INFO-VAX Sun, 02 Dec 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 660 Contents: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? Re: Itanium / Integrity question Re: Itanium / Integrity question RE: Itanium / Integrity question Re: Itanium / Integrity question Long term survival of Hobbyist Programme ? Re: Long term survival of Hobbyist Programme ? New S/MIME website OT: Laptop recovery (Was: Re: Itanium / Integrity question) Re: OT: Micro$oft promo for VISTA Re: OT: Micro$oft promo for VISTA Re: OT: Micro$oft promo for VISTA Re: RFC: Cluster status on a mobile handset SEO Services you can Trust... Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:49:59 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: comp.os.vms to ITRC gateway ? Message-ID: OK, some middle of the night in very cold weather just before a snow storm idea: Conceptually, how about a c.o.v to ITRC gateway, similar to the info-vax gateway ? Posts made on any one of those gets propagated to the other ? Granted, the ITRC moderators would have a bigger jobs of deleting all the posts they judge to be inappropriate on an HP site, but in the end, it would reduce the fragmentation of an already small community. Perhaps the ITRC gateway could be unidirectional (ITRC to c.o.v.) which would eliminate the moderation work, but still allow people to benefit from whatever disscussions happen over there (and especially since such would get archived as c.o.v. posts in deja news (google). Just an idea. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:30:30 GMT From: "John E. Malmberg" Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question Message-ID: Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Michael Unger wrote: >> >> What about the problem of Windows writing a "harmless signature" to each >> disk it is able to recognize? Is this still true for current versions? > > I'd forgotten about that little glitch. If Windows still behaves that > way and, AFAIK Microsoft had no reason to fix it, then it would not be > possible to include Windows in such a configuration. The writing of the "harmless signature" has always been optional. The disk structure of the boot disk on the Itanium has a partition table, and as I understand it, VMS now also has a signature on it that will keep other operating systems from damaging it. I do not know if the data disks also have that partition table. -John wb8tyw@qsl.network Personal Opinion Only ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:21:11 -0000 From: "John Wallace" Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question Message-ID: <13l5en5a7f2qge2@corp.supernews.com> "Main, Kerry" wrote in message news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1W0487.americas.hpqcorp.net... >Unless you are running something like VMware, each OS requires dedicated drive >(or SAN partition). > >Good news is that with drives being so cheap these days, this is usually not an >issue. > >With 1 Integrity Dev server, you can support your application on OpenVMS, Linux, >Windows, HP-UX and other OS's that run on IA64. Simply use separate disks for >each OS and reboot as required. (sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree on quoting). "each OS requires dedicated drive" Itanium/Integrity may well require a drive per OS. Generic x86 and AMD64 systems do not require a dedicated drive (or SAN partition) per OS. A dedicated partition is often required. (The dedicated drive is *presumably* an EFI boot, not Itanium architecture, requirement?? IE do trendy new EFI-based x86-boxes (Apple ones) also need a drive per OS?) "with drives being so cheap these days, this is usually not an issue." Although drive space is cheap these days, many big companies have outsourced (for better or worse), and storage management is now part of that deal. Somehow, some outsourcers manage to make storage adds moves and changes many times more expensive than the storage itself. Maybe this doesn't apply to desktop boxes, maybe it does, may depend on the local setup. Anyway, for some unlucky folks, reconfiguring storage today can be just as tedious and expensive as it was in the days of the RK05 (a 12 inch disk with a whole 2.5MB), just today's units are measured in TB not MB. "Unless you are running something like VMware" What is the status of VMware on Itanium these days? Back in 2002/2003, HP and VMware were talking it up, at least for enterprise class versions and boxes. Last year (2006), I read that Itanium VMware was no longer happening (can't find a definitive reference just now but confidence is reasonably high). A very very quick scan of the VMware website just now doesn't quickly find anything definitive either way. Regardless of that, real business-class VMware users know that they don't just need a version of VMware that's available, for real business use they need one that's been *qualified* on the chosen platform, ideally one which is going to be actively *supported* for a reasonable length of time on the chosen platform. A worthwhile number of x86 and AMD64 boxes are qualified and supported. However, not all x86/AMD64 boxes come with such qualifications (eg the Unisys x86-based ES7000(?), rebadged briefly as Proliant 9000, at one stage had VMware qualified, but it wasn't a VMware version that anybody wanted to use in anger - it was too old or too new, I forget which, and hence at that time the P9000/ES7000 was ruled out of much of its target market). Folks who just want to tinker with VMware can probably find a zero-cost version for x86 or AMD64 on either Windows or Linux, and when the time comes to take it more seriously the software is there to buy. and from others "writing a signature ... safe operation" Don't know if Windows still does this, but some versions of imaging utility Ghost want to do it (presumably for licence-auditing purposes), so be careful if Ghost ever asks you about writing a signature (those probably aren't the words it uses, but the result is probably the same). My experience only applies to Ghost for x86; don't know if Itanium has a Ghost equivalent (maybe the SAN stuff is meant to sort it...). So to answer Dan's original question, on an Itanium box, it seems you can readily have more than one OS *installed* at once, given appropriate storage, but probably will only be able to *run* one OS at once, and VMware may not help. On an x86/AMD64, different rules apply. Regards John ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:31:43 +0000 From: "Main, Kerry" Subject: RE: Itanium / Integrity question Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk] > Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question > > > "Main, Kerry" wrote in message > news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1W0487.americas.hpqcor > p.net... > [snip..] > (sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree > on > quoting). > As fyi, just when I thought I had my Outback client tuned for this NG, my e= ntire laptop gets ripped off in Montreal (vehicle broken into). What a painful experience that is. New best practice - do not leave laptop in vehicles as the bad guys are goi= ng after the laptops big time for identity stuff. And in case you think the tr= unk is a safe option - forget it. Police state the pro's are using small portab= le x-ray scanners of some sort that allows them to see what is in car. And the= y can pop trunks faster than doors. [at least I had backup from weekend before] [snip...] > > So to answer Dan's original question, on an Itanium box, it seems you > can > readily have more than one OS *installed* at once, given appropriate > storage, but probably will only be able to *run* one OS at once, and > VMware > may not help. On an x86/AMD64, different rules apply. > > Regards > John > Remember that VMware is for virtualizing multiple low end performance syste= ms and/or desktops. If your OS does lots of heavy cpu and/or IO, then VMware = is not the right config for you. Also, VMware Enterprise for servers license i= s not a cheap option either. Regards 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:15:22 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question Message-ID: <4752DA1A.3080909@comcast.net> Main, Kerry wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk] >>Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com >>Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question >> >> >>"Main, Kerry" wrote in message >>news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1W0487.americas.hpqcor >>p.net... >> > > [snip..] > > > >>(sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree >>on >>quoting). >> > > > As fyi, just when I thought I had my Outback client tuned for this NG, my entire > laptop gets ripped off in Montreal (vehicle broken into). > > What a painful experience that is. Kerry, For your next Lap, I've read of software that will "call the police" as soon as a stolen laptop is connected to a network. I never checked it out because mine is not worth stealing and if someone did me that favor I certainly wouldn't want to have the laptop recovered. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:19:30 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Long term survival of Hobbyist Programme ? Message-ID: <58063$47528682$cef8887a$805@TEKSAVVY.COM> While trying to warm up in front of a TV showing a fireplace, I was thinking about comments on how the hobbyist programmes of True64 etc were handled poorly when those products were made "mature". If the realistic outcome is not very positive, perhaps the VMS community should act proactively and get a statement from HP garanteeing (at least) that current users of the Hobbyist programme will be able to continue to use their systems/licences after HP has ceased any VMS related business. This way, when the axe falls on VMS like it did on MPE, Tru64 etc, it would be much harder for HP to force the most excellent maintainer of the hobbyist programme to cease and desist. Since HP would be loathe to openly discuss an end to VMS, perhaps it would be best to word the question in such a way that HP could respond without mentioning an end to VMS, perhaps granteeing that HP does not intend to shut down the Hobbyist programme or ask its maintainer to stop issuing new licences. (or something like that). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:02:06 +0100 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: Long term survival of Hobbyist Programme ? Message-ID: JF Mezei schrieb: > Since HP would be loathe to openly discuss an end to VMS, perhaps it > would be best to word the question in such a way that HP could respond > without mentioning an end to VMS, perhaps granteeing that HP does not > intend to shut down the Hobbyist programme or ask its maintainer to stop > issuing new licences. The simplest solution would be to just abolish the annual termination and ship unlimited licenses. Whenever HP terminates VMS, hobbyists won't care. And since those licenses are not bound to a particular machine, hobbyists could share them. This would be similar to Tru64 with its non-commercial license. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:18:30 -0800 (PST) From: chenlev Subject: New S/MIME website Message-ID: <447e820c-5234-45b8-b4e0-7a562f7d80d7@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> SMIME.org was created to promote email encryption usage, by providing help and references to email encryption products and standards. Although S/MIME standard is supported by most of the email clients, it is not widely used. The supplied information in SMIME.org will help all kind of users, from end-users to developers, to easily use and integrate S/MIME. http://www.smime.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 12:34:23 -0500 From: "William Webb" Subject: OT: Laptop recovery (Was: Re: Itanium / Integrity question) Message-ID: <8660a3a10712020934t12468c75u6e566598908b43c8@mail.gmail.com> On Dec 2, 2007 11:15 AM, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Main, Kerry wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: John Wallace [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.spam.co.uk] > >>Sent: December 2, 2007 8:21 AM > >>To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > >>Subject: Re: Itanium / Integrity question > >> > >> > >>"Main, Kerry" wrote in message > >>news:C72D63EB292C9E49AED23F705C61957BDEBA56B1FE@G1W0487.americas.hpqcor > >>p.net... > >> > > > > [snip..] > > > > > > > >>(sorry for odd formatting, Kerry's client and mine can't seem to agree > >>on > >>quoting). > >> > > > > > > As fyi, just when I thought I had my Outback client tuned for this NG, my entire > > laptop gets ripped off in Montreal (vehicle broken into). > > > > What a painful experience that is. > > > Kerry, > > For your next Lap, I've read of software that will "call the police" as > soon as a stolen laptop is connected to a network. I never checked it > out because mine is not worth stealing and if someone did me that favor > I certainly wouldn't want to have the laptop recovered. > > > I haven't used any of them, but I've heard of something like "Lojack for Laptops". The most interesting recovery story I've heard involved a guy whose wife's laptop got stolen and she happened to be running SETI@home on it. So he got in touch with the good folks at U.Cal. and, after some legal wrangling, they tracked down the location of the laptop the next time it connected to the SETI servers. Result: It was returned to its rightful owner. < http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/22/seti-home-claims-its-first-major-discovery-a-stolen-laptop/ > WWWebb ------------------------------ Date: 1 Dec 2007 21:47:28 -0600 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: OT: Micro$oft promo for VISTA Message-ID: In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > A c.o.v. personality we all know and love forwarded a URL to me today. > It's a promo for Micro$oft VISTA. > > I thought I'd share it with all of you since we are all *so* enamoured > of Micro$oft and its "quality" products. > > http://www.tmesis.com/M$Vista_promo.html > > Makes me want to run out and buy it! Makes _me_ add tmesis.com to the list of places never to follow a posted URL. This is the second time it has redirected to some commercial site that shows me nothing. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:33:16 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: OT: Micro$oft promo for VISTA Message-ID: In article , Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > > >In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: >> A c.o.v. personality we all know and love forwarded a URL to me today. >> It's a promo for Micro$oft VISTA. >> >> I thought I'd share it with all of you since we are all *so* enamoured >> of Micro$oft and its "quality" products. >> >> http://www.tmesis.com/M$Vista_promo.html >> >> Makes me want to run out and buy it! > >Makes _me_ add tmesis.com to the list of places never to follow >a posted URL. This is the second time it has redirected to some >commercial site that shows me nothing. Sorry that you feel that way Larry. I created that link so that I could remember it if I wanted to give the URL to somebody. The link you were redirected to is a less than descriptive URL which contains a number I'd never remember. If I were to have described the web content at the final destination, I don't believe that viewing of the video content there would have had the same impact. -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2007 06:42:55 -0600 From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: OT: Micro$oft promo for VISTA Message-ID: <9mwuwrEIm+fM@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: > If I were to have described the web content at the final destination, I > don't believe that viewing of the video content there would have had the > same impact. How about "shows you a movie", "requires Javascript" or whatever it is that causes it to be less than generally viewable ? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:26:51 -0500 From: D Gillbilly Subject: Re: RFC: Cluster status on a mobile handset Message-ID: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:55:46 -0500, JF Mezei wrote: >OK: Big question here. If there is interest in this, would excluding VAX > as a running node (the one executing that code) be acceptable ? >(This would allow me to use $ACM for instance as well as using >GETSYI/DVI/QUI item codes not available on VAX). Hi JF, You are not going to like my reply. :-( I need/want/have to retire my VAX. :-( It is holding me back. :-( But the customer still sends in support cheques. :-) Now that I have redesigned (and nearly qualified) a more flexible, more powerful build environment on the Itanium (easily backported to the Alpha), I am left with the exercise of *what to do about the VAX*? Minimize the differences by making the necessary changes on the VAX in hopes that after all these years, the customer gives up on the port? Freeze the code and build environment on the VAX (possibly forcing me to maintain edits across multiple code trees)? Continue to maintain an increasing complex code and build environment that is compatible with the 3 architectures? I need/want/have to retire my VAX. :-( Sad, but I got over the PDP retirement. :-) So I know I will get over the VAX. :-) JF, I encourage you to give up on the VAX. Code for the future and never look back. The hope for OpenVMS is to prepare for and to take on the future, not to resurrect or rescue the past. The vendor is preparing, and so should we. As mentioned above, I have used the port as an opportunity to strengthen my code. I am also starting to get a grip on the MP (on the I-box) and hope to find some time to explore it and some of my other ideas. Enhancements will no doubt, eventually force me to want to retire the Alpha :-(, but each generation of hardware has provided me with new capabilities that I find hard not to exploit to my advantage. :-) I cannot change the path that has led us to the current *Industry Standard*, but I (as well as anybody else) can try to change the future. (Even if it is already predetermined. :-) Duane (a platform/vendor agnostic, OpenVMS loyalist) Btw JF, I do like the new direction your posts have taken and I look forward to reading more of your adventures on the *leading* edge of OpenVMS. I hope your efforts (and stories, as well as the effort and stories of others) will encourage the next generation of developers that are looking to do something different, that OpenVMS IS the *Old School, New Cool*. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:51:11 -0800 (PST) From: afqs64bt Subject: SEO Services you can Trust... Message-ID: 2 months I had first page organic results and they delivered on every key term I wanted so here they are http://www.atomicsearchengineoptimization.com or you can go straight to their contct page to get a great free report and a friendly call back. http://www.atomicsearchengineoptimization.com/Monthy_plan_rates-seo-services.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:41:29 -0500 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <62313$47520d4c$cef8887a$10475@TEKSAVVY.COM> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> Ooh, PDP-11... I wonder what the history of DEC would've been if >> they'd passed up on VAXen and stuck with the PDP-11... > > If they had survived at all, they would be a very small company serving > a very small niche market. Sixteen bit machines are an interesting > curiousity these days, sixty-four bits is all the rage! I should remind you that the PDP-11 was probably superior to the 8086 at the time. And when you consider that Intel has been able to bring the 8086 from a lousy toy controller into a respectable enterprise 64 bit architecture that still commands the market despite the RISC and EPIC attempts at ousting it, it is wrong to assume that sticking with PDP-11 architecture would have doomed Digital. Digital succeeded when the only competitor was the highly expensive IBM. Digital was then seen as the serious lower cost option. Digital wasn't killed by its technology, it was killed by its refusal to compete against new entrants who made Digital look as expensive as Digital has made IBM look expensive years before. Digital refused to compete at the low end not because it couldn't but because it didn't want its highly lucrative ricgh customers to stop buying the old expensicve dinausors and start buying the better lower priced machines. As a result of wanting to retain a few high end customers, Digital priced itself out of the market. DEC didn't have a single vision in late 1980s. It had different departments with their own pet projects (VAX 9000, N-vax, prism and later alpha). Those competed for funding and attention. Alpha won the internal PR war and convinced the powers that VAX was a dead end bla bla bla bla and got the funding to go ahead. Meanwhile, the vax group kept on working with N-VAX and came out with pretty impressive speed improvements (proving wrong the Alpha guys' premise that VAX was a dead end). I am not so sure that there was a objective debate within all of DEC on whether VAX was really a dead end or whether it could be improved to remain competitive. And at that time, even if VAX wasn't as fast, DEC could have simply priced its machine accordingly and remain in the game. The 8086s back then weren't too quick either, yet they priced themselve low enough to gain market share and look at where they are now. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:45:08 -0800 (PST) From: "winston19842005@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <2e4b67c9-c6e2-44a5-99f8-e57e17910010@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 1, 8:38 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > winston19842...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Dec 1, 7:39 pm, Roger Ivie wrote: > > >>On 2007-12-02, winston19842...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>>So, the question becomes, starting with the PDP-11, if they'd stayed > >>>with it, expanded it, what would have come out of it? > > >>Ah, well, let's see... the address space was kinda cramped, so you'd > >>need some sort of virtual address extension... > > > You are so funny! > > > The Vax was nothing like a PDP-11 with a "virtual address extension". > > Maybe it should've been! > > The first VAXen ran RSX-11 in emulation mode!! I remember seeing how it emulated... not well. I remember bringing pdp stuff over to the Vax to see how it did. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:25:46 +0100 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: JF Mezei schrieb: > I should remind you that the PDP-11 was probably superior to the 8086 at > the time. And when you consider that Intel has been able to bring the > 8086 from a lousy toy controller into a respectable enterprise 64 bit > architecture that still commands the market despite the RISC and EPIC > attempts at ousting it, it is wrong to assume that sticking with PDP-11 > architecture would have doomed Digital. the big difference was that the 8086 was a single chip solution which could be produced relatively cheap in masses. It could be sold to the masses and be incorporated in a lot of industrial designs. OTOH, the PDP-11 I remember is a bulky device, looking like a dinosaur. In fact it was, since it belongs to an earlier step of IT evolution than the microprocessor. If DEC had squeezed it into a single chip and mass-marketed it in a timely (and non-proprietary) manner, they might have got away with it for some time. > Digital refused to compete at the low end not because it couldn't but > because it didn't want its highly lucrative ricgh customers to stop > buying the old expensicve dinausors and start buying the better lower > priced machines. As a result of wanting to retain a few high end > customers, Digital priced itself out of the market. DEC didn't manage the "divide and conquer" strategy, which IBM did (and does) very well. IBM sells low-end as well as high-end equipment, whatever the customers want, with the one not necessarily cannibalizing the other. This worked out even in the times when "downsizing" and "open systems" were the motd. Of course they lost a lot of mainframe business back then, but they also had a replacement solution (the RS/6000) ready for prime time to catch at least part of the lost sales. And they had no problems to sell equipment spanning two orders of magnitude in raw price/performance to their respective customer base. > DEC didn't have a single vision in late 1980s. It had different > departments with their own pet projects (VAX 9000, N-vax, prism and > later alpha). Those competed for funding and attention. > > Alpha won the internal PR war and convinced the powers that VAX was a > dead end bla bla bla bla and got the funding to go ahead. Meanwhile, > the vax group kept on working with N-VAX and came out with pretty > impressive speed improvements (proving wrong the Alpha guys' premise > that VAX was a dead end). It may have been impressive for the VAX camp, but it wasn't when compared to the contemporary RISC camp. A VS4000-90 runs at what, 80+x MHz ? This might be sufficient for the less power hungry, but certainly wasn't for the typical audience in technical and academic computing (which once was DECs main turf, rather than banks and such). At the same time (1992), RISC designs were already above 100 MHz, executing at least 1 instruction per cycle. > I am not so sure that there was a objective debate within all of DEC on > whether VAX was really a dead end or whether it could be improved to > remain competitive. Look at the other CISC design with tragic fate, the 68K. Even a dedicated chip maker like Motorola couldn't evolve it beyond the 50MHz mark. > And at that time, even if VAX wasn't as fast, DEC could have simply > priced its machine accordingly and remain in the game. The 8086s back > then weren't too quick either, yet they priced themselve low enough to > gain market share and look at where they are now. Unlike DEC's architectures they were designed to be produced in masses and sold over the counter to everybody right from the start. When I recollect the 1990/91 price lists, a reasonably equipped VS3176 workplace should have costed 10 to 15 kDEM ($5000..$8000) max to be competitive with a contemporary RISC machine, i.e. RS/6000 (or DECstation, for that matter). In fact, the price was about 3 times higher, even after including all kinds of discounts and OEM equipment. I'm not sure if DEC could have afforded to offer their main hardware at the price of a somewhat better X-terminal. In fact, it may well be that a contemporary 88k-driven X-terminal had more compute power than those poor VAXen. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:42:08 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <4752D250.7050409@comcast.net> Michael Kraemer wrote: > JF Mezei schrieb: > >> I should remind you that the PDP-11 was probably superior to the 8086 >> at the time. And when you consider that Intel has been able to bring >> the 8086 from a lousy toy controller into a respectable enterprise 64 >> bit architecture that still commands the market despite the RISC and > When I recollect the 1990/91 price lists, > a reasonably equipped VS3176 workplace > should have costed 10 to 15 kDEM ($5000..$8000) max to be competitive > with a contemporary RISC machine, i.e. RS/6000 > (or DECstation, for that matter). In fact, > the price was about 3 times higher, even after including > all kinds of discounts and OEM equipment. > I'm not sure if DEC could have afforded > to offer their main hardware at the price of > a somewhat better X-terminal. DEC might have had a real problem offering competitive prices. It was an obvious move and I suspect that it was never made because it couldn't be done. DEC had never before had to worry about the costs of producing their products but the world was changing and DEC failed to change with it. DEC designed/built just about everything from scratch while its competitors used standard designs and components to the maximum possible extent. With DEC, no two systems used the same case, power supply, fans, or anything else until very late in the game. One example was disk mounting hardware; there were about twenty different models of each of the early RZ series disks. The difference was. . . . THE MOUNTING HARDWARE. DEC could not even come up with a standard way to attach a 3-1/2" disk drive to a case. (This was before StorageWorks!) I remember my DEC Rainbow (I bought it used for about 20% of DEC's "list price". DEC wanted something like $700 for 256K of RAM chips. I bought and installed brand-X for around $32. It worked like a champ for as long as I had the Rainbow. DEC wanted $2200 for a 20 MB 5-1/4" disk drive. I bought brand-X for $300. DEC had totally lost contact with reality!!! ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.660 ************************