Rich Marcello in VMS mention shocker :-)
Alan Greig
"And we think that we will now begin to start selling more
Superdome-class boxes running OpenVMS now, too," says Marcello. "But
don't get me wrong. This is not a huge growth business for us, but the
people who are on OpenVMS pretty much want to be there forever."
--
Alan Greig
b...@instantwhip.com
either on purpose or by stupidity ...
Brice Buchanan
forever.' ... The next five years look to be a lot better for Itanium
than the past five years. That much is for sure."
Cool. For a peon like me, this reads as "job security." ;-)
JF Mezei
>
> vms should be a huge growth market for them, but it is being mismanaged
> either on purpose or by stupidity ...
If Marcello says that VMS is not a growth potential, then it is a given
that HP will not lift a finger to make it grow. And when the time comes
to make staff cuts, guess where they come from ? Non growth areas.
I am quite fearful that VMS may follow in MPEs footsteps.
Karsten Nyblad
You cannot conclude that from what he said. I doubt they will try to
make VMS grow, but as I read the statements, Marcello intend to continue
to make money on VMS by selling machines at high prices, and that he
expects to be capable of doing that for a long period of time. Thus, HP
will be happy to sell you VMS products in the foreseeable future, but
you had better assume that the platform will continue to be as expensive
as it is today.
Rob Young
Towards death? Not murder, right?
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/d44241b7929c670e?dmode=source&hl=en
Come on purse your lips... give us a "death of VMS." Just
for old times sake. The good old days of "VMS death", ah... I harken
back:
=============================================================================
From: mezei...@eisner.decus.org (Jean-Francois Mezei)
Date: 1996/02/04
customers who were already fearing the death of VMS.
=============================================================================
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@videotron.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:17:04 -0400
current VMS customers would know that VMS's death was impending and switch
vendors
=============================================================================
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@videotron.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 05:01:22 -0400
VMS's death has been predicted by many, including Palmer et all, and Gartner,
for a long long time.
[ Can't resist - isn't this Generallisimo Francisco
Franco all over again? I mean talk about deja vu:
The death of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco during the first season of
Saturday Night Live in 1975 served as the source of one of the first catch
phrases from SNL to enter the general lexicon.
Franco lingered near death for weeks before dying. On slow news days, United
States network television news casters sometimes noted that Franco was still
alive, or not yet dead. The imminent death of Franco was a headline story on
the NBC news for a number of weeks prior to his death on November 20.
VMS - The Generallisimo Francisco Franco of OSes! ]
=============================================================================
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@videotron.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:40:07 -0500
Since it is pretty well a known fact that Compaq or HP will eventually annouce
the death of VMS,
=============================================================================
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vl.videotron.ca>
Date: 2000/03/12
to newsgroups and continue to complain that Compaq is not doing anything to
help VMS escape its death warrant.
=============================================================================
From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca>
Date: 1997/08/20
(even if DEC doesn't make much money on them) would go a long way to
kill the rumour of VMS's impending death.
=============================================================================
[Need I say: etc. etc.? There is a virtual treasure trove of
"JF death on VMS" favs - come on kids, join the fun! Or act now
and send $9.95 and I'll rush you my top 20 , "JF death on VMS"
You'll laugh, you'll cry... ]
I actually prefer the "impendendings" and the creativity of
"death warrant." Each with their own flavor of weightiness
(as if death itself isn't a weighty subject.) But with "death
warrant" you almost visualize that leftist favorite "Dead Man
Walking" and the touching acting by Penn/Sarandon, et al. Talk
about weight!
Rob
JF Mezei
> Come on purse your lips... give us a "death of VMS." Just
> for old times sake. The good old days of "VMS death", ah... I harken
> back:
You may have quotes stuff from archives out of context, and some text I
don't ever recall ever having typed. But guess what is more important :
JF ramblings and interpretations ?
OR
Rich Marcello announcing that HP doesn't see any growth potential for
VMS and is only keeping it for remaining installed base ?
Rich Marcello's statement is authoritative of HP policies, just like
Stallard stating that HP expected VMS customer to migrate to HP-UX
(later changed to HP helping VMS customers who want to migrate to
HP-UX), or Winkler's "Windows will eviscerate the underbelly... "????
When HP officially annoucnes it sees no growth potential for VMS, and
when information was recently let out that the installed bas had been
"consolidated" from 400k down to 300k systems, guess what the bean
counters at HP will start calculating ???????
FredK
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:43FFC8DD...@teksavvy.com...
> Rob Young wrote:
> > Come on purse your lips... give us a "death of VMS." Just
> > for old times sake. The good old days of "VMS death", ah... I
harken
> > back:
>
>
>
> You may have quotes stuff from archives out of context, and some text I
> don't ever recall ever having typed. But guess what is more important :
>
> JF ramblings and interpretations ?
>
Vote now.
Wait. Was this rhetorical?
AEF
Uh, let's look at that quote again, shall we?
"And we think that we will now begin to start selling more
Superdome-class boxes running OpenVMS now, too," says Marcello. "But
don't get me wrong. This is not a huge growth business for us, but the
people who are on OpenVMS pretty much want to be there forever."
He said "this is not a HUGE [my emphasis] growth business for us..."
Did you see that? HUGE. The meaning is quite different if you remove
the HUGE like you did in your paraphrase. And he explicitly opens by
saying that they expect to start selling more boxes running OpenVMS.
GROWTH IS EXPECTED [my emphasis]. Not being huge combined with selling
more means small or medium growth, not impending doom. I'll take it!
No, this isn't our dream come true of HP going full swing with VMS
marketing and such, but it isn't disaster either. Management didn't
pull the plug on VMS as it shrank over the years; therefore, this
expected growth, all other things being equal, is a plus, not a cause
for gloom and doom.
Not only that, even a HUGE growth market has to level off at some
point. Not everything a company sells can be part of a HUGE growth
market. Modest growth is not a reason to kill a product.
AEF
Rob Young
> Rob Young wrote:
>> Come on purse your lips... give us a "death of VMS." Just
>> for old times sake. The good old days of "VMS death", ah... I harken
>> back:
>
>
>
> You may have quotes stuff from archives out of context, and some text I
> don't ever recall ever having typed. But guess what is more important :
>
Every quote straight out of comp.os.vms archives. See for yourself,
takes all of 30 seconds to find any one of them. Here, I'll
even help you get started:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search
> JF ramblings and interpretations ?
>
> OR
Doesn't matter. You're comparing/contrasting VMS to MPE.
Smells like your old death FUDding to me.
> When HP officially annoucnes it sees no growth potential for VMS, and
> when information was recently let out that the installed bas had been
> "consolidated" from 400k down to 300k systems, guess what the bean
> counters at HP will start calculating ???????
Ummm... let me guess. VMS death? The same thing you've been
ranting about for over 10 years? GIVE US A BREAK! SHEESH!
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/97948fc9a56afbc0?dmode=source&hl=en
Subject: Meaning of OpenVMS vs VMS
Date: 1996/02/04
x-nntp-posting-user: MEZEI_JF
organization: DECUServe
newsgroups: comp.os.vms
If you hear someone say VMS, it means that they have not succombed to the
meaningless marketing fluff that harmed VMS more than it helped by confusing
customers who were already fearing the death of VMS.
-----
Rob
JF Mezei
> Doesn't matter. You're comparing/contrasting VMS to MPE.
> Smells like your old death FUDding to me.
Do you have any hard evidence that HP will not do to VMS what it did to
MPE ?
Has HP begun to market VMS ?
Does HP intend to change its policy to restrict VMS to only the high end
and within the high end, to within a few market niches ?
How do you think HP strategists and bean counters think when they learn
that the installed base has shrunk big time ?
Despite corporate downsizing, has HP grown VMS engineering
budgets/staffing so that they can increase development of VMS ?
Do you really have trust in a company whose top managers state that
there isn't much growth potential for VMS, when and tell Wall Street
Casono analists that they focus on growth areas ?
The fact that I don't question HP's commitment to Windows/8086, Sun's
commitment to Solaris, Mircosoft's commitment to Windows, but question
HP's commitment to VMS means that there are *some* signals emitted by HP
that lead me to question their commitment to VMS. Am I misreading those
signlas ? You would say so.
But why is HP continuing to emit such signals that lead some/many to
interpret them as insecure future for VMS ?
Would you rather be more paranoid and perhaps take preventive actions to
prevent HP from doing an MPE to VMS ? Or do you prefer to have faith in
VM'S management and not worry about VMS at all, and when they do
announce it as a done deal, you won't be able to do anything about it ?
Bill Gunshannon
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
> Rob Young wrote:
>> Doesn't matter. You're comparing/contrasting VMS to MPE.
>> Smells like your old death FUDding to me.
>
>
> Do you have any hard evidence that HP will not do to VMS what it did to
> MPE ?
There you go, proof by lack of evidence. I seem to remember something
about that from my logic classes. :-)
>
> Has HP begun to market VMS ?
So the status quo continues. After all, they are not marketing it any
less either.
>
> Does HP intend to change its policy to restrict VMS to only the high end
> and within the high end, to within a few market niches ?
As far as I kow, that is the market they envision for it so why would
they?
>
> How do you think HP strategists and bean counters think when they learn
> that the installed base has shrunk big time ?
That it is still business as usual and the cash cow is still giving milk.
>
> Despite corporate downsizing, has HP grown VMS engineering
> budgets/staffing so that they can increase development of VMS ?
They are not increasing development, so why would they increase staffing?
Development continues as it has been with the staff it already had. What's
your point?
>
> Do you really have trust in a company whose top managers state that
> there isn't much growth potential for VMS, when and tell Wall Street
> Casono analists that they focus on growth areas ?
I realize english is not your mother tongue, but I couldn't make heads
or tails out of this one.
That's enough. No reason to continue as the rambling just gets worse.
May not have liked what Marcello said, but it doesn't do any good to
try reading a lot more into than what he actually said.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
JF Mezei
> That's enough. No reason to continue as the rambling just gets worse.
> May not have liked what Marcello said, but it doesn't do any good to
> try reading a lot more into than what he actually said.
Looking at individual statements, you can explain each and every one of
them, even Stallard's original statements about VMS.
You need to take a "big picture" look. marcello's statement, combined
with its previous statement that he's the one who came up with the idea
to restrict IA64's market to only high end sends quite an interesting
view of what marcello really thinks of VMS.
The message I see is that he's given up on VMS and IA64. Giving up on
IA64 is understandable. But giving up on both VMS and IA64 is dangerous
because it greatly diminishes the potential for VMS to be ported to a
better platform at first to complement IA64's limited market potential
and then to fully replace IA64 when the later is retired.
And consider that Marcello used to be considered the saviour of VMS, the
one who allegedly convinced Curly not to can VMS in 2000 and got a
modest marketing budget that lead to the VMS reneaissance (albeit short
lived and it is obvious why, since Curly was planning to kill Alpha a
few months after the marketing of VMS ended).
When he started to rise within HP, it was hoped that this VMS saviour
would push for VMS to be given a fair chance to grow and get marketing.
But now, instead of that, we get messages that he is proud to have been
the one to restrict IA64's market and now, one who doesn't see much
growth potential for VMS.
Now, this is at a time when HP is bragging about exhorbitant growth in
IA64 sales.
If the guy who used to be seen as a champion for VMS is now a mere
"yeah' we'll continue to sell it to existing customers but we don't
expect any growth" guy, who within HP is going to be fighting for VMS ?
If the guy who used to be seen as the champion/saviour of VMS is now
only mild towards it, does this mean that the Stallards/Winklers of HP
will now succeed to further marginalising VMS into some obscure product
that is destined to fail ?
(ok, I know that Winkler is thankfully gone, but I am sure there are others).
Does anyone know what Robison thinks of VMS ?
In the end, unless customers reach Hurd directly, Hurd will rely on
people like Stallard, Marcello, Robison for advise. And if thsoe people
don't give Hurd good advise for VMS, we may awaken one day with some
very bad news.
And there isn't a Terry Shannon to tell us the bad news a few days
before they become public.
And remember that once a corporation makes a decision and makes it
public, it is nearly impossible to have it reversed.
(Sun with 8086 is one notable exception).
Karsten Nyblad
> You need to take a "big picture" look. marcello's statement, combined
> with its previous statement that he's the one who came up with the idea
> to restrict IA64's market to only high end sends quite an interesting
> view of what marcello really thinks of VMS.
The fact is that VMS has been seen as a back end, high availability OS
for a long time. HP has given up on the desk top, and VMS cannot
compete on purchase price with PC servers, no matter which OS these PC
servers are running. Thus any manager would call VMS a high end OS in
an interview like the one Marcello was giving.
You do not seem to get it. HP has for a long time considered VMS a cash
cow. It is a product that they will are more than willing to sell to
anyone wanting to buy it, because they make a lot of money on it.
However, they do not think they can make VMS grow through marketing, or
rather grow enough to get such an investment back with a nice profit.
HP seems to intend to use VMS as cash cow as long as they make a nice
profit from it. However, the VMS market will most likely become smaller
and smaller. It is difficult to say what may happen once VMS becomes so
small that HP will see it more as a distraction than a cash cow, but my
guess is that HP will try to sell it to anybody, who can see a business
in continuing supporting old VMS customers. Do not expect such a
company to try to market VMS. It will be too late, and that company
will not have the resources for that.
Bill Gunshannon
Karsten Nyblad <nos...@nospam.nospam> writes:
>
> It is difficult to say what may happen once VMS becomes so
> small that HP will see it more as a distraction than a cash cow, but my
> guess is that HP will try to sell it to anybody, who can see a business
> in continuing supporting old VMS customers. Do not expect such a
> company to try to market VMS. It will be too late, and that company
> will not have the resources for that.
Mentec's handling of the PDP-11 and it's associated OSes seems to offer
at least a little hope that this may not be the case. How long ago did
DEC dump them on Mentec who has continued to make enough off of it to
keep them going even today. All depends on who buys it and what their
expectations are when they do.
b...@instantwhip.com
company ... we run small server workgroup environments ... the majority
of pdp and vms users come from the mini environment, but DEC/Compaq/HPs
refusal to look at this small/medium base as valuable has been part of
the
problem ... their are only so many so called big iron shops, and you
are
competing againset IBM and others, where their is a huge volume in the
small
and medium mini environment ... that is what made vax and that is being
mistakenly overlooked because a lot of small and medium sales (volume)
adds up to equating large sales thus more profit ...
itanium was promised to give us 1 to $2000 boxes we heard, and now HP
has set licensing to three tiers ... well if you are only selling to
big iron, and
your chip manufacturer Intel has announced itanium is only for big
iron, who
is going to buy those entry level licenses?
Brilliant HP, no wonder you can't grow OpenVMS ... everyone one
associated
with this strategy at HP should be fired right now!
Mark Hurd, if you are out there, I challenge you to hire me and I could
take
vms sales out of orbit and to the top where it should be! Or are you
paid off
by Gates too?
David J Dachtera
>
> In article <4400FE97...@teksavvy.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
> > Rob Young wrote:
> >> Doesn't matter. You're comparing/contrasting VMS to MPE.
> >> Smells like your old death FUDding to me.
> >
> >
> > Do you have any hard evidence that HP will not do to VMS what it did to
> > MPE ?
>
> There you go, proof by lack of evidence. I seem to remember something
> about that from my logic classes. :-)
So, no news is good news?
> >
> > Has HP begun to market VMS ?
>
> So the status quo continues. After all, they are not marketing it any
> less either.
How do you go less than zero in that arena?
> >
> > Does HP intend to change its policy to restrict VMS to only the high end
> > and within the high end, to within a few market niches ?
>
> As far as I kow, that is the market they envision for it so why would
> they?
Google this group for some possible answers. A good keyword to use is
"marketing".
> >
> > How do you think HP strategists and bean counters think when they learn
> > that the installed base has shrunk big time ?
>
> That it is still business as usual and the cash cow is still giving milk.
So? The babbling brook is still flowing - never mind that it was a
raging torrent 100 yards wide and forty feet deep 50 years ago. What's
your point?
> >
> > Despite corporate downsizing, has HP grown VMS engineering
> > budgets/staffing so that they can increase development of VMS ?
>
> They are not increasing development, so why would they increase staffing?
> Development continues as it has been with the staff it already had. What's
> your point?
I think you just made his point for him.
> >
> > Do you really have trust in a company whose top managers state that
> > there isn't much growth potential for VMS, when and tell Wall Street
> > Casono analists that they focus on growth areas ?
>
> I realize english is not your mother tongue, but I couldn't make heads
> or tails out of this one.
It *IS* a bit scrambled. His point (as I read it) is that it's hard to
trust folks who, on the one hand, say that there isn't much growth
potential for VMS, and the other hand tell the "Wall Street Casino"
analysts that their primary focus is on growth areas, and on the
third(?) hand give every indication that stagnation in VMS-land can be
expected to continue.
> That's enough. No reason to continue as the rambling just gets worse.
> May not have liked what Marcello said, but it doesn't do any good to
> try reading a lot more into than what he actually said.
Well, yes and no. What you don't do or say often "speaks louder" than
what you actually do or say.
The classic example is the old Grouch Marx bit: "Have you stopped
beating your wife?" Because the question contains a pre-supposition, a
simple "yes" or "no" answer is not appropriate.
Similarly, not actively marketing VMS tells the world that (everyone in
unison now - you too, Rob Y.!) "VMS is dead", where actively marketing
VMS tells the world that "VMS is alive and well".
--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/
Bill Gunshannon
David J Dachtera <djesys...@comcast.net> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>> In article <4400FE97...@teksavvy.com>,
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
>> > Rob Young wrote:
>> >> Doesn't matter. You're comparing/contrasting VMS to MPE.
>> >> Smells like your old death FUDding to me.
>> >
>> >
>> > Do you have any hard evidence that HP will not do to VMS what it did to
>> > MPE ?
>>
>> There you go, proof by lack of evidence. I seem to remember something
>> about that from my logic classes. :-)
>
> So, no news is good news?
Sometimes. But wether it is or not doesn't change the above. I suppose
I could just as easily said, "Do you have any hard evidence that HP will
do to VMS what it did to MPE ?"
>
>> >
>> > Has HP begun to market VMS ?
>>
>> So the status quo continues. After all, they are not marketing it any
>> less either.
>
> How do you go less than zero in that arena?
You don't, but we have been thru all this a hindred time already. HP
doesn't market VMS. HP has never marketed VMS. I would no hold my
breath waiting for it to start. It's just old news.
>
>> >
>> > Does HP intend to change its policy to restrict VMS to only the high end
>> > and within the high end, to within a few market niches ?
>>
>> As far as I kow, that is the market they envision for it so why would
>> they?
>
> Google this group for some possible answers. A good keyword to use is
> "marketing".
"Marketing" has nothing to do with HP and VMS. Isn't that the whole point?
>
>> >
>> > How do you think HP strategists and bean counters think when they learn
>> > that the installed base has shrunk big time ?
>>
>> That it is still business as usual and the cash cow is still giving milk.
>
> So? The babbling brook is still flowing - never mind that it was a
> raging torrent 100 yards wide and forty feet deep 50 years ago. What's
> your point?
I might have asked JF the same question. My point is just that his
desire to continuously act like HP is going to change its strategy
regardin VMS is just a waste of time. And continuing to push it
here is, well, preaching to the choir. But you already knew that.
>
>> >
>> > Despite corporate downsizing, has HP grown VMS engineering
>> > budgets/staffing so that they can increase development of VMS ?
>>
>> They are not increasing development, so why would they increase staffing?
>> Development continues as it has been with the staff it already had. What's
>> your point?
>
> I think you just made his point for him.
No, his point is that somehow HP should be doing all this stuff like
growing VMS engineering. It ain't gonna happen. And he can continue
to call for it till the cows come home. It still ain't gonna happen.
>
>> >
>> > Do you really have trust in a company whose top managers state that
>> > there isn't much growth potential for VMS, when and tell Wall Street
>> > Casono analists that they focus on growth areas ?
>>
>> I realize english is not your mother tongue, but I couldn't make heads
>> or tails out of this one.
>
> It *IS* a bit scrambled. His point (as I read it) is that it's hard to
> trust folks who, on the one hand, say that there isn't much growth
> potential for VMS, and the other hand tell the "Wall Street Casino"
> analysts that their primary focus is on growth areas, and on the
> third(?) hand give every indication that stagnation in VMS-land can be
> expected to continue.
And that's old news too. The answer is simple, don't trust them. I
have to admit that I am amazed at the staunch support of HP's policies
by those employees who sing their praises here (you know who you are!)
as they have the most to loose when the bubble bursts. But, to be honest,
any outsider who gets burned when the bubble bursts was just a fool.
The handwritting is on the wall. I am not predicting the "Death of VMS"(tm)
but it is admittedly in cash cow status now and anyone who has taken
Business 101 knows where that leads. Fool me once...... Its probably
a self fulfilling prophecy, but at this stage of the game it seems like
it is becoming more and more difficult to bet the farm on VMS. I am
in a (dubiously) safer position. If VMS went away tomorrow, no one
besides me would care. But others are much more precarious positions.
>
>> That's enough. No reason to continue as the rambling just gets worse.
>> May not have liked what Marcello said, but it doesn't do any good to
>> try reading a lot more into than what he actually said.
>
> Well, yes and no. What you don't do or say often "speaks louder" than
> what you actually do or say.
People here have been speaking here, quite loudly at times. What has it
accomplished??
Quiters never win.
Winners never quit.
But someone who never wins and never quits is na idiot.
(Shamelessly stolen from one of those inspirational posters!!)
>
> The classic example is the old Grouch Marx bit: "Have you stopped
> beating your wife?" Because the question contains a pre-supposition, a
> simple "yes" or "no" answer is not appropriate.
>
> Similarly, not actively marketing VMS tells the world that (everyone in
> unison now - you too, Rob Y.!) "VMS is dead", where actively marketing
> VMS tells the world that "VMS is alive and well".
Of course, your right. But, what's your (and JF's) point? HP is not
marketing it. HP is not going to market it. Allt he screaming here
over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has
not had any effect on it. And, it is not going to. So, I ask again,
what's your point? :-)
Alan Greig
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> Of course, your right. But, what's your (and JF's) point? HP is not
> marketing it. HP is not going to market it. Allt he screaming here
> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has
> not had any effect on it. And, it is not going to. So, I ask again,
> what's your point? :-)
For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some
real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to
grow. Then the campaign stopped and...
--
Alan Greig
Bill Gunshannon
And that shold tell everyone here something, too.
JF Mezei
> I might have asked JF the same question. My point is just that his
> desire to continuously act like HP is going to change its strategy
> regardin VMS is just a waste of time. And continuing to push it
> here is, well, preaching to the choir. But you already knew that.
Anytime HP releases new hints/information such as the Marcello comment,
it is important to review what HP is up to. Why ? because there is no
trust or confidence that HP intends to make VMS succesful. HP's record
stands. Lots of broken promises and no attempts to fix that image.
Lets consider the following theoretical scenario:
In a week or two. Hurd and Ottelini are to hold a live web cast. This
would therefore be fairly high level high impact stuff. Lets assume
*FOR A MINUTE* that they are to announce the end of line for IA64 and
shift to 8086 over the next 4 years and that Hurd mentions that HP-UX
and NSK are to be migrated to 8086 but no mention of VMS.
How would you react then ?
There has been writing on the wall for a long time based on HP's
behaviour. It may not be "HP is killing VMS", but it is "HP doesn't care
about VMS". When you read between the lines, it means that HP won't
lift a finger to help VMS, they'll just keep on getting the revenus from
loyal customers who are still stuck on VMS.
HP management are aware that VMS customers lack confidence in HP's
desire to make VMS succeed/continue. It wouldn' t take much to fix this.
But HP has not taken any steps to kill this lack of confidence.
> No, his point is that somehow HP should be doing all this stuff like
> growing VMS engineering. It ain't gonna happen. And he can continue
> to call for it till the cows come home. It still ain't gonna happen.
Can a shrunken VMS engineering really keep VMS up to date and
competitive with the rest of the industry ? Look at Apple, they can not
only afford to improve their OS, improve existing applications that come
with the OS, but also add to them with every new release.
The VMS engineers who do participate here have mentioned many times that
the priority is to serve the needs of existing customers, with the
implied subtext that customers who pay the big bucks have priority when
the time comes to decide what engineers will work on.
When you have limited resources, the above is a reasonable logic. But
it also means that some large customer with legacy applications who just
needs new ways to connect VMS boxes together will force VMS engineers to
concentrate on cluster interconnects and not bother with the rest. And
the "not bother with the rest" means that VMS lags further and further
behind the industry in applications that could give VMS a competitive
edge and regain some market share.
In fact, while Marcello says that VMS hasn't much growth potential, I
say the total opposite. It is exactly because VMS was articifially
restrxcited into small niche markets that a rejuvenation of the
applications might give VMS a hige growth potential by being allowed to
compete in areas that it hasn't been in since the palmer era.
Will it take large chunk of market share from Windows ? No. But for VMS
to get a few thousand new customers a years would represent huge growth.
And this is why the Marcello statement is very worrysome. Of all the
people, he knows how easy it is to make VMS grow. With a very modest and
short lived marketing budget, he was able to get VMS from negative
growth in 2000 to roughly 10% within months.
Of all the people at HP, his statement that VMS doesn't represent much
growth potential is very worrysome because if the most optyimistic
person at HP now says that of VMS, what does it say of the people aroujd
him who will make the big decision on whether to continue to spend on
R&D to improve VMS ?
And if Marcello tells upper management that the remaining VMS installed
base is all HP can hope for in terms of VMS (aka no growth), and that
the remaining installed base is made of of customers with old legacy
applicatiosn that they don't want to change, then guess what ? When the
time comes to make staff cuts at HP to help pay for the money losing
PCs, they will go after VMS engineers since improving VMS is not seen as
important since customers aren't asking for improvements.
Remember that decisions are taken at the high end by people detached
from reality. Folks like Hurd get their information from folks like
Marcello , Stallard and the Winkler types. These people have agendas and
they will push them as much as they can and this distorts the reality as
presented to Hurd.
Alan Greig
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.
Yes but at least part of the reason was that HP did not want to promote
a terminated Alpha and the two were obviously intertwined. Why we don't
see a similar or larger campaign restarted for VMS/Itanium is a more
interesting question given the billions of dollars, were are told, is
being used to jump start Itanium products.
--
Alan Greig
Bill Gunshannon
Right now, in the very bowels of HP HQ there is a team that has been given
a kings ransom in marketing funds for VMS. Of course, it's not to promote
VMS. It is being paid to a bunch of psychologists to try and figure out
why, after all the abuse they heaped on VMS users they still are hanging
on. Remember, they burned their boats. That in itself should have been
enough of signal to drive the remaining VMS users away, but no, they still
hang on. Why? This is intolerable. When a company the size of HP steers
the ship the sheep^H^H^H^H^H customers are supposed to go along for the
ride. They are determined to find out what went wrong and see to it that
it never happens again.
Bill Gunshannon
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> I might have asked JF the same question. My point is just that his
>> desire to continuously act like HP is going to change its strategy
>> regardin VMS is just a waste of time. And continuing to push it
>> here is, well, preaching to the choir. But you already knew that.
>
>
> Anytime HP releases new hints
Hints?? There announcements are about as subtle as a hand-grenade.
> /information such as the Marcello comment,
> it is important to review what HP is up to. Why ? because there is no
> trust or confidence that HP intends to make VMS succesful. HP's record
> stands. Lots of broken promises and no attempts to fix that image.
No, wait. It is the image you want HP to project that needs fixing, not
their real image. They are a PC company. Period. (OK, printers and ink
too)
>
> Lets consider the following theoretical scenario:
>
> In a week or two. Hurd and Ottelini are to hold a live web cast. This
> would therefore be fairly high level high impact stuff. Lets assume
> *FOR A MINUTE* that they are to announce the end of line for IA64 and
> shift to 8086 over the next 4 years and that Hurd mentions that HP-UX
> and NSK are to be migrated to 8086 but no mention of VMS.
>
> How would you react then ?
How do you think they would want you to react? That is the real question.
They want you to move off of VMS and onto Windows. How much more do they
have to do (and not do!) to make that clear?
>
>
> There has been writing on the wall for a long time based on HP's
> behaviour. It may not be "HP is killing VMS", but it is "HP doesn't care
> about VMS". When you read between the lines, it means that HP won't
> lift a finger to help VMS, they'll just keep on getting the revenus from
> loyal customers who are still stuck on VMS.
Very good, you can actually read the writting on the wall. So how come
you haven't moved in the direction they want you to move?
>
> HP management are aware that VMS customers lack confidence in HP's
> desire to make VMS succeed/continue. It wouldn' t take much to fix this.
> But HP has not taken any steps to kill this lack of confidence.
HP has taken all the steps it needs or wants to fix this. But you just
aren't litening. Move to Windows and HP will be perfectly happy. They
will provide you with all the sales and support you need to move to
Windows. That is their plan of action. You just aren't litening.
>
>
>> No, his point is that somehow HP should be doing all this stuff like
>> growing VMS engineering. It ain't gonna happen. And he can continue
>> to call for it till the cows come home. It still ain't gonna happen.
>
>
> Can a shrunken VMS engineering really keep VMS up to date and
> competitive with the rest of the industry ? Look at Apple, they can not
> only afford to improve their OS, improve existing applications that come
> with the OS, but also add to them with every new release.
So what? HP doesn't need a growing VMS Engineering to move people on to
Windows. That's the plan of action. Like it or not.
>
> The VMS engineers who do participate here have mentioned many times that
> the priority is to serve the needs of existing customers, with the
> implied subtext that customers who pay the big bucks have priority when
> the time comes to decide what engineers will work on.
Yeah, and as the number of customers declines so does the need for staffing
at VMS Engineering, so why would they want to grow it?
>
> When you have limited resources, the above is a reasonable logic. But
> it also means that some large customer with legacy applications who just
> needs new ways to connect VMS boxes together will force VMS engineers to
> concentrate on cluster interconnects and not bother with the rest. And
> the "not bother with the rest" means that VMS lags further and further
> behind the industry in applications that could give VMS a competitive
> edge and regain some market share.
Read my lips. HP doesn't care. HP doesn't plan (or even want) to see
VMS grow. It's a cash cow.
>
> In fact, while Marcello says that VMS hasn't much growth potential, I
> say the total opposite.
BUt it isn't what you say that counts. why do you find that so hard
to grasp? It has no growth potential because HP doesn't want it to grow.
It has nothing to do with the technical merit of VMS or it's ability to
compete in afree market. It has to do with the wishes of its owner.
> It is exactly because VMS was articifially
> restrxcited into small niche markets that a rejuvenation of the
> applications might give VMS a hige growth potential by being allowed to
> compete in areas that it hasn't been in since the palmer era.
But HP doesn't want that. HP has VMS right where it wants it and that
is where it is going to stay. What part of "burning our boats" didn't
you understand?
>
> Will it take large chunk of market share from Windows ? No. But for VMS
> to get a few thousand new customers a years would represent huge growth.
HP doesn't want it. It won't happen.
>
> And this is why the Marcello statement is very worrysome.
Worrysome for who? Certainly not for him. He knew what he was saying.
> Of all the
> people, he knows how easy it is to make VMS grow. With a very modest and
> short lived marketing budget, he was able to get VMS from negative
> growth in 2000 to roughly 10% within months.
But that is not HP's target.
>
> Of all the people at HP, his statement that VMS doesn't represent much
> growth potential is very worrysome because if the most optyimistic
> person at HP now says that of VMS, what does it say of the people aroujd
> him who will make the big decision on whether to continue to spend on
> R&D to improve VMS ?
That they have made their decision and he is now parroting the company
line just like everyone else.
>
> And if Marcello tells upper management that the remaining VMS installed
> base is all HP can hope for in terms of VMS (aka no growth), and that
> the remaining installed base is made of of customers with old legacy
> applicatiosn that they don't want to change, then guess what ? When the
> time comes to make staff cuts at HP to help pay for the money losing
> PCs, they will go after VMS engineers since improving VMS is not seen as
> important since customers aren't asking for improvements.
Marcello doesn't "tell upper management" anything. They tell him what
the companies direction is and he move in that direction. or looks for
another job.
>
>
> Remember that decisions are taken at the high end by people detached
> from reality.
Detached from you reality, maybe. Not necessarily from their reality.
> Folks like Hurd get their information from folks like
> Marcello , Stallard and the Winkler types. These people have agendas and
> they will push them as much as they can and this distorts the reality as
> presented to Hurd.
You don't give the man much credit, do you. I think it is much more likely
that he is totally aware of everything and sees no reason to change the
course the company was placed on when HP bought Compaq. You may not like
it, and I may not like it, but it is time to accept reality for what it
is and make your plans for the future. If you business is tied so tightly
to VMS that it would be fatal to move, then you need to stock up on spares,
or move to an emulator now while it can be done without panic before the
hardware you need disappears completely. And you need to settle on the
version of VMS that best supports your operation and work at making your
whole system as stable as possible because future changes can not be
relied on.
That's reality.
AEF
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Alan Greig <grei...@netscape.net> writes:
> >
> >
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Of course, your right. But, what's your (and JF's) point? HP is not
> >> marketing it. HP is not going to market it. Allt he screaming here
> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has
> >> not had any effect on it. And, it is not going to. So, I ask again,
> >> what's your point? :-)
> >
> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some
> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to
> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...
>
> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.
>
> bill
Well, I for one would simply like to understand *why* HP doesn't want
to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harm
would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in sales
would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still not
going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales,
would it not?
Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major
marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact that
the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:
WHY?
AEF
Bill Gunshannon
Because VMS is obviously not the direction they want the company to go.
Ray Charles could see that!!
bill
Alan Greig
AEF wrote:
>
> Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major
> marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact that
> the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:
> WHY?
Management school. The fewer things you manage the fewer variables to
control. "Downsize, rightsize, capsize" as a DEC engineer once said.
--
Alan Greig
JF Mezei
> Very good, you can actually read the writting on the wall. So how come
> you haven't moved in the direction they want you to move?
Becasue I believe that VMS could be succesfull, grow and be even more
profitable for HP. And I believe HP shareholders shoudl pressure HP
management into focusing on improving HP's opwn products instead of
helping Microsoft and Intel provide dividende to their respective shareholders.
> Read my lips. HP doesn't care. HP doesn't plan (or even want) to see
> VMS grow. It's a cash cow.
Why aren't there forces internally that try to tell high HP management
that VMS does in fact have potential ?
If the HP employees who participate here *really* believe what they say
(as opposed to just toeing the company line to save their job), then can
there be any hope that anyone within HP will fight for VMS ?
> It has nothing to do with the technical merit of VMS or it's ability to
> compete in afree market. It has to do with the wishes of its owner.
The challenge is to change those wishes and awaken HP management of the
advantages of letting VMS succeed.
> Marcello doesn't "tell upper management" anything. They tell him what
> the companies direction is and he move in that direction. or looks for
> another job.
Marcello is high enough to have influence. If he chose to be the quiet
type and not defend VMS and just like others who know nothing about VMS
set VMS policy, then someone else must step it and do the job marcello
is incapable/unwilling to do.
David J Dachtera
>
> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Alan Greig <grei...@netscape.net> writes:
> >
> >
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Of course, your right. But, what's your (and JF's) point? HP is not
> >> marketing it. HP is not going to market it. Allt he screaming here
> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has
> >> not had any effect on it. And, it is not going to. So, I ask again,
> >> what's your point? :-)
> >
> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some
> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to
> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...
>
> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.
Tells me that we're right and "they" are wrong.
...or did I miss something here?
Bill Gunshannon
>>
>> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> Alan Greig <grei...@netscape.net> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Of course, your right. But, what's your (and JF's) point? HP is not
>> >> marketing it. HP is not going to market it. Allt he screaming here
>> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has
>> >> not had any effect on it. And, it is not going to. So, I ask again,
>> >> what's your point? :-)
>> >
>> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some
>> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to
>> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...
>>
>> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.
>
> Tells me that we're right and "they" are wrong.
>
> ...or did I miss something here?
Except that in this case, "they" get to decide what is right and what
is wrong.
AEF
I acknowledged that. So they won't push VMS because that's not the
direction they want the company to go. So why don't they want the
company to go that way? (Which is what I thought I asked in my previous
post.)
AEF
So why favor less profitable products? Volume? Is it really enough?
AEF
Bill Todd
Duh - have you been asleep for the past half-dozen years here?
cHumPaq management favors what makes their jobs easy, with profit a
distant second-place (if even that: just as in the political realm,
expecting their nominal primary responsibility to rise even to
second-place priority is probably naive). Assembling boxes from
components made by others is easier than coming up with technology
yourself: no messy R&D to manage and (gasp!) actually direct and depend
upon for your future, easily-understandable metrics, minimal risk (which
of course tends to go hand-in-hand with minimal reward, but who's
counting?).
As long as shareholders apparently won't demand any more of them
(another close parallel with politics), there's pretty much no down-side
at all. Carly wasn't given the boot because she failed to live up to
shareholder expectations: she just rocked too many boats (in the
process of burning them), with no particularly visible compensating
strengths (aside from her silver tongue) to balance things out.
What irony: they (the HP BoD) probably would have been happier with
Curly - not that that would have done VMS any more good.
- bill
JF Mezei
> What irony: they (the HP BoD) probably would have been happier with
> Curly - not that that would have done VMS any more good.
Curly would have called in the investment bankers to find a buyer for HP.
Could HP have gotten Lenovo's attention and convinced Lenovo to buy HP
lock stock and barrell, or would Lenovo still have prevered IBM's
pre-packaged PC-only business ?
Pfeiffer gave Palmer a list of units he needed to get rid of before
Compaq could bid on Digital; it took Palmer 3 years to scale DEC down
suffiently. Perhaps Lenovo would have told Curly what to sell from HP,
and perhaps VMS could have been sold to Process or Mentec. Could Curly
have scaled down HP faster than Palmer scaled Digital down ?
Karsten Nyblad
> So why favor less profitable products? Volume? Is it really enough?
Business management 101 says that you should invest in the sectors of
grows, make sure the steady ongoing business continues, and extort money
from business on its way down. The market for other OSes than Windows
and open source OSes is under pressure, and it looks like these OSes
will be difficult save. That is even true for the z/OS and the
proprietary Unixes. Thus business management 101 tells you that HP
should suck out all the money they can from VMS customers and invest
that money in Windows and Linux.
I am not telling you that this is the right way to run HP, because I
think that VMS's high availability features are so unique that VMS can
survive a long time on them. And then for all practical purposes VMS is
one of the most secure OSes you can get.
Bill Gunshannon
"AEF" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <1141082595.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
>> "AEF" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >
>> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>> >> Alan Greig <grei...@netscape.net> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course, your right. But, what's your (and JF's) point? HP is not
>> >> >> marketing it. HP is not going to market it. Allt he screaming here
>> >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has
>> >> >> not had any effect on it. And, it is not going to. So, I ask again,
>> >> >> what's your point? :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some
>> >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to
>> >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...
>> >>
>> >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.
>> >
>> >
>> > to market what is supposedly a high-margin product. What great harm
>> > would come if they marketed VMS a little? Even a small gain in sales
>> > would pay for it. And you say that despite all that they're still not
>> > going to do it. OK. But WHY? And it would help their Itanium sales,
>> > would it not?
>> >
>> > Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major
>> > marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact that
>> > the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:
>> > WHY?
>>
>> Because VMS is obviously not the direction they want the company to go.
>> Ray Charles could see that!!
>
> I acknowledged that. So they won't push VMS because that's not the
> direction they want the company to go. So why don't they want the
> company to go that way? (Which is what I thought I asked in my previous
> post.)
>
Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's? Refridgerators? Light bulbs?
The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction the
company will take. Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?)
doesn't mean their wrong. I am sure they have their reasons, and again,
while I am sure we would not agree with them, it just isn't our decision
to make. The big thing becomes what are you (we) going to do about it?
Contrary to what some people here would like to believe, we are not going
to change the course of the good ship HP. It is really time to start making
plans that take this into consideration, like it or not.
Dave Froble
> Rob Young wrote:
>
>> Come on purse your lips... give us a "death of VMS." Just
>> for old times sake. The good old days of "VMS death", ah... I harken
>> back:
>
>
>
>
> You may have quotes stuff from archives out of context, and some text I
> don't ever recall ever having typed. But guess what is more important :
>
> JF ramblings and interpretations ?
>
> OR
>
>
> Rich Marcello announcing that HP doesn't see any growth potential for
> VMS and is only keeping it for remaining installed base ?
>
>
>
> Rich Marcello's statement is authoritative of HP policies, just like
> Stallard stating that HP expected VMS customer to migrate to HP-UX
> (later changed to HP helping VMS customers who want to migrate to
> HP-UX), or Winkler's "Windows will eviscerate the underbelly... "????
>
>
> When HP officially annoucnes it sees no growth potential for VMS, and
> when information was recently let out that the installed bas had been
> "consolidated" from 400k down to 300k systems, guess what the bean
> counters at HP will start calculating ???????
Seriously JF, get a life!
It's amusing how you change what someone says so you can then go off on
one of your rants. But let's get back to exactly what was said.
Rich said that VMS was not seen as a """HUGH""" growth business. He
didn't say it was not a growth business. He could consider it a 'large'
growth opportunity, and still be correct in saying it is not a 'hugh'
growth opportunity. Or at other levels of growth.
To give some perspective, in the last 12-18 months, AMD-64 was a 'hugh'
growth business, cutting deeply into Intel's market numbers. While
anything is possible, I don't see VMS being capable of such a growth,
even if large numbers of businesses wanted to ditch Microsoft. There
just isn't the capability, applications, and such to allow a 'hugh' growth.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Dave Froble
Perhaps not wanting to promote a terminate (sunk) itanic? Sorry,
couldn't resist. :-)
Dave Froble
What happened to the days when a company followed (wanted to go) the money?
Dave Froble
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>>Very good, you can actually read the writting on the wall. So how come
>>you haven't moved in the direction they want you to move?
>
>
> Becasue I believe that VMS could be succesfull, grow and be even more
> profitable for HP. And I believe HP shareholders shoudl pressure HP
> management into focusing on improving HP's opwn products instead of
> helping Microsoft and Intel provide dividende to their respective shareholders.
>
>
>
>>Read my lips. HP doesn't care. HP doesn't plan (or even want) to see
>>VMS grow. It's a cash cow.
>
>
> Why aren't there forces internally that try to tell high HP management
> that VMS does in fact have potential ?
They've been fired.
> If the HP employees who participate here *really* believe what they say
> (as opposed to just toeing the company line to save their job), then can
> there be any hope that anyone within HP will fight for VMS ?
See above about 'fired'.
>>It has nothing to do with the technical merit of VMS or it's ability to
>>compete in afree market. It has to do with the wishes of its owner.
>
>
> The challenge is to change those wishes and awaken HP management of the
> advantages of letting VMS succeed.
See above about 'fired'.
>>Marcello doesn't "tell upper management" anything. They tell him what
>>the companies direction is and he move in that direction. or looks for
>>another job.
>
>
>
> Marcello is high enough to have influence. If he chose to be the quiet
> type and not defend VMS and just like others who know nothing about VMS
> set VMS policy, then someone else must step it and do the job marcello
> is incapable/unwilling to do.
See above about 'fired'.
Bob Koehler
>
> What happened to the days when a company followed (wanted to go) the money?
They went out with the companies that wanted to build long term
strategies. Boards see one thing these days: short term bottom
line profits. Tomorrow dos not exist, since Wall Street hasn't
reported tomorrow's stock price.
Bill Gunshannon
We don't know that that is not where they are headed. After all, they
have information the rest of us don't have. Just because we all see
VMS as the big winner doesn't make it so. in their eyes, it couold be
a real looser and that would control their direction.
JF Mezei
> Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's? Refridgerators? Light bulbs?
> The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction the
> company will take. Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?)
> doesn't mean their wrong.
They have a legal duty to the shareholders of maximising return on
investment. If they have assets they are not interested in and which do
not fit within their strategy, then it is wrong to let those assets just
rot. They should sell them.
When CP Rail decided it no longer wanted to be a railway in the 1980s,
it started to tear off as many tracks as the canadian government would
allow. It even requested the permission to tear off the transcontinental
tracks between sudbury and thunderbay. Why ? because they decided it
wasn't their core business and that ships/trucks could do a better job.
Why tear off the tracks instead of letting them rot ? Because bean
counters found buyers for the railway ties and steel recyling for the
tracks, nails, copper recyliers for the telegraph wires and they saw
that it was more profitable to pay for the tracks to be dismantle and
sell the materials.
Ironic that since then, what used to be canada's largest corporation has
downsized itself, sold off all its assets and the railway is now an
independant company without a transcontinental network and of course no
longer any synergy between its ships, trains, trucks and all the other
companies they had (hotels, airline, lumber, and tons of other stuff
which fed into its transportation network).
If HP wants to focus on being just another DELL, it should at least do
like CP and sell off the parts that are not in its strategy before those
parts no longer have any value. At least CP returned lots of money to
shareholders and/or gave them shares in the spun off corporations or
shares in the corporations that purchased its stuff (for instance
Fairmont which bought CP Hotels).
