    2) HP would need to release the source code to the public domain then
    HOPE that "the world army of university students" and "open-source
    contributors" pick up the ball and run with it (this is one reason why
    UNIX + Linux seem to be everywhere and on everything). Since releasing
    OpenVMS code into the public domain would most likely hurt their
    current licensing revenue, and there is no real ROI to this action,
    this will never happen.

    So the only hope for OpenVMS is to convince HP to proceed with plan
    #1. To start this, we all need to be less dogmatic about non-Alpha
    hardware. Continually bashing Intel technology (32, 64, or 128 bit
    processors) sends strong messages to HP that we would never support
    OpenVMS on x86-64.

    You may call me fickle, but: I was in love with RSX on PDP-11 until I
    experienced VMS on VAX. I was resistant to OpenVMS on Alpha until
    those systems became faster and cheaper than equivalent VMS on VAX.
    BTW, Alpha got better-faster-cheaper primarily due to COTS (commodity
    off the shelf) system components. So now we're at another fork in the
    road and the only way to keep OpenVMS alive is to accept the fact that
    it will need to run on hardware that is 100% non-DEC. I can hardly
    wait until my employer agrees that a new Itanium platform makes sense.
    However, this is getting harder every day when my boss knows that 4,
    6, and 8 core systems are on the horizon and under a few thousand
    dollars. Maybe targeting OpenVMS at an 8-core x86-64 platform may be
    more realistic.

    p.s. failure to stop complaining might relegate OpenVMS to the OS
    museum along with products like: RSX-11, RT-11, TRS-DOS, Apple-DOS,
    etc.

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

  18. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    In article <0f290c00-b750-40c8-a706-127667c4cbd8@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Neil Rieck writes:
    >
    > 2) HP would need to release the source code to the public domain then
    > HOPE that "the world army of university students" and "open-source
    > contributors" pick up the ball and run with it (this is one reason why
    > UNIX + Linux seem to be everywhere and on everything). Since releasing
    > OpenVMS code into the public domain would most likely hurt their
    > current licensing revenue, and there is no real ROI to this action,
    > this will never happen.


    While I like the results of having lots of free software because so
    many people contribute, I do not trust the average programmer to
    maintain upward compatability or security in code written in an open
    source environment.

    Most programmers I know are heavily influenced by thier first hand
    experience, which nowdays does not include upward compatability or
    serious security.


  19. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    In article <0f290c00-b750-40c8-a706-127667c4cbd8@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
    Neil Rieck writes:
    > On Feb 27, 6:31 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >> JF Mezei wrote:
    >> > Cydrome Leader wrote:

    >>
    >> >> so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    >>
    >> > No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    >> > customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.

    >>
    >> how many tens of dollars is the VMS market worth these days?

    >
    > I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but there are only two ways to get
    > OpenVMS ported to other platforms like x86-64.
    >
    > 1) HP will need to pay professional programmers to do it. Since this
    > will be expensive, it will also require a business plan with an ROI of
    > 3-4 years.
    >
    > 2) HP would need to release the source code to the public domain then
    > HOPE that "the world army of university students" and "open-source
    > contributors" pick up the ball and run with it (this is one reason why
    > UNIX + Linux seem to be everywhere and on everything). Since releasing
    > OpenVMS code into the public domain would most likely hurt their
    > current licensing revenue, and there is no real ROI to this action,
    > this will never happen.


    That assumes this revenue is significant enough for them to care. A
    much more likely reason not to release it like this is just lack of
    interest. How much revenue do you think they get from Ultrix-32? And
    yet, their answer to a request for just a hobbyist license, not even open
    sourcing was, "Go use NetBSD."

    >
    > So the only hope for OpenVMS is to convince HP to proceed with plan
    > #1. To start this, we all need to be less dogmatic about non-Alpha
    > hardware. Continually bashing Intel technology (32, 64, or 128 bit
    > processors) sends strong messages to HP that we would never support
    > OpenVMS on x86-64.


    Ummmm..... There have been VMS users calling for VMS on Intel (well,
    other than Itanium) hardware for several years. Might even be a
    decade already!! I think they have had pelnty of proof that if they
    build it people would come.

