OpenVMS is strategic
Alan Greig
Just received a new set of brochures from HP in the UK for Alpha
related products. I have to admit that someone has gone out of their
way to ensure that it, at least, tries to send a strong message about
VMS.
"and remember, HP OpenVMS is now a *strategic platform* (underlined in
original doc)" and "*OpenVMS is strategic* (large font page headline)
as an enterprise server platform for the new HP" No mention of VMS on
low end Itanium systems (iMultia, Mutanium?...) though.
The roadmaps are described as "cast in stone" which surely indicates
that someone in marketing has at last started to figure out that we
are a bit wary of roadmaps these days.
Lots of offers including 33% trade in against any Sun or IBM system
for any new AlphaServer ordered.
Not a word about helping anyone move from VMS to HP-UX or NT thank
goodness. You'd almost think someone is paying attention to feedback
in comp.os.vms :-)
8/10 for the glossies. Now let's see how well they can execute.
--
Alan
Atlant Schmidt
> The roadmaps are described as "cast in stone"
Soapstone, sandstone, or granite?
Atlant
("I bring you these fifteen, (thump/crash!), err,
*TEN* commandments...")
Simon Clubley
>
> Just received a new set of brochures from HP in the UK for Alpha
> related products. I have to admit that someone has gone out of their
> way to ensure that it, at least, tries to send a strong message about
> VMS.
>
Assuming that this was a standard mailing, then my copy hasn't caught up
with me at my new location yet, so I have a question: Is this a general HP
brochure or was it produced by the UK Alphaserver ["Top Dog" :-)] unit ?
For those outside of the UK, this unit has managed to produce strongly
pro-VMS literature even in the bad old days, so I'm interested in knowing
if this is HP originated material or the Alphaserver unit promoting VMS
again.
Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: The Lada of the computing world.
Alan Greig
clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:
>In article <k2f8pusq88umvuklc...@4ax.com>, Alan Greig <a.g...@virgin.net> writes:
>>
>> Just received a new set of brochures from HP in the UK for Alpha
>> related products. I have to admit that someone has gone out of their
>> way to ensure that it, at least, tries to send a strong message about
>> VMS.
>>
>
>Assuming that this was a standard mailing, then my copy hasn't caught up
>with me at my new location yet, so I have a question: Is this a general HP
>brochure or was it produced by the UK Alphaserver ["Top Dog" :-)] unit ?
The brochures say "Printed in UK, September 2002", However the large
fold-out one appears to not be UK specific. and ends with a paragraph
(and photo) by Scott Stallard The smaller of the two brochures has UK
email and web addresses. The covering letter is signed by Richard
George. All carry the HP invent logo.
Hey, maybe they've let the top-dog team design the international
brochures. That would be a big plus!
>For those outside of the UK, this unit has managed to produce strongly
>pro-VMS literature even in the bad old days, so I'm interested in knowing
>if this is HP originated material or the Alphaserver unit promoting VMS
>again.
>
>Simon.
--
Alan
Tim Llewellyn
Alan Greig wrote:
>
>
> Lots of offers including 33% trade in against any Sun or IBM system
> for any new AlphaServer ordered.
Alan, you didn't mention the VMS unlimited user licence offer with
any new server!
However, offers cannot be combined and end on 13th October. How many
people can push an upgrade order through that quickly?
Anyway, I like the overall message and the presentation.
So, people, start buying new VMS alpha's and hiring people to run
them. Especially if you are in South West England. :-).
* PLEASE NOTE tim.ll...@cableinet.co.uk address is NO LONGER VALID *
Tim Llewellyn
Tim Llewellyn wrote:
>
>
> However, offers cannot be combined and end on 13th October. How many
> people can push an upgrade order through that quickly?
>
Slight correction. Trade in offers are until 30th Nov. All other offers until 13th
Oct as I stated.
The Clear Vision Ahead glossy really is good with a clear message IMHO.
regards,
JF Mezei
Of course VMS and Alpha are strategic. They represent a goldmine of
profitable customers, and somehow HP must find a way to convert those
customers to HP-UX on IA64 without losing them.
</devil's advocate>
My take on this is that HP have realised that the Alpha product line is dying
much faster than they had perhaps anticipated, hence the 33% discounts etc.
October 13th is the interesting deadline. Perhaps they lifted the "all new
sales go to HP-UX" mantra and allowed any product line to get any sale it can
before year end.
I can foresee the day where HP will start talking about Alpha in its
financials:
" Sales of IA64 servers have grown at a faster pace while Alpha server sales
are down considerably. Since customers are migrating to IA64 at a faster pace,
we no longer see the need to produce EV79 saving HP billions and billions of dollars."
While the above is quite cynical, I have to agree that this brochure looks
promising. However, one brochure alone isn't enough to fix the damage. And if
I were HP, I would make sure Stallard's name or face is never again associated
with VMS.
It is still unclear whether the damage control/repaid that seems to be
happening is HP-corporate or whether it is just the VMS folks trying to undo
the damage done by the senior folks at HP.
Tim Llewellyn
JF Mezei wrote:
>
> <devils' advocate>
> Of course VMS and Alpha are strategic. They represent a goldmine of
> profitable customers, and somehow HP must find a way to convert those
> customers to HP-UX on IA64 without losing them.
> </devil's advocate>
>
> My take on this is that HP have realised that the Alpha product line is dying
> much faster than they had perhaps anticipated, hence the 33% discounts etc.
> October 13th is the interesting deadline. Perhaps they lifted the "all new
> sales go to HP-UX" mantra and allowed any product line to get any sale it can
> before year end.
We can but hope salespeople are right now pressing big accounts on the advantages
of dumping their insecure etc platforms in favour of something more robust.
The glossy is touting alpha as the "Most flexible route to Itanium", wouldn't
it be ironic if alpha finally became successful on the back of IA64:-).
>
> I can foresee the day where HP will start talking about Alpha in its
> financials:
> " Sales of IA64 servers have grown at a faster pace while Alpha server sales
> are down considerably. Since customers are migrating to IA64 at a faster pace,
> we no longer see the need to produce EV79 saving HP billions and billions of dollars."
So what, they are porting VMS to IA64, have stated that OpenVMS is strategic.
>
> While the above is quite cynical, I have to agree that this brochure looks
> promising. However, one brochure alone isn't enough to fix the damage. And if
> I were HP, I would make sure Stallard's name or face is never again associated
> with VMS.
>
There is a nice picture and quote from Mr Stallard, right below the statement
"HP OpenVMS will remain a strategic product for the new HP" (though that statament
is not attributed directly to him).
> It is still unclear whether the damage control/repaid that seems to be
> happening is HP-corporate or whether it is just the VMS folks trying to undo
> the damage done by the senior folks at HP.
Do you really have nothing better to do than continually whine here?
Arne Vajhøj
Well - it is ofcourse just a brochure.
But what the heck it is a good brochure - way better
than son much else we have seen.
And as you say, then maybe someone is starting to
listen.
I will permit myself the luxury of hoping.
Arne
John Smith
"Alan Greig" <a.g...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:k2f8pusq88umvuklc...@4ax.com...
>
> Just received a new set of brochures from HP in the UK for Alpha
> related products. I have to admit that someone has gone out of their
> way to ensure that it, at least, tries to send a strong message about
> VMS.
Do you know any Sun or IBM customers who have received this, or are they
just mailing it to VMS customers?
> "and remember, HP OpenVMS is now a *strategic platform* (underlined in
> original doc)" and "*OpenVMS is strategic* (large font page headline)
> as an enterprise server platform for the new HP" No mention of VMS on
> low end Itanium systems (iMultia, Mutanium?...) though.
No low-end? Where do people cut their teeth on VMS then?
> Lots of offers including 33% trade in against any Sun or IBM system
> for any new AlphaServer ordered.
Related to my 1st question above - have any IBM or Sun shops actually
received these brochures?
> Not a word about helping anyone move from VMS to HP-UX or NT thank
> goodness. You'd almost think someone is paying attention to feedback
> in comp.os.vms :-)
If they were paying attention, they'd have an overt campaign to migrate from
Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX, to VMS.
Still, a remarkable turnabout.
John Smith
"Tim Llewellyn" <tim.ll...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3D948F59...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> However, offers cannot be combined and end on 13th October.
That's so they can pull the standard marketing dodge - "Held over by popular
demand. Offer extended until everyone on the planet owns and runs OpenVMS."
> How many people can push an upgrade order through that quickly?
Almost no organization moves that quickly. Those that will benefit are those
that already had procurement plans in the pipeline...and that doesn't
include Sun and IBM shops.
John Smith
> > It is still unclear whether the damage control/repaid that seems to be
> > happening is HP-corporate or whether it is just the VMS folks trying to
undo
> > the damage done by the senior folks at HP.
>
> Do you really have nothing better to do than continually whine here?
The UK marketing folks always have seemed to have a better grip on reality
and inventiveness than the US corporate types.
Bill Todd
...
> > It is still unclear whether the damage control/repaid that seems to be
> > happening is HP-corporate or whether it is just the VMS folks trying to
undo
> > the damage done by the senior folks at HP.
>
> Do you really have nothing better to do than continually whine here?
Of the two comments quoted above, JF's is of significance to the future of
VMS while yours is not. I'd say you're the one who needs to reassess his
relevance (or work harder at understanding what you read before responding
incompetently to it)..
- bill
Terry C. Shannon
morons in Houston. Or a couple I could name in Nashua.
"Alan Greig" <a.g...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:k2f8pusq88umvuklc...@4ax.com...
>
Terry C. Shannon
>
>
> Alan Greig wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Lots of offers including 33% trade in against any Sun or IBM system
> > for any new AlphaServer ordered.
>
> Alan, you didn't mention the VMS unlimited user licence offer with
> any new server!
>
> However, offers cannot be combined and end on 13th October. How many
> people can push an upgrade order through that quickly?
HP hopes a lot. HP's FY ends on 31 October and it takes time to process
orders. 4FQ will be ugly.
Terry C. Shannon
"Simon Clubley" <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote in
message news:Lsmglp...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <k2f8pusq88umvuklc...@4ax.com>, Alan Greig
<a.g...@virgin.net> writes:
> >
> > Just received a new set of brochures from HP in the UK for Alpha
> > related products. I have to admit that someone has gone out of their
> > way to ensure that it, at least, tries to send a strong message about
> > VMS.
> >
>
> Assuming that this was a standard mailing, then my copy hasn't caught up
> with me at my new location yet, so I have a question: Is this a general HP
> brochure or was it produced by the UK Alphaserver ["Top Dog" :-)] unit ?
>
> For those outside of the UK, this unit has managed to produce strongly
> pro-VMS literature even in the bad old days, so I'm interested in knowing
> if this is HP originated material or the Alphaserver unit promoting VMS
> again.
Odss are good that it was the UK AlphaServer people. Such blashphemy would
not pass muster with the Houston croed.
Arne Vajhøj
> "Tim Llewellyn" <tim.ll...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3D94BF79...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>JF Mezei wrote:
>>>It is still unclear whether the damage control/repaid that seems to be
>>>happening is HP-corporate or whether it is just the VMS folks trying to
>>>undo the damage done by the senior folks at HP.
>>Do you really have nothing better to do than continually whine here?
> Of the two comments quoted above, JF's is of significance to the future of
> VMS while yours is not.
It is very difficult to say what has significance
for the future of VMS.
My very subjective feeling is that repeatedly bashing of
Digital/Compaq/HP senior management has absolutely no
effect on the decisions made - and basicly just lower
the signal to noise ratio in this forum.
The same JF's post about SMTP logicals is on the other
hand very interesting and what actually make people
read this forum !
Arne
Bill Todd
"Arne Vajhøj" <arne.v...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:3D9749E...@mail.tele.dk...
...
> It is very difficult to say what has significance
> for the future of VMS.
But you presume to just below.
>
> My very subjective feeling is that repeatedly bashing of
> Digital/Compaq/HP senior management has absolutely no
> effect on the decisions made - and basicly just lower
> the signal to noise ratio in this forum.
That assumes your own definition of what constitutes signal and what
constitutes noise. People who read this forum solely for technical content
may agree with you, but people who read it for an overall understanding of
VMS and its future may not.
>
> The same JF's post about SMTP logicals is on the other
> hand very interesting and what actually make people
> read this forum !
And if there were any doubt about your willingness to generalize based on
your personal sentiments, the unqualified assertion above removes it.
- bill
Arne Vajhøj
> "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.v...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> news:3D9749E...@mail.tele.dk...
>>It is very difficult to say what has significance
>>for the future of VMS.
>
> But you presume to just below.
>>My very subjective feeling is that repeatedly bashing of
>>Digital/Compaq/HP senior management has absolutely no
>>effect on the decisions made - and basicly just lower
>>the signal to noise ratio in this forum.
No. I said what me subjective feeling was. That should
hopefully send out some signals that I am not claiming
it is fact.
> That assumes your own definition of what constitutes signal and what
> constitutes noise. People who read this forum solely for technical content
> may agree with you, but people who read it for an overall understanding of
> VMS and its future may not.
>
>>The same JF's post about SMTP logicals is on the other
>>hand very interesting and what actually make people
>>read this forum !
>
> And if there were any doubt about your willingness to generalize based on
> your personal sentiments, the unqualified assertion above removes it.
That was indeed an unproven hypothesis.
But it could get proven !
Would you respect the wish if it could be proven ?
Arne
Bill Todd
> Bill Todd wrote:
>
> > "Arne Vajhøj" <arne.v...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> > news:3D9749E...@mail.tele.dk...
> >>It is very difficult to say what has significance
> >>for the future of VMS.
> >
> > But you presume to just below.
>
>
> >>My very subjective feeling is that repeatedly bashing of
> >>Digital/Compaq/HP senior management has absolutely no
> >>effect on the decisions made - and basicly just lower
> >>the signal to noise ratio in this forum.
>
> No. I said what me subjective feeling was. That should
> hopefully send out some signals that I am not claiming
> it is fact.
Though you speak it well, I understand that English may not be your native
tongue and thus some subtleties in meaning may escape you when conversing in
this language. But what I said above was that you presumed to state a view
(not necessarily claim it to be a hard fact), and indeed you did.
>
> > That assumes your own definition of what constitutes signal and what
> > constitutes noise. People who read this forum solely for technical
content
> > may agree with you, but people who read it for an overall understanding
of
> > VMS and its future may not.
> >
> >>The same JF's post about SMTP logicals is on the other
> >>hand very interesting and what actually make people
> >>read this forum !
> >
> > And if there were any doubt about your willingness to generalize based
on
> > your personal sentiments, the unqualified assertion above removes it.
>
> That was indeed an unproven hypothesis.
>
> But it could get proven !
No, it could not (at least not as the generalization your statement made it
sound like), because even if no one else reads c.o.v. for other reasons *I*
do. I also suspect that a good many others do as well, and not just those
who actively contribute to such non-technical discussions, though freely
admit that another sizable contingent - possibly even a majority - might
prefer that such discussions take place elsewhere.
>
> Would you respect the wish if it could be proven ?
I would certainly respect it even if everyone *except* me held that view -
and not simply because I have no interest in speaking only to myself.
However, as there appear to be plenty of other people concerned about the
same kinds of non-technical issues that bother me, I don't worry much about
that prospect.
What I do worry about is that people will just throw up their hands, say
"There's nothing we can do", accept the mismanagement of Compaq (and now
HP), and in fact support it by trying to discourage criticism (because "It
will only make matters worse" - e.g., for VMS). That kind of attitude is
what allows this kind of rampant incompetence to continue: I'd draw a
parallel to a political situation seven decades ago in your own backyard,
but tradition says that would kill the thread...
- bill
Paul Repacholi
> Alan Greig wrote:
>
> > The roadmaps are described as "cast in stone"
>
> Soapstone, sandstone, or granite?
Millstone of course.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
John Smith wrote:
> "Alan Greig" <a.g...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:k2f8pusq88umvuklc...@4ax.com...
>
>>Just received a new set of brochures from HP in the UK for Alpha
>>related products. I have to admit that someone has gone out of their
>>way to ensure that it, at least, tries to send a strong message about
>>VMS.
>
>
> Do you know any Sun or IBM customers who have received this, or are they
> just mailing it to VMS customers?
>
>
>
>>"and remember, HP OpenVMS is now a *strategic platform* (underlined in
>>original doc)" and "*OpenVMS is strategic* (large font page headline)
>>as an enterprise server platform for the new HP" No mention of VMS on
>>low end Itanium systems (iMultia, Mutanium?...) though.
>
>
> No low-end? Where do people cut their teeth on VMS then?
>
>
>
>>Lots of offers including 33% trade in against any Sun or IBM system
>>for any new AlphaServer ordered.
>
>
> Related to my 1st question above - have any IBM or Sun shops actually
> received these brochures?
>
Would it make any difference if they had ??
regards
Andrew Harrison
Arne Vajhøj
> John Smith wrote:
>> Related to my 1st question above - have any IBM or Sun shops actually
>> received these brochures?
>
> Would it make any difference if they had ??
Pretty dum question.
How many posts have you read here asking for
more and broader marketing of VMS ?
Probably just a few hundred !
So yes - it would please a lot of people
to hear that every IBM and SUN based shop
has gotten that brochure.
Arne
John Smith
Arne,
There is a difference between typesetting and printing a brochure aimed at
Sun/IBM users, and actually sending it to Sun/IBM users.
Yes we've all be asking for VMS marketing directed at non-VMS customers. And
to a certain extent it has been done from time-to-time. But the execution of
the marketing strategy has often failed due to stupid errors. Not mailing
the brochure to the intended audience and then following up with sales calls
may be one of them.
Not being in the UK, I simply asked if anyone there knows of Sun/IBM shops
that actually received this brochure.
Bill Gunshannon
"John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> writes:
>
> There is a difference between typesetting and printing a brochure aimed at
> Sun/IBM users, and actually sending it to Sun/IBM users.
>
> Yes we've all be asking for VMS marketing directed at non-VMS customers. And
> to a certain extent it has been done from time-to-time. But the execution of
> the marketing strategy has often failed due to stupid errors. Not mailing
> the brochure to the intended audience and then following up with sales calls
> may be one of them.
>
> Not being in the UK, I simply asked if anyone there knows of Sun/IBM shops
> that actually received this brochure.
Where would they get IBM's or Sun's customer list?? Surely they are not
stupid enough to give it to their competitors??
Of course, I could be wrong. Compaq apparently gave theirs to Sun, IBM
and Dell shortly before the merger.
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>
Terry C. Shannon
"John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> wrote in message
news:7IGm9.10228$Aiq1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
DEC-->CPQ CPQ-->HPQ
But at least there was Experienced "help" in the HPQ merger. That great
American, Ken Lay.
win...@ssrl.slac.stanford.edu
>In article <7IGm9.10228$Aiq1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> "John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> writes:
>>
>> There is a difference between typesetting and printing a brochure aimed at
>> Sun/IBM users, and actually sending it to Sun/IBM users.
>>
>> Yes we've all be asking for VMS marketing directed at non-VMS customers. And
>> to a certain extent it has been done from time-to-time. But the execution of
>> the marketing strategy has often failed due to stupid errors. Not mailing
>> the brochure to the intended audience and then following up with sales calls
>> may be one of them.
>>
>> Not being in the UK, I simply asked if anyone there knows of Sun/IBM shops
>> that actually received this brochure.
>
>Where would they get IBM's or Sun's customer list?? Surely they are not
>stupid enough to give it to their competitors??
Maybe, maybe not. However, third parties (especially controlled-circulation
magazines) maintain lists of people who have at least claimed that they use
Sun kit, IBM kit, etc, and they are happy to sell mailing lists. That's a big
part of why those trade rags are often 'free' to readers.
-- Alan
John Smith
"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:anfhrr$dj2jf$1...@ID-135708.news.dfncis.de...
> In article <7IGm9.10228$Aiq1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> "John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> writes:
> >
> > There is a difference between typesetting and printing a brochure aimed
at
> > Sun/IBM users, and actually sending it to Sun/IBM users.
> >
> > Yes we've all be asking for VMS marketing directed at non-VMS customers.
And
> > to a certain extent it has been done from time-to-time. But the
execution of
> > the marketing strategy has often failed due to stupid errors. Not
mailing
> > the brochure to the intended audience and then following up with sales
calls
> > may be one of them.
> >
> > Not being in the UK, I simply asked if anyone there knows of Sun/IBM
shops
> > that actually received this brochure.
>
> Where would they get IBM's or Sun's customer list?? Surely they are not
> stupid enough to give it to their competitors??
>
> Of course, I could be wrong. Compaq apparently gave theirs to Sun, IBM
> and Dell shortly before the merger.
Let's see...who are Sun and IBM's major customers for unix? Start with
almost every major bank and brokerage and insurance company on the planet.
Go to Sun and IBM web sites, find out who their software partners are, go to
those sites and look for customer testimonials and cross-reference those
with HP's customer lists on the server side of the business. Go to HP's web
site and look for HP-UX customer testimonials and sell to them too. As to
Dell's customers, get a copy of the business telephone listing in every city
on the planet and call everyone.
However, all that presumes that there are apps/tools available on VMS that
the Sun/IBM customers want to use. That is another matter that HP and their
ISV's need to budget advertising money for. I'm afraid it's a Gordian knot
under the best of economic circumstances, never mind today's unsettled
business conditions.
If HP actually wanted to put the staff they were intending to layoff to good
use before they fire them, they'd send teams out going door-to-door
surveying every business they could as to which company's servers they use.
Mind you, a team of dedicated high school students studying Grade 10
Commerce would probably be just as effective and more enthusiastic than any
marketing team DEC/CPQ/HP ever fielded.
John Santos
I believe Arne was replying to Andrew's followup question and not
to your original question.
Andrew's followup was, as usual, content free, and so not worthy
of a reply.
I haven't seen this brochure, but I live in the US, and it probably
wouldn't come to me personally anyway.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
John Smith
"John Santos" <JO...@egh.com> wrote in message
news:1021002225749...@Ives.egh.com...
John,
You appear to be correct. My apologies Arne.
Maybe someone in the UK can scan it and post it someplace. I have a few
people I'd like to show it to.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
John Santos wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, John Smith wrote:
>>Arne,
>>
>>There is a difference between typesetting and printing a brochure aimed at
>>Sun/IBM users, and actually sending it to Sun/IBM users.
>>
>>Yes we've all be asking for VMS marketing directed at non-VMS customers. And
>>to a certain extent it has been done from time-to-time. But the execution of
>>the marketing strategy has often failed due to stupid errors. Not mailing
>>the brochure to the intended audience and then following up with sales calls
>>may be one of them.
>>
>>Not being in the UK, I simply asked if anyone there knows of Sun/IBM shops
>>that actually received this brochure.
>
>
> I believe Arne was replying to Andrew's followup question and not
> to your original question.
>
> Andrew's followup was, as usual, content free, and so not worthy
> of a reply.
>
Have you joined to choir, its just that in your response you
encompass perfectly the Choir mindset.
My posting was short and to the point.
If you want a longer explanation then read on.
1. Do you understand the difference between strategy and tactics ?
I hope so, the "OpenVMS marketing" we are referring to is tactical
not strategic. No one in their right mind would consider a marketing
promotion that has less than one months validity to be anything other
than tactical. Though there are also other descriptions that also
spring to mind like sad and desperate.
2. Do you know what the likely lead times are for large corporates
when it comes to decision/purchasing ?
I hope so, becase the offer is unlikely to be practical for most customers, unless
they happen to have an OpenVMS order in the pipeline or if the order value
is below the level where its scrutinised extensively. Of course if its in the
first category then all HP are doing is sacrificing margin, they may get people
to bring planned OpenVMS orders forward into the current revenuable quarter
but thats about it. If its in the second category then its not likely to be
any kind of strategic order/decision and it also sacrifices margin.
3. Can you think of any reason why this kind of offer will be of no
interest to Sun/IBM customers except if they are also OpenVMS customers ?
I hope so. If they arn't OpenVMS customers already then the chances of them
making their minds up for a change of platform and doing it plus issuing
the order in a timeframe that will fall inside the offer period is almost
nil.
If they are OpenVMS customers allready then the first part of point 2 also
applies. It might have the effect of bringing forward allready planned OpenVMS
orders in return for buybacks on Sun/IBM servers, but given the time frames
these will almost certainly have to be systems that are already decommisioned.
In other words in return for bringing out their dead IBM/Sun kit some
customers may just bring their orders forward into this quarter, while
HP will eat some more margin.
As and example of marketing given the timing and the target platforms this
is desperate stuff. If you want a good analogy HP is the equivalent
of a Specialist Pork butcher leafleting visitors to the Wailing Wall with
a pre Passover offer on discounted Pork products.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
So you make no distinction whatsover between effective
marketing and marketing that is ineffectual !
Unsuprising.
This is a horribly tactical marketing programme
it is all about getting customers who have planned
OpenVMS purchases to bring them forward into this quarter.
Given its short validity and the target base it is unlikely
to have any impact on Sun/IBM shops, unless they also buy
OpenVMS, have a purchase in the pipeline and happen to
have some decommisioned IBM/Sun boxes that they can use
to make HP eat some more margin. Since all of this is a
bit of a long shot you can see that the difference between
effective marketing and ineffective marketing is all
important.
If you can think of one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM
account that does not have any OpenVMS systems would be
interested in this marketing programme then please advance them
otherwise my point which was short and to the point
stands.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Bob Koehler
>
> 3. Can you think of any reason why this kind of offer will be of no
> interest to Sun/IBM customers except if they are also OpenVMS customers ?
>
> I hope so. If they arn't OpenVMS customers already then the chances of them
> making their minds up for a change of platform and doing it plus issuing
> the order in a timeframe that will fall inside the offer period is almost
> nil.
So Sun has no hopes of attracting existing IBM, HP, or Dell
customers, each of which would have to change platform?
Bob Koehler
> If you can think of one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM
> account that does not have any OpenVMS systems would be
> interested in this marketing programme
How about 3 valid reasons:
1) security
2) reliability
3) ease of use
You haven't been listening, have you? CIOs have changed platforms
and they have become aware of the increasing manpower cost of Windows
and UNIX based solutions.
Bill Gunshannon
b...@world.std.com (Brian 'Jarai' Chase) writes:
>
> It's about as likely as a company running primarily
> on OpenVMS changing over to Unix.
>
I don't know how to break this to you, but not only does this happen
all the time, the current owners of VMS are pushing it. Or do you see
the forced migration to HPUX as something else??
Arne Vajhøj
What part of :
# So yes - it would please a lot of people
# to hear that every IBM and SUN based shop
# has gotten that brochure.
is for complex for you to understand ?
It is the signal value not the sale !
Arne
Tim Llewellyn
trawling for marketting ammunition now, Andrew?
Main, Kerry
>>> If you can think of one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM account that does not have any OpenVMS systems would be interested in this marketing programme then please advance them otherwise my point which was short and to the point stands.<<<
How about higher availability with multi-site (say something easy like 50km) clustering of more than two nodes?
Check out:
http://www.tru64unix.compaq.com/unix/illuminata_dt_unix_research_note.pdf
:-)
Regards
Kerry Main
Solutions Architect
Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.
Consulting & Integration Services
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax : 613-591-4477
Email: Kerry...@hp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy [mailto:Andrew_No....@nospamn.sun.com]
Sent: October 4, 2002 7:20 AM
To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: OpenVMS is strategic
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:
>
>> John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Related to my 1st question above - have any IBM or Sun shops
>>> actually received these brochures?
>>
>>
>> Would it make any difference if they had ??
>
>
> Pretty dum question.
>
> How many posts have you read here asking for
> more and broader marketing of VMS ?
>
> Probably just a few hundred !
>
> So yes - it would please a lot of people
> to hear that every IBM and SUN based shop
> has gotten that brochure.
>
So you make no distinction whatsover between effective marketing and marketing that is ineffectual !
Unsuprising.
This is a horribly tactical marketing programme
it is all about getting customers who have planned
OpenVMS purchases to bring them forward into this quarter.
Given its short validity and the target base it is unlikely
to have any impact on Sun/IBM shops, unless they also buy OpenVMS, have a purchase in the pipeline and happen to have some decommisioned IBM/Sun boxes that they can use to make HP eat some more margin. Since all of this is a bit of a long shot you can see that the difference between effective marketing and ineffective marketing is all important.
If you can think of one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM account that does not have any OpenVMS systems would be interested in this marketing programme then please advance them otherwise my point which was short and to the point stands.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
JF Mezei
> How about higher availability with multi-site (say something easy like 50km) clustering of more than two nodes?
Such a great operating system is rather useless if you don't have the
applications you need to run on it.
If an IBM shop is all CICS/IMS/DB2 etc and uses 3rd party apps that run only
on MVS, then migrating to VMS would be a considerable project.
Main, Kerry
>>>If an IBM shop is all CICS/IMS/DB2 etc and uses 3rd party apps that
run only on MVS, then migrating to VMS would be a considerable
project.<<<
Of course. However, it would be a major project to move to any other
platform - not just OpenVMS.
However, perhaps the mainframe folks are starting to think their 31 bit
platform that goes down weekly / monthly for "scheduled" maintenance is
getting to be a drag ie. having a tough time keeping up.
COBOL is obviously the basis for many big applications on mainframe and
they are typically heavily customized. They are also a huge batch based
environment. They might be good candidates for a RTR fault tolerant
solution with Oracle 9i RAC and full 64bit platform, multi-site PROVEN
solution with datacenters 50-100km apart. Perhaps with Galaxy on an EV7
Marvel platform that allows CPU's on different OS partitions to be
migrated to the OS partition that needs the extra cycles.
Batch queues move jobs to least busy server and application folks don't
need to care what system in what datacenter or what site is actually
processing their processing and/or job requests.
Would they also consider 64bit mainframe stuff IBM is starting to roll
out?
Sure. Of course, the mainframe business is so huge that even a very
small percentage would be a big win for any vendor.
:-)
Regards
Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.
Consulting & Integration Services
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax : 613-591-4477
Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom
-----Original Message-----
From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei...@videotron.ca]
Sent: October 4, 2002 4:56 PM
To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: OpenVMS is strategic
Lorraine Profeta
everywhere else in life. I think I should share my elderly experience:
(1) When asked about implementing RISC architecture in VMS systems (that
meant VAX back then) Ken Olsen replied that VMS required a CISC computer so
it would never be put on a RISC chip.
(2) In 1987 DEC offers the OSF group, DECWindows as the standard gui
interface to OSF Unix. The committee agrees on X-Windows and Motif (as you
should already know). DEC also fight to have DEC Unix used as the kernel
for OSF Unix; the committee agrees on AIX (you should already know this,
too).
(3) In 1989 (give or take 1 year) Ken Olsen states that, "Unix is snake oil.
If you believe in Unix then you believe in snake oil.". The shareholders
committee fires Ken Olsen for his "lack of vision". This really marked the
beginning of the end for VMS.
(4) The plan for OpenVMS was (I read this before the Alpha was released)
was to become completely compatible with OSF1 Unix (DEC Unix, later to be
called Tru64); i.e., you could create programs on OpenVMS and run them on
OSF1 Unix, or vice-versa. Ultimately, OpenVMS would be the standard for OSF
Unix. Lofty goals that were never realized, but it was a statement of
direction by DEC.
(5) In 1990 the DEC 150 is announced; the first Alpha computer. I was blown
away by this machine. I'd never read such amazing specs before; 300 MHz
processor and a 150 MHz bus (hence the name 150). The OS was Windows NT!
OpenVMS is Posix compliant, just like any good Unix OS should be. E.g.,
compare Files-11 to the AIX jfs. Obviously OpenVMS uses dot delimiters for
directory names and everything below the disk name has to be surrounded in
[], and OpenVMS uses different directory names. Past that the details of
jfs and Files-11 are extremely similar. Both file systems have a disk index
in the "root" directory ([000000] for OpenVMS) and those indexes point to
dir files that contain the names of files and other dir files that point to
more files and more dir files that point to ..., etc. The difference being
that in jfs those dir files are called inodes and you can't see them by
typing DIR like you do using DCL; Unix tries to make your computer look like
(visually in the Korn Shell; you still have to Mount drives, etc.) it has
just one big disk drive. VMS has always used the idea of a process and
other Unix like concepts, so becoming Posix compliant wasn't all that hard
for the DEC software engineers.
I actually have a point to all of this. Going back to item (1); VMS never
was put on a RISC chip. Alpha systems have a MACRO-32 compiler, so Alpha
systems have an interface to the low level code of VAX computers; so OpenVMS
became middleware for the Alpha systems. Today the OpenVMS interface is
just that; an interface. Try to cluster a VAX running VMS 5.5 with an Alpha
running OpenVMS 6.2 or higher; it doesn't work! When you do run a newer OS
version on the VAX you can loosely couple, but only if you are using ODS-2
on both the VAX and Alpha. Now that VAX systems have been discontinued
ODS-2 will eventually disappear, and nobody will be able to cluster their
VAXStation (or any other VAX) to their Alpha cluster. I sincerely doubt
you'll see ODS-2 on the new Itanium machines.
This in itself is no big deal. OSes stick around while they are useful and
then fade away. Who's still running EXEC 8, or RSTS (OK, some people still
are running RSTS, but it's a tiny group that is becoming extinct)? However,
There is still a "link" between the original VMS and OpenVMS. even though
it's becoming more and more nebulous. When OpenVMS sits on top of EPIC
architecture I doubt that there will be anything left of the old VMS except
the use of a Files-11 looking file structure and a DCL interface to it.
Does anybody think that today's Mustang is anything like the 1965 Mustang?
I drove a 2001 Mustang last year and the way you sit in it is reminiscent of
the original Mustang. Today's Mustang gives you a "pony car" feel that was
missing in Mustangs of the 70s and 80s. So if you miss the old Mustang you
could get some of the feeling of it in today's car of the same name, but you
would be aware that it was a completely different implementation and
architecture.
"Brian 'Jarai' Chase" <b...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:H3IF5...@world.std.com...
> In article <YtjzdK...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> I'd be more inclined to say that Sun has a fair amount of hope in
> attracting existing IBM AIX, HP HPUX, and HP Tru64 customers.
> Equivalently, IBM and HP have just as much as hope in attracting Sun
> Solaris customers to their Unix offerings. All of them would be able to
> attract Dell Windows customers who needed to move to a more scalable
> platform, though that's a tougher migration, it's one that has the
> necessity of moving to a more scalable platform behind it. And certainly
> I could see Windows users moving to an OpenVMS solution for the same
> reasons--as long as OpenVMS supported the applications they wanted.
>
> I could see Unix customers moving to OpenVMS for things like process
> control or some financial systems where 24x7x365 availablity and near 100%
> system uptime is either critical or highly advantageous to the business.
>
> -brian.
> --
> --- Brian Chase | b...@world.std.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----
> This counter is [6,177,399,753] times as pointless as a real one. -- K.
Bill Todd
"Lorraine Profeta" <prof...@greaterbaynet.com@greaterbaynet.com> wrote in
message news:ann15h$sa4$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> It seems to me that there are a lot of "young people" in this NG, and
> everywhere else in life. I think I should share my elderly experience:
And that's a Good Thing (at least IMO). But I think some of what you say
indicates confusion about what makes VMS VMS.
>
> (1) When asked about implementing RISC architecture in VMS systems (that
> meant VAX back then) Ken Olsen replied that VMS required a CISC computer
so
> it would never be put on a RISC chip.
Well, you have to remember that Ken's technical contributions to VAX were in
the area of the early power supplies (IIRC), and that software was never his
forte at all. Though even some reasonably experienced software people were
confused about exactly what RISC was back then.
>
> (2) In 1987 DEC offers the OSF group, DECWindows as the standard gui
> interface to OSF Unix. The committee agrees on X-Windows and Motif (as
you
> should already know). DEC also fight to have DEC Unix used as the kernel
> for OSF Unix; the committee agrees on AIX (you should already know this,
> too).
That's interesting, since my impression was that OSF/1 was more Mach-based
than anything else. But I'm no expert on its provenance.
>
> (3) In 1989 (give or take 1 year) Ken Olsen states that, "Unix is snake
oil.
> If you believe in Unix then you believe in snake oil.". The shareholders
> committee fires Ken Olsen for his "lack of vision". This really marked
the
> beginning of the end for VMS.
The real beginning happened well before KO's departure in 1992. It was
certainly as early as the 1988 cancellation of the PRISM DECwest project,
which I've been told was itself due to continuing internal friction between
the VMS and Unix factions.
>
> (4) The plan for OpenVMS was (I read this before the Alpha was released)
> was to become completely compatible with OSF1 Unix (DEC Unix, later to be
> called Tru64); i.e., you could create programs on OpenVMS and run them on
> OSF1 Unix, or vice-versa. Ultimately, OpenVMS would be the standard for
OSF
> Unix. Lofty goals that were never realized, but it was a statement of
> direction by DEC.
And might have made a huge difference if it had been followed through -
though given the amount of disdain in which the VMS/RSX people had
traditionally held Unix (and RSTS, and TOPS...) I'm not too surprised that
this goal (which I can't remember ever having heard of formally, though I
wasn't following DEC closely back then) was not strongly pursued.
...
> OpenVMS is Posix compliant, just like any good Unix OS should be.
Well, it was for a while, and reportedly will be again soon. And the COE
work should markedly improve upon it - which is a good thing, because
POSIX-compliance is not worth as much as some non-Unix people might think.
E.g.,
> compare Files-11 to the AIX jfs. Obviously OpenVMS uses dot delimiters
for
> directory names and everything below the disk name has to be surrounded in
> [], and OpenVMS uses different directory names. Past that the details of
> jfs and Files-11 are extremely similar.
Actually, they are less similar underneath the covers than they are in their
interfaces and syntax.
Both file systems have a disk index
> in the "root" directory ([000000] for OpenVMS) and those indexes point to
> dir files that contain the names of files and other dir files that point
to
> more files and more dir files that point to ..., etc. The difference
being
> that in jfs those dir files are called inodes
No: a Unix 'inode' is roughly equivalent to an entry in an ODS-1/2 index
file (i.e., to a 'file header'). IIRC jfs directories are b-tree-structured
while ODS-1/2 directories are linear lists (though ordered lists, in the
case of ODS-2).
ODS-2 directories are themselves files, but I'm not sure that JFS
directories are: they may be a special-purpose entity that isn't based on
an underlying file.
...
> I actually have a point to all of this. Going back to item (1); VMS never
> was put on a RISC chip. Alpha systems have a MACRO-32 compiler, so Alpha
> systems have an interface to the low level code of VAX computers; so
OpenVMS
> became middleware for the Alpha systems.
No. While a significant amount of MACRO-32 was compiled in early VMS
releases on Alpha, a fair amount of VMS code even back then was written in
higher-level languages (primarily C, I think) and simply recompiled for
Alpha. And over time a great deal of the remaining MACRO-32 code got
re-written (again, mostly in C) - not that there's that much substantive
difference between compiling VAX assembler code into Alpha assembler code
and compiling some higher-level language.
Today the OpenVMS interface is
> just that; an interface.
Well, I'd have to agree that an interface is an interface. But the
statement doesn't mean what I suspect you think it does: VMS is every bit
as much VMS running on Alpha as it is on VAX.
Try to cluster a VAX running VMS 5.5 with an Alpha
> running OpenVMS 6.2 or higher; it doesn't work!
Backward-compatibility sometimes must be sacrificed at some point. It does
surprise me that it would have been broken between one major release and the
next, but presumably there was good reason.
And it would also be a bit surprising if you couldn't cluster an Alpha in
that situation but could cluster a VAX running the same release as the Alpha
was.
When you do run a newer OS
> version on the VAX you can loosely couple, but only if you are using ODS-2
> on both the VAX and Alpha.
ODS-2 is fundamental to VMS itself, so that's hardly surprising. If you're
not running ODS-2 (or perhaps now ODS-5 as an alternative, or the
now-defunct Spiralog storage underpinnings which ODS-2 remained on top of),
I don't know that you can cluster at all (though perhaps a stand-alone
system could have run ODS-1 up to some release).
Now that VAX systems have been discontinued
> ODS-2 will eventually disappear, and nobody will be able to cluster their
> VAXStation (or any other VAX) to their Alpha cluster. I sincerely doubt
> you'll see ODS-2 on the new Itanium machines.
I will be flabberghasted if you don't (assuming you see VMS at all there) -
unless ODS-5 (which is itself ODS-2 with some enhancements) replaces it.
>
> This in itself is no big deal. OSes stick around while they are useful
and
> then fade away. Who's still running EXEC 8, or RSTS (OK, some people
still
> are running RSTS, but it's a tiny group that is becoming extinct)?
However,
> There is still a "link" between the original VMS and OpenVMS. even though
> it's becoming more and more nebulous. When OpenVMS sits on top of EPIC
> architecture I doubt that there will be anything left of the old VMS
except
> the use of a Files-11 looking file structure and a DCL interface to it.
Again, you're confused. While there may already be no remaining VMS V1.0
code, VMS is every bit as much VMS as it ever was - plus all the
enhancements added along the way.
And if/when it appears on Itanic, it still will be.
> Does anybody think that today's Mustang is anything like the 1965 Mustang?
> I drove a 2001 Mustang last year and the way you sit in it is reminiscent
of
> the original Mustang. Today's Mustang gives you a "pony car" feel that
was
> missing in Mustangs of the 70s and 80s. So if you miss the old Mustang you
> could get some of the feeling of it in today's car of the same name, but
you
> would be aware that it was a completely different implementation and
> architecture.
Well, as I said above, the implementation may already be completely
different if you define that as having no remaining VMS V1 code. And I
rather doubt that V7.3 will run in 256 KB of memory off a pair of RK06s (if
you could find any).
But your analogy is otherwise a poor one. Unlike the Mustang, VMS's
fundamentals have not been replaced over time but merely (actually, greatly)
enhanced (that, in fact, is occasionally a weakness: a few items such as
the file system and RMS could have benefited from a more complete upgrade,
but the one real attempt at the former - Spiralog - fell short and wasn't
completed; XFC will help, though - finally).
VMS's drawbacks are that it has not evolved enough (to be more widely
acceptable) rather than that it has evolved too much, and that its owner
isn't interested in it (so its future is dubious, and its present is
hampered by its availability only on a declared-dying platform plus a future
platform that's inferior to the one it's replacing).
But for anything you bought VMS V1, or V2, or V3, or V4, or V5, or V6 to do,
VMS V7 (and V8, if and when) should do at least as well and often much
better (though possibly requiring more hardware resources in some cases).
VAX is indeed gone, but Alpha was a worthy replacement. Alpha is on its way
out, and *that's* a major mistake - but it doesn't affect VMS's VMS-ness,
just its commercial viability (and the pain customers must eventually go
through to migrate to new hardware).
- bill
JF Mezei
> The real beginning happened well before KO's departure in 1992. It was
> certainly as early as the 1988 cancellation of the PRISM DECwest project,
> which I've been told was itself due to continuing internal friction between
> the VMS and Unix factions.
I'd say that the real beginning was when DEC refused to commercialise/market
its PDP11-in-a-VT100 as a viable personal computer. Commodore had the vision.
Apple had the vision, and IBM got the vision (rather late in the game).
Digital had it now, but *chose* not to push it.
(Perhaps because it wanted to push VAX instead).
And sometimes between 1987 and 1990, Olsen started to bring in some ex-IBM
folks and, whether coincidence or not, Digital became arrogant , kept high
prices saying that its products were so much better that they deserved higher
prices etc etc etc.
RE: VMS can't run on RISC. At the time he said that, remember that DEC had
started to sell MIPS based Unix workstations, and it is very possible that
MIPS lacked the required stuff to run VMS. Recall that Alpha had many hooks
added to support VMS.
Yes, one could argue that Digital could have paid MIPS to incorporate the
required features into MIPS and then migrate VMS to MIPS. (today's landscape
might be totally different had DEC done that - no Alpha, DEC might still be
alive, and MIPS might be the "industry standard".)
The 1980s were just the foundations for the disaster. The 1990s were the
execution of the disaster instead of correcting the problems.
DEC had great products, poor prices/marketing in the 1980s. When Palmer was
brought in, it was expected that he would fix the prices and marketing. He not
only didn't fix those, but he decimated the company with his quarterly reorgs,
and tore down the software products and sent strong singlas about lack of
future for VMS. When you discard the software products that made VMS popular,
you should give strong incentive for ISVs to replace your onw products with
theirs. But if you tell the iSVs "don't bother porting tol VMS, we're killing
VMS", then those products don't get ported.
Jerry Leslie
:
: Who's still running EXEC 8...
:
Unisys customers who are running its descendent, OS 2200, per the posts
of Peter DeSilva, and what's available on web pages, e.g.:
http://www.tek-tips.com/gviewthread.cfm/lev2/4/lev3/27/pid/302/qid/274565
Unisys DBMS solutions - unisys 1100/2200
"Home > Forums > Programmers > DBMS Packages > Unisys DBMS solutions
unisys 1100/2200
thread302-274565
rtamma (Programmer) May 16, 2002
what are the differences between the unisys1100/2200 and the
other machines like A- series or NX series for that matter ?
MBaker (MIS) May 20, 2002
The OS 2200 based machines and the MCP based machines have nothing in
common, except being Unisys machines.
The OS 2200 based machines (11xx, 1100/xx, 2200/xxx, IX4800, IX5600,
IX5800, IX6600, IX6800, IX7802, IX7840) are all desendents of the
Sperry (formerly Univac) line. These machines are based on 36-bit
one's complement hardware.
OS 2200 itself is a desendent of EXEC 8. The operating system has
evolved since the early 60's.
Perhaps someone else will describe the MCP based systems."
Old timers who worked on Univacs may want to "SLJ" to this site:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/index.html
UNIVAC Memories
--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: les...@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
GreyCloud
Ah yes! The 1107s. Repaired so many of those at the
shipyard.
Bill Todd
...
> The
> PDP-8 based DECmate and DECmate-II, the PDP-11 based DEC Professional, and
> the 8086 based DEC Rainbow. Had they concentrated on just one of those,
> and priced it significantly below IBM's PC, I'd imagine DEC would've have
> been much more successful.
That couldn't have happened at the time, because DEC simply didn't know how
to build hardware that cheaply: if it had sold its products at the price
IBM charged for its PC, it would have lost quite a bit of money on each one
(well, maybe not the DECmate).
>
> As opposed to looking at the PC market as a dramatic change in computing
> philosophy, the indications seem to be that they saw it as just another
> opportunity to extend their existing product lines.
Actually, neither. The PC was clearly something different (a single-user
machine that wasn't dedicated to some specific task, used by a non-technical
person), but DEC didn't see it as the major threat to its existing line-up
that it was (though some of us did) and thus tried to make sure that its PC
products didn't compete directly with its traditional products (I don't know
if that was the first example of the rule that if you don't cannibalize your
own products your competition will, but it significantly predated my first
exposure to that maxim).
>
> The truly sad thing here is that DEC already had everything they needed to
> completely dominate the personal computing industry. They had an
> established name, they had great lines of 12-bit and 16-bit CPUs, they had
> OSes like RT-11 which certainly could've competed with MS-DOS. They
> practically dominated the educational markets with their larger PDP-11,
> PDP-10, and VAX systems. These would've been good avenues to pursue the
> introduction of affordable computing to students and faculty. DEC
> obviously had the ability to adapt their technologies into low-end systems
> without investing much additional effort.
Into low-end systems, yes - but DEC was already doing that to at least some
degree. PCs were (as noted above) a different proposition, and required
significant work to make usable by computer novices.
DEC arguably could have done this in the late '70s and captured the market.
But it lost this opportunity as soon as IBM entered the arena, because the
IBM PC almost immediately became perceived as the standard (regardless of
how pitiful a standard it was) and all subsequent attempts (except for
'compatibles') immediately became niche products. It's still arguable that
DEC could have established significant presence in such niches (the
PDP-11-based PRO supported transparent distributed file sharing for
office-style networks - plus traditional DECnet access as well - at a time
when *any* networking on the IBM PC was something to be marveled at), but
when the products failed to compete directly with the IBM standard DEC then
decided that VAX was the future, even on the desktop (really, really stupid
move, that: the production economics made it clear that VAX was at least 5
years away from being able to compete cost-effectively with the 11 on the
desktop, let alone compete with the 386, so the only smart choices were
between dropping the 11 desktop effort and embracing the 386 as a close
member of the family or pursuing a dual PDP-11/386 desktop strategy).
- bill
JF Mezei
> That couldn't have happened at the time, because DEC simply didn't know how
> to build hardware that cheaply: if it had sold its products at the price
> IBM charged for its PC, it would have lost quite a bit of money on each one
> (well, maybe not the DECmate).
Horse radish.
If IBM was able to compate against Apple and Commodore, there is no reason DEC
,which was able to build cheaper hardware than IBM, couldn't have competed
too. Where there is a will, there is a way.
DEC has consistently shown that it was unwilling to compete against it
competitors, perhaps because it refused to wake-up to the existence of new competitors.
Bill Todd
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3D9F8999...@videotron.ca...
> Bill Todd wrote:
> > That couldn't have happened at the time, because DEC simply didn't know
how
> > to build hardware that cheaply: if it had sold its products at the
price
> > IBM charged for its PC, it would have lost quite a bit of money on each
one
> > (well, maybe not the DECmate).
>
> Horse radish.
I beg your pardon? I was there at the time, and to the best of my
recollection you were not. I knew what the manufacturing costs of the boxes
were, and you clearly haven't a clue. It wasn't a matter of being unwilling
to compromise margins (though there was pressure on that front as well): as
I already stated, the *cost* to build and sell the boxes was greater than
IBM's sales price.
>
> If IBM was able to compate against Apple and Commodore, there is no reason
DEC
> ,which was able to build cheaper hardware than IBM, couldn't have competed
> too. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Easy for you to say. IBM didn't use a single IBM component in the PC: it
out-sourced everything, and merely assembled (and even that separately from
its normal assembly lines). DEC could have done the same, I suppose, but
the result would then just have been another PC clone (and it's possible
that might have been a good thing, but it's not what Brian and I were
discussing).
>
> DEC has consistently shown that it was unwilling to compete against it
> competitors, perhaps because it refused to wake-up to the existence of new
competitors.
As is too often the case, JF, you speak emphatically but from complete
ignorance. DEC made major efforts (and spent about $500 million - which was
a substantial chunk of money at that time) trying to compete in the PC
space, and was thwarted by its own manufacturing excellence - which was the
prime contributor to a product cost that could not compete directly with
IBM's. It took quite a few more years before DEC could even come close to
PC-level box costs, and by that time Rainbow and Pro were long gone.
- bill
Larry Kilgallen
> My very subjective feeling is that repeatedly bashing of
> Digital/Compaq/HP senior management has absolutely no
> effect on the decisions made - and basicly just lower
> the signal to noise ratio in this forum.
>
> The same JF's post about SMTP logicals is on the other
> hand very interesting and what actually make people
> read this forum !
But those of us who have killfiled his posts due to the incessant
drone of politics will hever see the SMTP post.
John Smith
"Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:71udnQLnx6Z...@News.GigaNews.Com...
>
> Into low-end systems, yes - but DEC was already doing that to at least
some
> degree. PCs were (as noted above) a different proposition, and required
> significant work to make usable by computer novices.
>
> DEC arguably could have done this in the late '70s and captured the
market.
> But it lost this opportunity as soon as IBM entered the arena, because the
> IBM PC almost immediately became perceived as the standard (regardless of
> how pitiful a standard it was) and all subsequent attempts (except for
> 'compatibles') immediately became niche products.
Recall that IBM's marketing goal for the original PC was expected to be
something in the vicinity of 10,000 units TOTAL over the lifetime of the
product. DEC could have had a decent shot at owning the market had they
introduced their product with open architecture as IBM did with the PC. But
DEC would not have done that. The closest DEC came to that was licensing the
manufacture of Unibus gear, until the mid-80's when they did an about face.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
You clearly havn't been listening either or rather you
havn't been reading since none of your points refer
in any way to the "Strategic" marketing program we
are discussing.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
You posting is the best example I can think
of that illustrates the mindset which will be the
death of OpenVMS.
What OpenVMS needs is sales, they are all
important.
What OpenVMS needs is a marketing programme that
increases its run rate.
What OpenVMS needs like a hole in the head is
a marketing programme like this which appeals
to the converted and which has no impact on the
unconverted.
What OpenVMS needs like a hole in the head is
a strategy which errodes its margins just to
bring guaranteed business into the current
financial year.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
Warning CFA (Comprehansion Failure Alert). The phrase
you failed to comprehend was "in a timeframe". As
CFA's on this group it doesn't count as a major sin
and certainly isn't in the top 20. However in the
context of this discussion it rather ruins your
point.
Of course Sun hopes to attract existing Sun, HP etc customers
and if our market share gains are anything to go by we are
being pretty sucessfull at it. As Dell are persuading Compaq
and HP customers to jump ship.
However we would not expect any kind of strategic decision
on changing platforms onto Sun to be made in 3-4 weeks from
the beginning of the marketing campaign that initiated
the discussions.
Would you ?
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Bob Koehler
You asked a question, you got an answer. You didn't like. Aaw, so
sad.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
Warning another CFA (Comprehension Failure Alert). I said
on the basis of this marketing program.
Now where in this marketing program did HPQ try to establish
any 3 valid reasons you refer to.
They didn't in essence the "Marketing Programme" is nothing
more than offering a bigger discount.
Now where in your three points do you refer to cheaper ?
Still its wonderfull to know that I havn't been listening
thanks for telling me.
regards
Andrew Harrison
John Smith
"Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No....@nospamn.sun.com>
wrote in message news:3DAAAA87...@nospamn.sun.com...
>> So you make no distinction whatsover between effective
>> marketing and marketing that is ineffectual !
>>
>> Unsuprising.
>>
>> This is a horribly tactical marketing programme
>> it is all about getting customers who have planned
>> OpenVMS purchases to bring them forward into this quarter.
>>
>> Given its short validity and the target base it is unlikely
>> to have any impact on Sun/IBM shops, unless they also buy
>> OpenVMS, have a purchase in the pipeline and happen to
>> have some decommisioned IBM/Sun boxes that they can use
>> to make HP eat some more margin. Since all of this is a
>> bit of a long shot you can see that the difference between
>> effective marketing and ineffective marketing is all
>> important.
>>
>> If you can think of one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM
>> account that does not have any OpenVMS systems would be
>> interested in this marketing programme then please advance them
>> otherwise my point which was short and to the point
>> stands.
......
>Andrew writes:
>You posting is the best example I can think
>of that illustrates the mindset which will be the
>death of OpenVMS.
>What OpenVMS needs is sales, they are all
>important.
>What OpenVMS needs is a marketing programme that
>increases its run rate.
>What OpenVMS needs like a hole in the head is
>a marketing programme like this which appeals
>to the converted and which has no impact on the
>unconverted.
>What OpenVMS needs like a hole in the head is
>a strategy which errodes its margins just to
>bring guaranteed business into the current
>financial year.
Andrew, you get this better than all the marketing execs at HP.
I'm going to write Carly with your observations. Maybe she'll offer you a
job in marketing.
Thanks.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
John Smith wrote:
> "Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy" <Andrew_No....@nospamn.sun.com>
> wrote in message news:3DAAAA87...@nospamn.sun.com...
>>Andrew writes:
>>You posting is the best example I can think
>>of that illustrates the mindset which will be the
>>death of OpenVMS.
>
>
>>What OpenVMS needs is sales, they are all
>>important.
>
>
>>What OpenVMS needs is a marketing programme that
>>increases its run rate.
>
>
>>What OpenVMS needs like a hole in the head is
>>a marketing programme like this which appeals
>>to the converted and which has no impact on the
>>unconverted.
>
>
>>What OpenVMS needs like a hole in the head is
>>a strategy which errodes its margins just to
>>bring guaranteed business into the current
>>financial year.
>
>
>
> Andrew, you get this better than all the marketing execs at HP.
> I'm going to write Carly with your observations. Maybe she'll offer you a
> job in marketing.
>
Thanks I think.
The sad thing is that HP may need to do the things that
are detrimental to OpenVMS in order to deliver on their
public statements.
HP may need to bring as much revenue as possible that
customers are planning to spend with HP into the
current quarter despite the fact that this may
reduce their margins.
EMC's recent announcements included a worse than
expected performance for their quarter that has
just ended apparently demand fell off badly at
the end of September.
In Early September HP's execs were predicting higher
Enterprise Systems revenues for the Quarter ending
at the end of October.
http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-20406781-0.html?tag=ltnc
If EMC experience is anything to go by then these rather
bullish statements may be harder to deliver on than
people were expecting at the beginning of September.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Arne Vajhøj
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:
>>>>> Would it make any difference if they had ??
>>>> Pretty dum question.
>>>> How many posts have you read here asking for
>>>> more and broader marketing of VMS ?
>>>>
>>>> Probably just a few hundred !
>>>>
>>>> So yes - it would please a lot of people
>>>> to hear that every IBM and SUN based shop
>>>> has gotten that brochure.
>>> So you make no distinction whatsover between effective
>>> marketing and marketing that is ineffectual !
>> What part of :
>>
>> # So yes - it would please a lot of people
>> # to hear that every IBM and SUN based shop
>> # has gotten that brochure.
>>
>> is for complex for you to understand ?
>>
>> It is the signal value not the sale !
>
> You posting is the best example I can think
> of that illustrates the mindset which will be the
> death of OpenVMS.
>
> What OpenVMS needs is sales, they are all
> important.
I will conclude that you do not understand english....
I agree with many of your points.
But those has *nothing* to do with the topic
of this sub-thread.
I am trying to explain to you, that a lot of
people in this forum would have loved to see that
brochure send to every IBM and SUN customer.
We think that it would be a very positive signal
from HP. Efficient or non-efficient marketing
is not really the issue.
I wonder whether you would understand it, if
I tried to explain it in danish ?? W
Well - it can not go worse than english !
Arne
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
I understand this, its obvious from the postings.
But so far you havn't provided any justification
for HP doing this apart from a vague idea that
the readers of COV would be happier.
I really hope you don't need an argument about
how far from a sensible business case keeping
COV readers happy is.
It is also clear that you arn't getting very
far with your line of argument perhaps its
time to cease.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Arne Vajhøj
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I will conclude that you do not understand english....
>>
>> I agree with many of your points.
>>
>> But those has *nothing* to do with the topic
>> of this sub-thread.
>>
>> I am trying to explain to you, that a lot of
>> people in this forum would have loved to see that
>> brochure send to every IBM and SUN customer.
>>
>> We think that it would be a very positive signal
>> from HP. Efficient or non-efficient marketing
>> is not really the issue.
>
> I understand this, its obvious from the postings.
Then why do you not admit that your "Would it make any
difference if they had ??" was a good candidate for
summest question of the year shut up ?
> But so far you havn't provided any justification
> for HP doing this apart from a vague idea that
> the readers of COV would be happier.
Listen carefully: THE TOPIC IS NOT MARKETING,
THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT WHY HP IS DOING THIS,
THE TOPIC IS WHETHER IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE OR US.
> I really hope you don't need an argument about
> how far from a sensible business case keeping
> COV readers happy is.
And ????
I have never commented on that topic. I have just
tried to explain to you that this forum is not
uninterested in whether that brochure was send
to IBM and SUN customers or not.
> It is also clear that you arn't getting very
> far with your line of argument perhaps its
> time to cease.
I am very much in line. You seem to try and cover
up your stupid posts by posting generalities
about marketing, efficient marketing, VMS's lack
of the same etc.etc..
Arne
Bob Koehler
>
> Warning another CFA (Comprehension Failure Alert). I said
> on the basis of this marketing program.
You asked a question. You got an answer. What the hell do I care
what other drivel you write?
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
But not an answer that had any relevance to the question.
Sadly
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:
>
>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>>> I will conclude that you do not understand english....
>>>
>>> I agree with many of your points.
>>>
>>> But those has *nothing* to do with the topic
>>> of this sub-thread.
>>>
>>> I am trying to explain to you, that a lot of
>>> people in this forum would have loved to see that
>>> brochure send to every IBM and SUN customer.
>>>
>>> We think that it would be a very positive signal
>>> from HP. Efficient or non-efficient marketing
>>> is not really the issue.
>>
>
>>
>> I understand this, its obvious from the postings.
>
>
>
> Then why do you not admit that your "Would it make any
> difference if they had ??" was a good candidate for
> summest question of the year shut up ?
>
>
Akkkkkkkkkkk.
In case you hadn't worked it out a STRATEGIC MARKETING
program that is designed just to keep the readers of
COV happy doesn't qualify as being strategic or an
effective use of marketing resources. Hence my
comment.
What ROI will HP get from marketing to COV.
If you have any other comprehension problems I suggest
you refer them to a co-worker because as a public discussion
its pretty tedious.
>> But so far you havn't provided any justification
>> for HP doing this apart from a vague idea that
>> the readers of COV would be happier.
>
>
>
> Listen carefully: THE TOPIC IS NOT MARKETING,
> THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT WHY HP IS DOING THIS,
> THE TOPIC IS WHETHER IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE OR US.
>
So explain why HP should be interested something
that flatters COV readers ???
You describe my posts as stupid but in the process
illustrate in all to graphic detail why OpenVMS
is likely to die (assuming that the majority of
OpenVMS customers agree with you).
Regards
Andrew Harrison
John Smith
"Alan Greig" <a.g...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:k2f8pusq88umvuklc...@4ax.com...
>
> Just received a new set of brochures from HP in the UK for Alpha
> related products. I have to admit that someone has gone out of their
> way to ensure that it, at least, tries to send a strong message about
> VMS.
>
> "and remember, HP OpenVMS is now a *strategic platform* (underlined in
> original doc)" and "*OpenVMS is strategic* (large font page headline)
> as an enterprise server platform for the new HP" No mention of VMS on
> low end Itanium systems (iMultia, Mutanium?...) though.
>
> The roadmaps are described as "cast in stone" which surely indicates
> that someone in marketing has at last started to figure out that we
> are a bit wary of roadmaps these days.
>
> Lots of offers including 33% trade in against any Sun or IBM system
> for any new AlphaServer ordered.
>
> Not a word about helping anyone move from VMS to HP-UX or NT thank
> goodness. You'd almost think someone is paying attention to feedback
> in comp.os.vms :-)
>
> 8/10 for the glossies. Now let's see how well they can execute.
Alan,
Saw your more recent post about moving to SAP. If VMS *IS* strategic to HP,
have they articulated to you how they are going to work with SAP to have
release parity of SAP on VMS with all the unix variants?
I'm afraid that the only thing 'strategic' about VMS to HP is the strategy
they use to milk the remaining customer base out of their money for as long
as possible before abandoning them or encouraging them to move to HP-UX.
Please don't tell me that your organization will be considering HP hardware
for your SAP implementation. Tell HP you won't be and see if that encourages
them to work with SAP for VMS.
Arne Vajhøj
> In case you hadn't worked it out a STRATEGIC MARKETING
> program that is designed just to keep the readers of
> COV happy doesn't qualify as being strategic or an
> effective use of marketing resources. Hence my
> comment.
And ?
Noone has questioned that.
But that was not the topic.
It is completely irrelevant.
Just a good excuse for a sales guy to post some FUD.
> If you have any other comprehension problems I suggest
> you refer them to a co-worker because as a public discussion
> its pretty tedious.
Feel free to leave comp.os.vms/INFO-VAX any time, if you get
too tired of reading my posts !
>> Listen carefully: THE TOPIC IS NOT MARKETING,
>> THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT WHY HP IS DOING THIS,
>> THE TOPIC IS WHETHER IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE OR US.
>
> So explain why HP should be interested something
> that flatters COV readers ???
I do not think they are.
Noone has ever said so either.
> You describe my posts as stupid but in the process
> illustrate in all to graphic detail why OpenVMS
> is likely to die (assuming that the majority of
> OpenVMS customers agree with you).
I think I can understand why SUN's stock-price is where
it is now.
If SUN's sales-people think that the fact that VMS users
will enjoy seeing a VMS brochure send out to IBM and SUN
customers will kill VMS, then that company has a problem.
A big problem.
Arne
Bob Koehler
>
>
> But not an answer that had any relevance to the question.
>
Lets do it again, shall we:
In response to Arne Varhøj:
> Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:
>
>So you make no distinction whatsover between effective
>marketing and marketing that is ineffectual !
>
>Unsuprising.
>
>This is a horribly tactical marketing programme
>it is all about getting customers who have planned
>OpenVMS purchases to bring them forward into this quarter.
>
>Given its short validity and the target base it is unlikely
>to have any impact on Sun/IBM shops, unless they also buy
>OpenVMS, have a purchase in the pipeline and happen to
>have some decommisioned IBM/Sun boxes that they can use
>to make HP eat some more margin. Since all of this is a
>bit of a long shot you can see that the difference between
>effective marketing and ineffective marketing is all
>important.
>
>If you can think of one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM
>account that does not have any OpenVMS systems would be
>interested in this marketing programme then please advance them
>otherwise my point which was short and to the point
>stands.
>
>Regards
>Andrew Harrison
Now you asked for "one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM account that
does not have any OpenVMS systems would be interested in this
marketing programme".
You did not ask for a reason _present within this marketing program's
materials_, as you have since implied. You didn't ask it that way,
so I'm under no obligation to reduce my answers to such.
I said:
> How about 3 valid reasons:
>
> 1) security
> 2) reliability
> 3) ease of use
And those are 3 perfectly valid reasons for anyone to be interested
in any marketing campaign for said product. Wanting to know what
more about that product is certainly appropriate and however little
information the marketing in question may provide the Sun or IBM
account won't know until they persue thier interst.
Alan Greig
>Saw your more recent post about moving to SAP. If VMS *IS* strategic to HP,
>have they articulated to you how they are going to work with SAP to have
>release parity of SAP on VMS with all the unix variants?
In actual fact I've been told pretty much point blank from several
sources (including a seemingly otherwise VMS friendly European HP
classic manager) that SAP on VMS just won't happen. To me this
continues to be the strongest counter-indication to VMS being
strategic to the "new HP".
>
>I'm afraid that the only thing 'strategic' about VMS to HP is the strategy
>they use to milk the remaining customer base out of their money for as long
>as possible before abandoning them or encouraging them to move to HP-UX.
>
>Please don't tell me that your organization will be considering HP hardware
>for your SAP implementation. Tell HP you won't be and see if that encourages
>them to work with SAP for VMS.
SAP on Solaris is a distinct possibility. And I've said that directly
to Compaq/HP on numerous occasions.
--
Alan
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <3DABFCA2...@nospamn.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy writes:
>
> Now you asked for "one single valid reason why a Sun/IBM account that
> does not have any OpenVMS systems would be interested in this
> marketing programme".
>
> You did not ask for a reason _present within this marketing program's
> materials_, as you have since implied. You didn't ask it that way,
> so I'm under no obligation to reduce my answers to such.
>
I think most people would assume that because I refered to
the marketing program directly that I was also refering
to its materials as well.
Since by everyones admission there are no other marketing
program's from HPQ that promote your three conjectures you
also cannot be confusing the marketing program I am referring
to with anything else.
So your response is either a fairly bad attempt at spin or
more CF, which is it ??
Regards
Andrew Harrison
John Smith
So it would *appear* that the brochure targeting Sun customers (your first
post in this thread) is in fact being sent to Sun customers after all. ;-)
And the reality of the situation will be that nobody at HP, not even Gorham
or Marcello, will get worked up over this when your organization buys a
boatload of Sun gear and cancels your service contracts on VMS and the
Alpha's. It will be just another, 'Oh well - there's another one we lost.
How long until I can retire with a full pension? Best not rock the boat.'
Stallard will be the only one p*ssed off because he didn't get an HP-UX sale
out of the deal, but he won't be concerned that another VMS customer has
vanished from HP's customer list.
But look on the bright side of all this - Andrew will probably be calling on
you.
Bob Koehler
>
> I think most people would assume that because I refered to
> the marketing program directly that I was also refering
> to its materials as well.
>
Didn't I just say something about not making assumptions? No?
Well I did now. YOu left open a crack and I drove a wedge through
it.
Alan Greig
>So it would *appear* that the brochure targeting Sun customers (your first
>post in this thread) is in fact being sent to Sun customers after all. ;-)
We already have a reasonable Solaris box onsite - purchased just a few
months ago. It will take over as our primary divisional European
web/intranet/content management server. Solaris was the recommended
platform of the third party contracted to do most of the work. As the
system is Apache/Java/Oracle 9i based it would probably have been
theoretically possible to run this under VMS but the ISV had no VMS
platform experience and didn't even know VMS was still current! Sound
familiar...
Currently these services are provided by Compaq NT servers. So that's
already one loss to Compaq although not VMS.
>
>And the reality of the situation will be that nobody at HP, not even Gorham
>or Marcello, will get worked up over this when your organization buys a
>boatload of Sun gear and cancels your service contracts on VMS and the
I have spoken to both Marcello and Gorham about this. Gorham just a
few months ago in Reading (UK). Mark understood perfectly well. But
quite simply nobody within the Alpha/VMS group has the authority to
spend the kind of money SAP were looking for. And it was a lot I have
to admit.
>Alpha's. It will be just another, 'Oh well - there's another one we lost.
>How long until I can retire with a full pension? Best not rock the boat.'
>Stallard will be the only one p*ssed off because he didn't get an HP-UX sale
>out of the deal, but he won't be concerned that another VMS customer has
>vanished from HP's customer list.
We have tons of HP-UX systems on site and have done for years. These
run high end CAD/CAM and Oracle based engineering databases. Once all
that ran on VMS (and VMS still runs some of our Oracle engineering
databases). The long term future of these HP-UX systems is also in
question. I did manage a minor win recently when another of our
European plants decided to buy a new DS10 to replace an old MicroVAX
rather than phase out the app. But once we phase out MANMAN in favour
of SAP these little apps will die slowly one by one.
>But look on the bright side of all this - Andrew will probably be calling on
>you.
I regularly receive Sun snail-mail brochures addressed to "Alan Greig,
VMS Systems Manager" My favourite has to be the "XPensive" poster.
--
Alan
John Smith
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:21:20 GMT, "John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> wrote:
>
>
> >So it would *appear* that the brochure targeting Sun customers (your
first
> >post in this thread) is in fact being sent to Sun customers after all.
;-)
>
> We already have a reasonable Solaris box onsite - purchased just a few
> months ago. It will take over as our primary divisional European
> web/intranet/content management server. Solaris was the recommended
> platform of the third party contracted to do most of the work. As the
> system is Apache/Java/Oracle 9i based it would probably have been
> theoretically possible to run this under VMS but the ISV had no VMS
> platform experience and didn't even know VMS was still current! Sound
> familiar...
All to familiar.
>
> Currently these services are provided by Compaq NT servers. So that's
> already one loss to Compaq although not VMS.
But it is a loss to server reliability
> >And the reality of the situation will be that nobody at HP, not even
Gorham
> >or Marcello, will get worked up over this when your organization buys a
> >boatload of Sun gear and cancels your service contracts on VMS and the
>
> I have spoken to both Marcello and Gorham about this. Gorham just a
> few months ago in Reading (UK). Mark understood perfectly well. But
> quite simply nobody within the Alpha/VMS group has the authority to
> spend the kind of money SAP were looking for. And it was a lot I have
> to admit.
That's because there's no commitment within HP to get more than 1 customer
using SAP on VMS (read 'marketing'), so they look at the amount of
investment required, divide it by 1 customer and determine that there is no
payback.
> >Alpha's. It will be just another, 'Oh well - there's another one we lost.
> >How long until I can retire with a full pension? Best not rock the boat.'
> >Stallard will be the only one p*ssed off because he didn't get an HP-UX
sale
> >out of the deal, but he won't be concerned that another VMS customer has
> >vanished from HP's customer list.
>
> We have tons of HP-UX systems on site and have done for years. These
> run high end CAD/CAM and Oracle based engineering databases. Once all
> that ran on VMS (and VMS still runs some of our Oracle engineering
> databases). The long term future of these HP-UX systems is also in
> question. I did manage a minor win recently when another of our
> European plants decided to buy a new DS10 to replace an old MicroVAX
> rather than phase out the app. But once we phase out MANMAN in favour
> of SAP these little apps will die slowly one by one.
And you will be migrating to HP-UX/Itanic??
A new slogan for HP:
HP - the global hardware and services company. Serving our customers
one-by-one to Sun and IBM.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
More CF's on your part I am affraid
Your response had nothing to do with the topic being discussed
namely the likely effectiveness of the just expired Sun/IBM buyback
campaign in woing Sun and IBM customers onto OpenVMS.
Given the irrelevance of your response discussions about its
shape (wedge or otherwise) are rather pointless.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Bob Koehler
> Your response had nothing to do with the topic being discussed
> namely the likely effectiveness of the just expired Sun/IBM buyback
> campaign in woing Sun and IBM customers onto OpenVMS.
No, of course not. Since the topic being discussed was worthless
noise, I just picked out the one semi-intelligent issue and answered
it.
Now I see that you not only expect us to read your posts, you also
expect us to read your mind.
No.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <3DAFF681...@nospamn.sun.com>, Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy writes:
>
>
>>Your response had nothing to do with the topic being discussed
>>namely the likely effectiveness of the just expired Sun/IBM buyback
>>campaign in woing Sun and IBM customers onto OpenVMS.
>
>
> No, of course not. Since the topic being discussed was worthless
> noise, I just picked out the one semi-intelligent issue and answered
> it.
>
Ohh good so:
Terry Shannon
John Smith
Tim Llewellyn
JF Mezei
Aren Vajhoj
Bill Todd
Alan Greig
Alant Schmidt
Paul Repacholi
Simon Clubley
Larry Kilgallen
Bill Gunshannon
John Santos
Lorraine Profeta
Jerry Leslie
Kerry Maine
Have all been producing worthless noise and only
Bob you are not worthy to walk in my shadow
Koehler has injected a modicum of intelligence
into the discussion. (If I left anyone out
I do apologise).
Alternatively you just got a bit off topic
in a sad spinning attempt which is it ?
Regards
Andrew Harrison
Bob Koehler
>
> Have all been producing worthless noise and only
> Bob you are not worthy to walk in my shadow
> Koehler has injected a modicum of intelligence
> into the discussion. (If I left anyone out
> I do apologise).
We were discussing YOUR post.
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
So you now claim no awareness of the thread
in which my post exists ! Perhaps your
newsreader doesn't support threading. Now
thats and explanation (possibly).
regards
Andrew Harrison
Bob Koehler
>
> So you now claim no awareness of the thread
> in which my post exists ! Perhaps your
> newsreader doesn't support threading. Now
> thats and explanation (possibly).
>
I never said that. Since I've already posted that I'm usnig ANU news
we know I have a thread following news reader. We also know from my
posts that I don't read all the junk.
Hm, folks I must have been pushing too many of Andrews buttons at the
same time. He's gotten to where he can't write straight. We all
know he meant to say "Now that's an explanation (possibly)."
You know there's more than one way to have fun with usenet.