If HP wants to be a serious IT company, it needs to be more than DELL
and needs to have enterprise products and services. And if it wants to
stay in that business, it needs to really work on fully leveraging the
full potential of all its enterprise assets, and that includes VMS.
Like it or not, HP purchased the Digital assets included with Compaq.
And it didn't get Compaq at a bargain so it isn't really right for it to
write off all those assets that still have potential.
Pfeiffer wanted the "Digital" parts because he wanted Compaq to grow out
of the "Dell" model and become and enterprise IT supplier of goods and
services. And Pfeiffer had told Palmer to sell off the parts that
Pfeiffer wasnt interested in.
Why didn't Carly tell Curly to sell off the portions of Compaq that HP
wasn't interested in ? Or did she know that Curly was incompetant wand
wouldn't be able to do so ?
Bill Gunshannon
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's? Refridgerators? Light bulbs?
>> The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction the
>> company will take. Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?)
>> doesn't mean their wrong.
>
>
> They have a legal duty to the shareholders of maximising return on
> investment.
And the shareholders have not complained yet so they must be meeting
their legal duty. Just because you or I don't like it doesn't mean
the shareholders don't. Of course, you could buy up a majority of
the stock and then you might have your say.
> If they have assets they are not interested in and which do
> not fit within their strategy, then it is wrong to let those assets just
> rot. They should sell them.
Your opinion. I can think of a lot of reasons they may have given to
their shareholders or the BOD (who actually make those decisions) that
would result in not selling those assets. One of them might be that
they have offered it and had no takers. And no, you and your pocket
change don't count.
>
> When CP Rail decided it no longer wanted to be a railway in the 1980s,
> it started to tear off as many tracks as the canadian government would
> allow. It even requested the permission to tear off the transcontinental
> tracks between sudbury and thunderbay. Why ? because they decided it
> wasn't their core business and that ships/trucks could do a better job.
> Why tear off the tracks instead of letting them rot ? Because bean
> counters found buyers for the railway ties and steel recyling for the
> tracks, nails, copper recyliers for the telegraph wires and they saw
> that it was more profitable to pay for the tracks to be dismantle and
> sell the materials.
>
> Ironic that since then, what used to be canada's largest corporation has
> downsized itself, sold off all its assets and the railway is now an
> independant company without a transcontinental network and of course no
> longer any synergy between its ships, trains, trucks and all the other
> companies they had (hotels, airline, lumber, and tons of other stuff
> which fed into its transportation network).
And all totally irelevant as that's CP Rail and not HP. What one company
does is not legally binding on another company. By the way, they may have
sold off all your tracks up there, but CP Rail owns pretty much everything
around here. I watch them shuttle cars around onthe siding next to my
office every day.
>
> If HP wants to focus on being just another DELL, it should at least do
> like CP and sell off the parts that are not in its strategy before those
> parts no longer have any value.
Why? Because you say they should? What secret information has the BOD
shared with you that the rest of us don't have?
> At least CP returned lots of money to
> shareholders and/or gave them shares in the spun off corporations or
> shares in the corporations that purchased its stuff (for instance
> Fairmont which bought CP Hotels).
That's CP Rail, not HP.
>
> If HP wants to be a serious IT company, it needs to be more than DELL
> and needs to have enterprise products and services.
Your opinion and obviously not shared by those that run HP. Get yourself
onto the BOD and then what you say may carry some weight.
> And if it wants to
> stay in that business, it needs to really work on fully leveraging the
> full potential of all its enterprise assets, and that includes VMS.
Your opinion, not shared by those who run HP.
>
> Like it or not, HP purchased the Digital assets included with Compaq.
> And it didn't get Compaq at a bargain so it isn't really right for it to
> write off all those assets that still have potential.
Maybe they don't think they have potential. In which case they have a
legal obligation to not waste money on them.
>
> Pfeiffer wanted the "Digital" parts because he wanted Compaq to grow out
> of the "Dell" model and become and enterprise IT supplier of goods and
> services. And Pfeiffer had told Palmer to sell off the parts that
> Pfeiffer wasnt interested in.
Pfeiffer is gone. Palmer is gone. What they did or did not want no longer
means anything. Oh yeah, Digital is gone and Compaq is also gone. It's HP's
game now and they seem to be doing exactly what they want.
>
> Why didn't Carly tell Curly to sell off the portions of Compaq that HP
> wasn't interested in ? Or did she know that Curly was incompetant wand
> wouldn't be able to do so ?
They were both incompetent, but that's water under the bridge. They are
both gone now too. By the way, how do you know Carly didn't tell Curly
to sell VMS but he was unable to find a suitable buyer? Even the junk
on Ebay usually has a reserve price and if it isn't met the owner doesn't
just say, "Oh well, you can have my Beemer for $22.95." That's one of
the problems here. Everybody seems to think they know better than HP's
current owners what is best for HP. There may well be considerable info-
rmation that we just don't have. And, of course, there is the emotional
attachement to VMS which clouds men's judgement as well. I don't have any
secret knowledge either (they never shared the handshake with me) but I am
willing ot admit there may be reasons we are all unaware of that are driving
their actions. The more important thing at this point, in my opinion, is
to make sure you have plans that won;t leave you caught short if things
don't go your way.
AEF
Bill Todd wrote:
> AEF wrote:
> > Alan Greig wrote:
> >> AEF wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bill, I understand your point: HP is simply not going to do any major
> >>> marketing for VMS. Fine. But given the big margin, and the fact that
> >>> the brief Renaissance of VMS in 2000 increased sales, all I ask is:
> >>> WHY?
> >> Management school. The fewer things you manage the fewer variables to
> >> control. "Downsize, rightsize, capsize" as a DEC engineer once said.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alan Greig
> >
> > So why favor less profitable products?
>
> Duh - have you been asleep for the past half-dozen years here?
Bill, I've read many posts on this topic, but not all. Maybe I missed
the one with the true answer. Maybe not. But of those I have read I
have not seen what I consider a satisfactory answer. And with B.
Gunshannon pushing the point that nothing about HP w.r.t. VMS is going
to change, I thought I'd press the question. But he dodged it.
> cHumPaq management favors what makes their jobs easy, with profit a
> distant second-place (if even that: just as in the political realm,
> expecting their nominal primary responsibility to rise even to
> second-place priority is probably naive).
Hmmm, the whole POINT of a corporation is to make money. For that you
need profits. A distant second doesn't make any sense. That's like a
living organism putting eating at at a distant second or worse. The
company's done better than that (at least since mid-2002 if you go by
the stock price), so either they do value profit or they somehow
stumbled upon it (less likely).
Assembling boxes from
> components made by others is easier than coming up with technology
> yourself: no messy R&D to manage and (gasp!) actually direct and depend
> upon for your future, easily-understandable metrics, minimal risk (which
> of course tends to go hand-in-hand with minimal reward, but who's
> counting?).
We're talking about HP. This is 100% opposite of what hp started out
as. The whole point of HP was R&D (and to make money, of course).
Doesn't assembling boxes mean low margins? But you say they put profit
a distant second at best. OK, that's consistent. But you still have to
make profit.
And so what would it hurt to spend a little on VMS marketing? Would the
shareholders rise in revolt upon hearing about great profits being made
from increased sales of VMS?
> As long as shareholders apparently won't demand any more of them
> (another close parallel with politics), there's pretty much no down-side
> at all. Carly wasn't given the boot because she failed to live up to
> shareholder expectations: she just rocked too many boats (in the
> process of burning them), with no particularly visible compensating
> strengths (aside from her silver tongue) to balance things out.
Well what the hell were shareholders saying when HP's stock slid from
just above 30 in late 2000 to about 12 in the middle of 2002? I see
it's actually been going up quite nicely since and is now at least at
the just-above-30 level.
Speaking about profitable products: Can you imagine HP allowing its
printer and printer-ink business to wither away due to lack of
marketing? Of course not -- we're talking big profits. Unless those
profits are from sales of VMS of course! Then everyone says all sorts
of things why HP doesn't market VMS properly.
>
> What irony: they (the HP BoD) probably would have been happier with
> Curly - not that that would have done VMS any more good.
>
> - bill
AEF
JF Mezei
> secret knowledge either (they never shared the handshake with me) but I am
> willing ot admit there may be reasons we are all unaware of that are driving
> their actions.
The reasons are pretty simple: they are convinced there isn't any growth
potential and that VMS is a donosaur bound for extinction and that it
isn't worth to even try. So they milk customers stupid enough to stick
to this old legacy platform.
If you accept that HP has no long term plans for VMS and will just milk
it as long as possible, then the question becomes: when does the "as
long as possible" expire ?
With the installed base having shrunk by 25%, and lack of success of
that IA64 thing, is the point where HP decides to stop developping VMS
coming sooner than expected ?
AEF
No, but that doesn't mean they're right, either.
> while I am sure we would not agree with them, it just isn't our decision
> to make. The big thing becomes what are you (we) going to do about it?
I understand that. I was asking what those reasons might be. If you
don't know, then just say so. You don't need to repeat your case. I got
it.
b...@instantwhip.com
game now and they seem to be doing exactly what they want. "
or did you mean what Bill Gates wants?
AEF
Karsten Nyblad wrote:
> AEF wrote:
> > So why favor less profitable products? Volume? Is it really enough?
>
> Business management 101 says that you should invest in the sectors of
> grows, make sure the steady ongoing business continues, and extort money
> from business on its way down.
So if their printer and/or printer-ink business starts to wane, they
should extort money from it to prop something else up that's either
growing or not waning as quickly? I don't think so.
The market for other OSes than Windows
> and open source OSes is under pressure, and it looks like these OSes
> will be difficult save. That is even true for the z/OS and the
> proprietary Unixes.
But one of, if not the, biggest problems is security. And VMS should be
a rather easy sell because of that. Or at least easier than others. And
as you mention below, there's the problem of maximizing availability,
where VMS also shines brightly.
Thus business management 101 tells you that HP
> should suck out all the money they can from VMS customers and invest
> that money in Windows and Linux.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym --Woody
Allen.
>
> I am not telling you that this is the right way to run HP, because I
> think that VMS's high availability features are so unique that VMS can
> survive a long time on them. And then for all practical purposes VMS is
> one of the most secure OSes you can get.
OK.
AEF
David J Dachtera
>
> In article <4403AAD8...@comcast.net>,
> David J Dachtera <djesys...@comcast.net> writes:
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3OJMf.69756$DM....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> >> Alan Greig <grei...@netscape.net> writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, your right. But, what's your (and JF's) point? HP is not
> >> >> marketing it. HP is not going to market it. Allt he screaming here
> >> >> over the past decade (it did start before HP even got involved!) has
> >> >> not had any effect on it. And, it is not going to. So, I ask again,
> >> >> what's your point? :-)
> >> >
> >> > For a brief period in the Compaq era someone was listening and even some
> >> > real marketing took place and, low and behold, VMS sales started to
> >> > grow. Then the campaign stopped and...
> >>
> >> And that shold tell everyone here something, too.
> >
> > Tells me that we're right and "they" are wrong.
> >
> > ...or did I miss something here?
>
> Except that in this case, "they" get to decide what is right and what
> is wrong.
Well, no "they" don't. "They" can decide what "they" will/won't do, but
that's as far as it goes.
Bill Gunshannon
Wait, is that a black helicopter I hear? No, just a passing garbage truck.
Sorry, no conspiracy theories. I doubt Bill Gates gives a rats patootie
about VMS. Assuming he even knows it still exists.
David J Dachtera
Interesting commentary on society as a whole, also. Maximix profits
today, and screw tomorrow.
Only one problem: To quote from "Saturday Night Fever", "No - you don't
f--k the future, the future f--ks you!"
Bob Koehler
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> Why don't they manufacture and sell SUV's? Refridgerators? Light bulbs?
>> The people at the top are given the task of deciding the direction the
>> company will take. Just because their vision doesn't match yours (ours?)
>> doesn't mean their wrong.
>
>
> They have a legal duty to the shareholders of maximising return on
> investment.
Who decides whether the maximum return is via short term bottom line
or long term strategy requiring short term investment?
b...@instantwhip.com
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Wait, is that a black helicopter I hear? No, just a passing garbage truck.
> Sorry, no conspiracy theories. I doubt Bill Gates gives a rats patootie
> about VMS. Assuming he even knows it still exists.
oh, he knows it exists ... that is why he hired Cutler and tried to
steal it for NT ...
FredK
<b...@instantwhip.com> wrote in message
news:1141226558....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Right guy, wrong OS.
Why hire Dave? Well, first he was already in Seattle. Second, Bill needed
a way forward on their IBM committments with OS2 as well as his own plans
for Windows. Third, Dave was a well known world-class OS developer - who
DEC has just told to cease work on his new OS (to go with the cancelled RISC
chip)... an OS design that was pretty much just what Bill needed. So
instead of DEC building a new small kernel OS with "executive" personalities
(VMS, UNIX, etc), MS got one that IIRC started life with an OS2 executive
personality and then Windows - and became Windows NT.
NT wasn't based on VMS. Did it have a VMS heritage in parts of its kernel
design? Sure, it was the evolution of thinking by one of the VMS kernel
architects.
alexd...@themail.co.uk
news:46kdmiF...@individual.net...
> I doubt Bill Gates gives a rats patootie
> about VMS. Assuming he even knows it still exists.
He does know it exists, here are a few of his more public references to
it.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/industry&tech/uexpo.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2004/03-29Gartner.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2005/10-13Waterloo.asp
Alex
David J Dachtera
Naturally, none of those pages work with an older Netscape.
Larry Kilgallen
> "AlexNOSP...@themail.co.uk" wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>> news:46kdmiF...@individual.net...
>> > I doubt Bill Gates gives a rats patootie
>> > about VMS. Assuming he even knows it still exists.
>>
>> He does know it exists, here are a few of his more public references to
>> it.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/industry&tech/uexpo.asp
>> http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2004/03-29Gartner.asp
>> http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2005/10-13Waterloo.asp
>>
>> Alex
>
> Naturally, none of those pages work with an older Netscape.
They work for me with Netscape Communicator 4.75-20000815.
Dr. Dweeb
companies legislation. Legislation is the province of politicians.
2: The advisory and executive boards - that is their mandate.
Dr. Dweeb
David J Dachtera
They don't work for me using Mozilla V4.77 on W2K-Pro.
Larry Kilgallen
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>>
>> In article <440CC381...@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera <djesys...@comcast.net> writes:
>> > "AlexNOSP...@themail.co.uk" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:46kdmiF...@individual.net...
>> >> > I doubt Bill Gates gives a rats patootie
>> >> > about VMS. Assuming he even knows it still exists.
>> >>
>> >> He does know it exists, here are a few of his more public references to
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/industry&tech/uexpo.asp
>> >> http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2004/03-29Gartner.asp
>> >> http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2005/10-13Waterloo.asp
>> >>
>> >> Alex
>> >
>> > Naturally, none of those pages work with an older Netscape.
>>
>> They work for me with Netscape Communicator 4.75-20000815.
>
> They don't work for me using Mozilla V4.77 on W2K-Pro.
Get a Mac :-) :-) :-)