    >
    > You may call me fickle, but: I was in love with RSX on PDP-11 until I
    > experienced VMS on VAX. I was resistant to OpenVMS on Alpha until
    > those systems became faster and cheaper than equivalent VMS on VAX.
    > BTW, Alpha got better-faster-cheaper primarily due to COTS (commodity
    > off the shelf) system components. So now we're at another fork in the
    > road and the only way to keep OpenVMS alive is to accept the fact that
    > it will need to run on hardware that is 100% non-DEC. I can hardly
    > wait until my employer agrees that a new Itanium platform makes sense.
    > However, this is getting harder every day when my boss knows that 4,
    > 6, and 8 core systems are on the horizon and under a few thousand
    > dollars. Maybe targeting OpenVMS at an 8-core x86-64 platform may be
    > more realistic.
    >
    > p.s. failure to stop complaining might relegate OpenVMS to the OS
    > museum along with products like: RSX-11, RT-11, TRS-DOS, Apple-DOS,
    > etc.


    Well, RSX-11 and RT-11 are hardly museum bait. They are still sold and
    maintained by Mentec and I know of a number of commercial operations
    using them. Oh yeah, and RSTS as well.

    TRS-DOS. Well, the owner of that was never a computer company and its
    attempt to move into that world was a dismal failure as you might expect
    of someone who had absolutely no understanding of the business. You do
    remember the origin of "Tandy", don't you? Oh, and just in case your
    curious, TRS-DOS (and its third-party competition, DOSPlus, NewDOS and
    others) are still thriving in the hobbyist world. And, like the VAX
    world they are doing it more and more on emulators as the hardware gets
    harder and harder to find. I now, I'm one of them. My first computer
    was a TRS80. My first home Unix system was a TRS-80. My first OS9
    realtime system was, you guessed it, a TRS-80!! :-)

    The owner of Apple-DOS developed other hardware and software until Apple-DOS
    had no paractical reason for existance. hardly the same situation as VMS.
    As a matter of fact, that company's computer line is still thriving.

    If VMS falls, it will be due to tha apathyt of its owners. A fate not
    suffered by any of the others mentioned above.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  20. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Feb 27, 6:31 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >> JF Mezei wrote:
    >> > Cydrome Leader wrote:

    >>
    >> >> so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then deprecate VMS.

    >>
    >> > No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a VMS
    >> > customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.

    >>
    >> how many tens of dollars is the VMS market worth these days?

    >
    > I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but there are only two ways to get
    > OpenVMS ported to other platforms like x86-64.
    >
    > 1) HP will need to pay professional programmers to do it. Since this
    > will be expensive, it will also require a business plan with an ROI of
    > 3-4 years.


    I'm sure HP could pull this off if they wanted to. Even unisys (no
    joke, they're still in business) was able to port their burroughs mainframe OS
    to x86 processors. Lookup OS 2200 or whatever it's called.

    I did more digging, and it was some sort of virtualization type port, but
    they maintained compatibility with the old systems, and it works.

    That's how Wang users continue to run these days- on some sort of
    emulation wedge on intel processors.

    If that's what it takes, they should go for it.


    > 2) HP would need to release the source code to the public domain then
    > HOPE that "the world army of university students" and "open-source
    > contributors" pick up the ball and run with it (this is one reason why
    > UNIX + Linux seem to be everywhere and on everything). Since releasing
    > OpenVMS code into the public domain would most likely hurt their
    > current licensing revenue, and there is no real ROI to this action,
    > this will never happen.


    They should skip this part. I have no interest in running code messed with
    by complete idiots. Just look at the linux word. People keep breaking code
    that worked just fine and didn't need to be messed with.

    I'm not interested in 200 concurrent projects and branches. Just give me
    one or two versions supported by one vendor that actually works.

    > So the only hope for OpenVMS is to convince HP to proceed with plan
    > #1. To start this, we all need to be less dogmatic about non-Alpha
    > hardware. Continually bashing Intel technology (32, 64, or 128 bit
    > processors) sends strong messages to HP that we would never support
    > OpenVMS on x86-64.


    Or switch to other going nowhere platforms that do run on intel stuff,
    like some unisys mainframe or Wang VS system running on a dell so some
    clown can write a white paper on ROI and TCO. HP might notice that.

    Sun had made this jump to x86 processors already. IBM is still holding out
    with AIX, but their Power series processors are actually 1) fast and 2)
    modern and 3) still being updated. Sun sort of dropped the sparc, and HP
    doesn't make processors anymore. They're going to have to kill their
    legacy stuff off or adapt to a modern platform.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast