OT: IBM looking at Macintosh - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: IBM looking at Macintosh - VMS ; http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/ IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform. This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC business to Lenovo ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

  1. OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/

    IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
    its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.

    This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
    business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
    doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
    offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.

    It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)


    I thought this piece of news would tickle Mr Vaxman's fancy. Now that
    "Vax" has been mentioned in this post, it makes it relevant to c.o.v.
    :-) :-) :-) :-)

  2. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/
    >
    > IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
    > its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.
    >
    > This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
    > business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
    > doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
    > offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.
    >
    > It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    > despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)


    What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    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

  3. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/
    >
    > IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
    > its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.
    >
    > This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
    > business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
    > doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
    > offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.
    >
    > It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    > despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)


    wrong premise: IBM did not port their software to VMS because of MS
    =>
    wrong conclusion: they will now

    Arne

  4. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    In article <66q19aF2ks2anU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?


    IBM knows good stuff when they see it. And they know how to market.


  5. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    > JF Mezei writes:
    >> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/
    >>
    >> IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
    >> its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.
    >>
    >> This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
    >> business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
    >> doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
    >> offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.
    >>
    >> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    >> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)

    >
    > What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?
    >


    The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
    services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
    was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
    comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

  6. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    Marty Kuhrt wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    >> JF Mezei writes:
    >>> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    >>> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)

    >>
    >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >
    > The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
    > services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
    > was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
    > comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.


    IBM consultants would probably support any OS for $$$.

    But many IBM products WAS, DB2 etc. are not available for VMS.

    Arne



  7. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    On Apr 18, 7:46 pm, Marty Kuhrt wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
    > > JF Mezei writes:
    > >>http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ilot-program-f...

    >
    > >> IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
    > >> its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.

    >
    > >> This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
    > >> business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
    > >> doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
    > >> offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.

    >
    > >> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    > >> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)

    >
    > > What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >
    > The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
    > services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
    > was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
    > comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.


    Yet they supplanted many VMS systems with their AS/400's! Well, VAX/
    VMS, at least. I personally witnessed one in action, and one of the AS/
    400 programmers said the AS/400 was known as the VAX killer. :-(

    AEF

  8. RE: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Arne Vajh°j [mailto:arne@vajhoej.dk]
    > Sent: April 18, 2008 9:19 PM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh
    >
    > Marty Kuhrt wrote:
    > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > >> In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    > >> JF Mezei writes:
    > >>> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    > >>> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)
    > >>
    > >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    > >
    > > The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through

    > IBM
    > > services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company

    > that
    > > was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
    > > comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

    >
    > IBM consultants would probably support any OS for $$$.
    >
    > But many IBM products WAS, DB2 etc. are not available for VMS.
    >
    > Arne
    >


    IBM, like HP, is a very big company. They have many different divisions
    (some of which are larger than many companies) and will usually make
    business decisions based on the needs their specific Cust base.

    IBM Global Services is like HP in the same way i.e. both have Solaris,
    AIX, OpenVMS, z/OS, Linux, Windows, HP-UX, NSK resources etc. You can not
    survive in the SI world if you do not have access to these resources (either
    directly of via contract workers).

    I suspect the IBM product groups do not dictate how their Global Services
    division should operate any more than the same scenario at HP.


    Regards

    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-254-8911
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

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


  9. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    In article <$yqIL4$wmzAi@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
    koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > In article <66q19aF2ks2anU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>
    >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >
    > IBM knows good stuff when they see it. And they know how to market.


    And? Has IBM ever expressed an interest in being the owner of VMS?
    I didn't think so.

    And, of course, even if they did, the point still remains that VMS is not
    now and probably never will be for sale.

    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

  10. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    In article ,
    Marty Kuhrt writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    >> JF Mezei writes:
    >>> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/
    >>>
    >>> IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
    >>> its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.
    >>>
    >>> This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
    >>> business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
    >>> doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
    >>> offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.
    >>>
    >>> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    >>> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)

    >>
    >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?
    >>

    >
    > The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
    > services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
    > was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
    > comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.


    Like other major players I have worked for in the past, IBM supports
    whatever their customers want (unlike some companies that shall remain
    nameless). They don't buy the companies, just support their customers.

    Has IBM ever expressed an interest in purchasing VMS? So why would
    you think they would be interested now that the product is on the
    downhill side of its life?

    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

  11. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    In article <01b89554-e11f-47cd-9a32-a23966054820@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
    AEF writes:
    > On Apr 18, 7:46 pm, Marty Kuhrt wrote:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> > In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
    >> > JF Mezei writes:
    >> >>http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ilot-program-f...

    >>
    >> >> IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
    >> >> its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.

    >>
    >> >> This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
    >> >> business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
    >> >> doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
    >> >> offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.

    >>
    >> >> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    >> >> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)

    >>
    >> > What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >>
    >> The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
    >> services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
    >> was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
    >> comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

    >
    > Yet they supplanted many VMS systems with their AS/400's! Well, VAX/
    > VMS, at least. I personally witnessed one in action, and one of the AS/
    > 400 programmers said the AS/400 was known as the VAX killer. :-(


    Well, that was name (but not officially, I think) that IBM applied to the
    AS/400. A lot of those sales were moves to the IBM name rather than
    something specifically superior in the AS/400. DEC once had a time like
    that. I still remember hearing; "I don't care who wins the bid as long as
    it says VAX on the front of the machine." That was early in my beltway-
    bandit days and I took the lesson to heart. Always, ALWAYS!, give the
    customer what he wants, If it's not what he wants, even if it's superior
    he will not be happy. Too bad the (many) owners of VMS lost sight of that.

    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

  12. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    Main, Kerry wrote:
    > From: Arne Vajh°j [mailto:arne@vajhoej.dk]
    >> Marty Kuhrt wrote:
    >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>>> In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    >>>> JF Mezei writes:
    >>>>> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
    >>>>> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)
    >>>> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?
    >>> The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
    >>> services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
    >>> was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
    >>> comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

    >> IBM consultants would probably support any OS for $$$.
    >>
    >> But many IBM products WAS, DB2 etc. are not available for VMS.

    >
    > IBM, like HP, is a very big company. They have many different divisions
    > (some of which are larger than many companies) and will usually make
    > business decisions based on the needs their specific Cust base.
    >
    > IBM Global Services is like HP in the same way i.e. both have Solaris,
    > AIX, OpenVMS, z/OS, Linux, Windows, HP-UX, NSK resources etc. You can not
    > survive in the SI world if you do not have access to these resources (either
    > directly of via contract workers).
    >
    > I suspect the IBM product groups do not dictate how their Global Services
    > division should operate any more than the same scenario at HP.


    Any why should they ?

    A profitable business is a profitable business !

    Arne

  13. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > Well, that was name (but not officially, I think) that IBM applied to the
    > AS/400. A lot of those sales were moves to the IBM name rather than
    > something specifically superior in the AS/400. DEC once had a time like
    > that. I still remember hearing; "I don't care who wins the bid as long as
    > it says VAX on the front of the machine." That was early in my beltway-
    > bandit days and I took the lesson to heart. Always, ALWAYS!, give the
    > customer what he wants, If it's not what he wants, even if it's superior
    > he will not be happy. Too bad the (many) owners of VMS lost sight of that.


    "The customer is always right, even if they're wrong"

    may not always apply to individual cases, but as an
    overall strategy it does.

    Arne

  14. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    On Apr 19, 12:05 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <$yqIL4$wm...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
    > koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >
    > > In article <66q19aF2ks2a...@mid.individual.net>, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

    >
    > >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >
    > > IBM knows good stuff when they see it. And they know how to market.

    >
    > And? Has IBM ever expressed an interest in being the owner of VMS?
    > I didn't think so.
    >
    > And, of course, even if they did, the point still remains that VMS is not
    > now and probably never will be for sale.
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include



    C'mon, Bill, be fair. The question wasn't whether IBM was likely or
    interested in VMS. The question was

    > >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?


    and the answer was quite appropriate. As you say, that is apparently
    not enough for them to show interest, and your last point, while it
    may well be true, does not invalid Bob's answer in the least. So I'm
    not saying your points are wrong. I'm just saying that Bob's answer
    was a good answer. Now if the question were, instead,

    "What would be enough for IBM to actually attempt a purchase of VMS?"

    then your criticisms would be quite appropriate. But that wasn't the
    question. The fact that IBM apparently does support at least some VMS
    installations means that it already does have something to do with
    VMS. So the premise of the (original) question isn't even right in the
    first place.

    AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

  15. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    In article ,
    AEF writes:
    > On Apr 19, 12:05 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> In article <$yqIL4$wm...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
    >> koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>
    >> > In article <66q19aF2ks2a...@mid.individual.net>, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

    >>
    >> >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >>
    >> > IBM knows good stuff when they see it. And they know how to market.

    >>
    >> And? Has IBM ever expressed an interest in being the owner of VMS?
    >> I didn't think so.
    >>
    >> And, of course, even if they did, the point still remains that VMS is not
    >> now and probably never will be for sale.
    >>
    >> bill
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    >> billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >> University of Scranton |
    >> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

    >
    >
    > C'mon, Bill, be fair. The question wasn't whether IBM was likely or
    > interested in VMS. The question was


    Actually, the original statement was, "It would be a hoot if IBM started
    to port all its software to VMS", which is once again this stranger notion
    that IBM, "despite HP's best efforts in the other direction" was going
    to come along and save VMS. Reality time, people, VMS's fate lies in
    the hands of HP alone. IBM isn't going to save it. Unisys isn't going
    to save it. No one is going to ride up at the last minute to save it.
    It's up to HP and we already know what their direction is.

    >
    >> >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >
    > and the answer was quite appropriate. As you say, that is apparently
    > not enough for them to show interest, and your last point, while it
    > may well be true, does not invalid Bob's answer in the least. So I'm
    > not saying your points are wrong. I'm just saying that Bob's answer
    > was a good answer. Now if the question were, instead,
    >
    > "What would be enough for IBM to actually attempt a purchase of VMS?"
    >
    > then your criticisms would be quite appropriate. But that wasn't the
    > question. The fact that IBM apparently does support at least some VMS
    > installations means that it already does have something to do with
    > VMS. So the premise of the (original) question isn't even right in the
    > first place.


    IBM supports lots of different OSes. They have never bought any of them.
    IBM owns the OSes it created. I am aware of no OS currently owned by IBM
    that originated in some other company. Add to that the fact that IBM shows
    no sign of porting any of their current non-OS software, like DB2, to VMS.
    Thye are willing to support (and have the resources to support) other
    people's products in order to keep their customers happy, but that does
    not mean they are going to buy something like VMS to save it. Much more
    likely that they will have their salesmen spend the needed additional time
    with the customer pointing out the direction VMS is headed and pushing them
    to port to an all IBM solution. That's called marketing.

    > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!


    You could always buy a new keyboard where the capslock wasn't stuck.
    I know of no ne who actually writes in all caps, although ee cummings
    dir write in all lowercase. :-)

    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: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:12:26 -0700, Bill Gunshannon
    wrote:

    > IBM supports lots of different OSes. They have never bought any of them.
    > IBM owns the OSes it created. I am aware of no OS currently owned by IBM
    > that originated in some other company. Add to that the fact that IBM
    > shows
    > no sign of porting any of their current non-OS software, like DB2, to
    > VMS.
    > Thye are willing to support (and have the resources to support) other
    > people's products in order to keep their customers happy, but that does
    > not mean they are going to buy something like VMS to save it. Much more
    > likely that they will have their salesmen spend the needed additional
    > time
    > with the customer pointing out the direction VMS is headed and pushing
    > them
    > to port to an all IBM solution. That's called marketing.


    The only reason IBM would buy OpenVMS would be for the customer base, but
    that opportunity disappeared ca. 1992.

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

  17. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    In article ,
    "Tom Linden" writes:
    > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:12:26 -0700, Bill Gunshannon
    > wrote:
    >
    >> IBM supports lots of different OSes. They have never bought any of them.
    >> IBM owns the OSes it created. I am aware of no OS currently owned by IBM
    >> that originated in some other company. Add to that the fact that IBM
    >> shows
    >> no sign of porting any of their current non-OS software, like DB2, to
    >> VMS.
    >> Thye are willing to support (and have the resources to support) other
    >> people's products in order to keep their customers happy, but that does
    >> not mean they are going to buy something like VMS to save it. Much more
    >> likely that they will have their salesmen spend the needed additional
    >> time
    >> with the customer pointing out the direction VMS is headed and pushing
    >> them
    >> to port to an all IBM solution. That's called marketing.

    >
    > The only reason IBM would buy OpenVMS would be for the customer base, but
    > that opportunity disappeared ca. 1992.


