"Chris Bailey" <cbailey.nos...@cander.net> wrote in messagenews:387fc37f.949660@news-server...
> Just my two cents here, but other than the lawsuit with Intel over theWhat on earth makes you think that there are customers out there desperate
> clipper technology, why would Intergraph NOT release the programming
> info into the public domain? At one time, field service was basically
> supporting Intergraph through maintenance contracts. Can you imagine
> how much money they could make by putting even a fraction of the
> existing machines back on contracts?
to put CLIX boxes back on maintenance:-) HEck if they want a UNIX box to
play with, they can pick up a LINX/x86 box for less than a years maintenance
on a CLIPPER/CLIX box. In addition, I'd strongly suspect that field service
has reduced the capability to support CLIX boxes (in terms of spare parts
and expertize) back to a minimum level consistent with the number of boxes
still in active use by customers. The last thing they would want would be a
bunch of people asking to put such boxes back on maintenance. I know it's
hard to accept, but as far as Intergraph is concerned CLIPPER and CLIX are
something from the dim and distant past, like InterAct 68Ks.
To the best of my knowledge this was never even discussed and I was privy to
> Someone might be able to finally answer this question for me as well.
some pretty harebrained discussions in the first half of the nineties :-)
> The other was a version of Winnt that would run on the CLIXThis has an element of truth in it. Part of the original deal between Ingr
and MS was that Ingr could put NT on a CLIPPER platform. The platform it
would run on, bore no resemblance to any CLIX machine ever shipped. The
prototypes of the CLIPPER/NT platform were publically demonstrated at AEC
tradeshow in Atlanta in 1993. They were very "alpha", NT 3.5 didn't so much
run on them as stumble drunkenly from BSOD to BSOD. That was about as
advanced as the port ever got. The hardware had a PC bus structure (EISA)
and was packaged inside a 2xxx series chassis. There were a number of issues
that were never satisfactorily resolved, these included:
1. Hardware paging management, the low level paging algorithms of NT at that
2. Microsoft had no intention of porting any of its applications to the
3. Intergraph by that time had recognised that it did not make financial
4. The CLIPPER C400 was rapidly being overtaken in performance by Intel x86
With these and other issues in mind, the CLIPPER/NT port was inevitably
1. Doing anything at Sun with NT was a political minefield, a situation that
2. The work was being done on a 32bit SPARC architecture that was rapidly
3. Assuming everything went perfectly, at least problems 2&3 from the
4. By the time anything started to happen on this, Intergraph Computer
With both Sun and Intergraph lukewarm about the whole thing, it came as no
>Does anyone here have more info on this? If there is anyThe source for a CLIX/x86 or CLIPPER/NT port would have exactly the same
> truth to the rumors, wonder what it would take to entice Intergraph
> into releasing some of this out into Public Domain?
copyright ownership problems as the CLIPPER/CLIX port.
> Just think, even the source for even a start at porting Winnt for CLIXUnfortuantely, it wouldn't! Because even if it were something that could be
would help out
> TONS for the porting of LINUX to CLIX.
released, the hardware architecture of the target for the CLIPPER/NT port
was radically different to any CLIX/CLIPPER platform. About the only thing
they had in common was the processor, the bus structure and everything else
was totally different.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.