    Which is kinda the point I was trying to get accross. Every couple of weeks
    we see these messages implying that somehow, IBM is going to come riding in
    on big white horse to save the day. It just ain't gonna happen. Even if
    (and I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell of it happening) IBM
    were to buy VMS it would likely be, as stated above, strictly for the customer
    bnase (if there actually was one) and it would mark the end of the product
    just as surely as HO is doing now.

    This subject always reminds me of the place in "Jesus Christ, Superstar"
    where Judas sings, "You know what your supporters feel, You'll escape in
    the final reel." Of course, everyone knows He didn't. :-)

    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

  18. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    On Apr 20, 12:12 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article ,
    > AEF writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 19, 12:05 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> In article <$yqIL4$wm...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
    > >> koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:

    >
    > >> > In article <66q19aF2ks2a...@mid.individual.net>, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

    >
    > >> >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >
    > >> > IBM knows good stuff when they see it. And they know how to market.

    >
    > >> And? Has IBM ever expressed an interest in being the owner of VMS?
    > >> I didn't think so.

    >
    > >> And, of course, even if they did, the point still remains that VMS is not
    > >> now and probably never will be for sale.

    >
    > >> bill

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

    >
    > > C'mon, Bill, be fair. The question wasn't whether IBM was likely or
    > > interested in VMS. The question was

    >
    > Actually, the original statement was, "It would be a hoot if IBM started
    > to port all its software to VMS", which is once again this stranger notion
    > that IBM, "despite HP's best efforts in the other direction" was going
    > to come along and save VMS. Reality time, people, VMS's fate lies in


    I meant the original statement that Bob Koehler was answering. So it's
    still apples and oranges on your side. I make no comment on your
    comments except that you unfairly attack Bob's answer by assuming he
    was addressing some other question. If this is still not clear to you
    -- okay, maybe you're just pushing my buttons. Fine. I'm done.

    AEF -- UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!


    > the hands of HP alone. IBM isn't going to save it. Unisys isn't going
    > to save it. No one is going to ride up at the last minute to save it.
    > It's up to HP and we already know what their direction is.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

    >
    > > and the answer was quite appropriate. As you say, that is apparently
    > > not enough for them to show interest, and your last point, while it
    > > may well be true, does not invalid Bob's answer in the least. So I'm
    > > not saying your points are wrong. I'm just saying that Bob's answer
    > > was a good answer. Now if the question were, instead,

    >
    > > "What would be enough for IBM to actually attempt a purchase of VMS?"

    >
    > > then your criticisms would be quite appropriate. But that wasn't the
    > > question. The fact that IBM apparently does support at least some VMS
    > > installations means that it already does have something to do with
    > > VMS. So the premise of the (original) question isn't even right in the
    > > first place.

    >
    > IBM supports lots of different OSes. They have never bought any of them.
    > IBM owns the OSes it created. I am aware of no OS currently owned by IBM
    > that originated in some other company. Add to that the fact that IBM shows
    > no sign of porting any of their current non-OS software, like DB2, to VMS.
    > Thye are willing to support (and have the resources to support) other
    > people's products in order to keep their customers happy, but that does
    > not mean they are going to buy something like VMS to save it. Much more
    > likely that they will have their salesmen spend the needed additional time
    > with the customer pointing out the direction VMS is headed and pushing them
    > to port to an all IBM solution. That's called marketing.
    >
    > > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

    >
    > You could always buy a new keyboard where the capslock wasn't stuck.
    > I know of no ne who actually writes in all caps, although ee cummings
    > dir write in all lowercase. :-)
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include



  19. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    AEF wrote:

    >> > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!



    Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than
    4 hours at a time.

  20. Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh

    On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:39:39 -0700, Bob Koehler
    wrote:

    > In article
    > <01b89554-e11f-47cd-9a32-a23966054820@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, AEF
    > writes:
    >>
    >> Yet they supplanted many VMS systems with their AS/400's! Well, VAX/
    >> VMS, at least. I personally witnessed one in action, and one of the AS/
    >> 400 programmers said the AS/400 was known as the VAX killer. :-(

    >
    > AS/400 was one of a few different attempt by IBM to build a VAX
    > killer. While they had some success of there own, none of them
    > killed the VAX.
    >

    Actually it was a continuation of the line that began as the System 3 in
    the early seventies, was intended (I think) to provide a continuation for
    customers of a very profitable line, and may have incidentally prevented
    some of those customers from migrating to VAX. But they were in different
    worlds anyway, VAX was seen as a fortran machine and System 3, 34, as RPG
    machines.

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast