|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Bill Todd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 408
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:19 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
John Smith wrote:
| Quote: | 1) Relaunch Alpha
2) Hire/Steal back engineers to do so
3) Port everything high-end to Alpha
4) Dump Intel and get in bed with AMD
5) Advertise, Advertise, Advertise
6) Bring in new teams to market products like VMS and Tru64 and HP-UX.
|
1. No: that ceased to be a feasible option over 2 years ago, even if
all the engineers could have been retrieved. You just can't add 2 years
(almost 4, now) to *any* processor's schedule and have it remain a
leader (just look at how Itanic fared: if McKinley had been released
even as late as mid-2000, it would have been really exciting) - and with
no work having been done on post-EV8 Alpha designs since 2001, no
fast-pathing of their development could occur either
2. Some, but not for the purpose of (1).
3. No.
4. At least somewhat, though AMD probably couldn't meet HP's needs
without help from Intel.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. You forgot the minor matter of product development (or more to the
point HP's lack of same over the past few years). Storage, OSs, ...
Just as Alpha is no longer competitive, or even revivable, after too
lengthy a period of neglect, so other HP core technologies are highly
threatened.
Carly may actually have succeeded in sinking HP beyond recovery, at
least anything resembling the force that HP used to represent in the
industry.
- bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:26 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
John Smith wrote:
Out of curiosity, if relaunch were to happen, would relaunching Alpha
have any serious advantage over relaunching PaRisc ?
| Quote: | 4) Dump Intel and get in bed with AMD
|
No need to "dump Intel". HP should simply have its own strategy instead
of following what Microsoft and Intel. It doesn't mean that HP needs to
stop buying from Intel if Intel has superior products. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Linden
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 841
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:09 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:19:31 -0500, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | John Smith wrote:
1) Relaunch Alpha
2) Hire/Steal back engineers to do so
3) Port everything high-end to Alpha
4) Dump Intel and get in bed with AMD
5) Advertise, Advertise, Advertise
6) Bring in new teams to market products like VMS and Tru64 and HP-UX.
1. No: that ceased to be a feasible option over 2 years ago, even if
all the engineers could have been retrieved. You just can't add 2 years
(almost 4, now) to *any* processor's schedule and have it remain a
leader (just look at how Itanic fared: if McKinley had been released
even as late as mid-2000, it would have been really exciting) - and with
no work having been done on post-EV8 Alpha designs since 2001, no
fast-pathing of their development could occur either
2. Some, but not for the purpose of (1).
3. No.
4. At least somewhat, though AMD probably couldn't meet HP's needs
without help from Intel.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. You forgot the minor matter of product development (or more to the
point HP's lack of same over the past few years). Storage, OSs, ...
Just as Alpha is no longer competitive, or even revivable, after too
lengthy a period of neglect, so other HP core technologies are highly
threatened.
Carly may actually have succeeded in sinking HP beyond recovery, at
least anything resembling the force that HP used to represent in the
industry.
- bill
|
Looking at it from the point of view of finding a vehicle to deliver VMS,
that
is reasonably competitive (doesn't have to be the fastest) and finding a
partner
to procure that vehicle who you believe will continue developing that
vehicle and
has the where-with-all to accomplish it, leads you to selecting two, three
suppliers.
You port VMS to the Power chip and Opteron/Pentium. The ongoing cost of
sustaining
Alpha is prohibitive, particularly since you can't amortise it over a
large run.
This also gives flexibility, as we used to have, by demanding second
sources. The real
value in the Digital component of HP is VMS, Alpha has lost all its value.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF Mezei
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 2556
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:59 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
Tom Linden wrote:
| Quote: | The real
value in the Digital component of HP is VMS, Alpha has lost all its value.
|
There is one aspect of Alpha: installed base and available software,
much of which is no longer developped and thus not be available on
Alpha's successor. Continuing the Alpha processor ratins that software
whereas moving to a new platform requires VMS start from scratch with
software availability.
Note that this is also a reason HP-UX customers are still buying PaRisc
based machines instead of that unwanted IA64 thing. But VMS is in a much
worse shape than HP-UX in terms of application ecosystem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Todd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 408
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:46 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
Bill Todd wrote:
| Quote: | John Smith wrote:
1) Relaunch Alpha
2) Hire/Steal back engineers to do so
3) Port everything high-end to Alpha
4) Dump Intel and get in bed with AMD
5) Advertise, Advertise, Advertise
6) Bring in new teams to market products like VMS and Tru64 and HP-UX.
1. No: that ceased to be a feasible option over 2 years ago, even if
all the engineers could have been retrieved. You just can't add 2 years
(almost 4, now) to *any* processor's schedule and have it remain a
leader (just look at how Itanic fared: if McKinley had been released
even as late as mid-2000, it would have been really exciting) - and with
no work having been done on post-EV8 Alpha designs since 2001, no
fast-pathing of their development could occur either
2. Some, but not for the purpose of (1).
3. No.
4. At least somewhat, though AMD probably couldn't meet HP's needs
without help from Intel.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. You forgot the minor matter of product development (or more to the
point HP's lack of same over the past few years). Storage, OSs, ...
Just as Alpha is no longer competitive, or even revivable, after too
lengthy a period of neglect, so other HP core technologies are highly
threatened.
Carly may actually have succeeded in sinking HP beyond recovery, at
least anything resembling the force that HP used to represent in the
industry.
|
OK - it's not entirely fair to be so dismissive without coming up with a
counter-proposal (unless there's just no hope at all, which is not yet
clear). So here's my take (not that anyone in any position to act is
likely to be listening to it):
HP will never regain the proprietary hardware advantages that PA-RISC
and Alpha gave it: as I noted above, far too much time has gone by for
either architecture to regain a leadership position in the industry.
EV7, for example, has roughly half the SPECint and SPECfp performance of
the current industry leaders, and even if aggressively upgraded to EV79
would significantly trail what the competition has today, let alone what
they'll have when such an upgrade could ship. EV8 could of course do
better, but would still likely trail a bit by the time it could ship.
The only way to regain a leadership position in processors would be to
come up with something new (at least as new as Cell, for example -
though it's not clear that Cell would do the job). And it's arguable
that by the time something new could be developed (end of the decade at
the earliest) a leadership position in processors may not count for that
much: the industry is already having difficulty coming up with useful
processor-specific things to do with the die area on its processor
chips, and the 'memory wall' continues to dilute the value of higher
processor performance in many applications.
HP could still provide Alpha with the limited upgrades which *are*
feasible, to support its remaining customer base (such as it may be).
And in any event it should promise to sell Alphas (at something
resembling reasonable prices) as long as customers wish to buy them.
But that's a relatively short-term fix: Alpha's OSs need something more
permanent in order to be perceived as long-term viable rather than on
the way out.
And of course that does nothing to address the HP-UX customer base,
which (especially now) is likely considerably larger than Alpha's.
Lousy decision though it was, by now depending on Itanic as the
longer-term hardware platform for all these OSs may be a fait accompli.
With its significant power reductions Montecito has become at least
reasonable to consider for this purpose: not what things could have
been, but perhaps the best that can be done as things now are.
There remains the concern about just how committed Intel may be to
future Itanic development, however: at a minimum, Itanic processor
pricing seems likely to remain high and its performance no better than
x86-64 equivalents over the next few years. The cheapest insurance (and
with side-benefits as well) against problems here would be to port VMS
and Tru64 to x86-64 (whether the latter is also ported to Itanic or
not); this is not as viable an option for HP-UX, since it's a big-endian
environment, so Itanic may be the only realistic answer there.
Alternatives?
1. Plow a fair amount of money into temporarily extending the life of
both Alpha and PA-RISC while developing a new processor to replace them
both. But what will make that processor (developed at impressive cost,
regardless of how good it might be) better than its market competition?
Even Alpha had some difficulty staying convincingly ahead of x86
performance by the late '90s, for example - and by the time a new
architecture could ship, it seems likely that existing ones will have
incorporated most of the significant features it could boast of (since
the percentage of die space dedicated to processor cores seems to be
shrinking fast, incorporating everything, including the kitchen sink,
into them becomes increasingly easy).
2. Port the OSs somewhere else. This might be fairly easy for VMS and
even Tru64, though perhaps harder for HP-UX (since Itanic was designed
with its needs in mind). POWER is certainly impressive, but owned by a
direct competitor. x86-64 is attractive, but would still entail porting
expenses and delays (Itanic could help the OSs ride out the delay, or
continuations of Alpha and PA-RISC could - but, as noted above, there's
also the endian question for HP-UX). SPARC is also competitor-related,
and while it may be a good platform for vendors who are already on it it
isn't as attractive for new vendors to move to. Partnering with AMD
would be contrarian and exciting, but given the direction Intel seems to
be moving (in terms of incorporating significant elements of the system
architecture into the chips using at least part of the expertise that
the Alpha team brought with them, come 2007 or so) might not offer any
real advantage over Intel's 2007 and later x86 products (i.e., I think
that working with *both* Intel and AMD and using the best each has to
offer makes sense).
3. Get out of the proprietary OS market. That was the Carly & Curly
vision, and they managed to sabotage the viability of the other options
pretty thoroughly. But I submit that this approach effectively cedes
enterprise business almost entirely (save possibly for storage and, if
HP managed to execute a full about-face in its attitudes toward quality,
some services): HP still has major strengths in system expertise that
it could leverage profitably, and I think it should do so.
OK: so HP should return to aggressively pursuing its proprietary
advantages in system hardware and OSs (though without abandoning Linux,
and even supplying and supporting Windows where that makes sense). It
should port VMS to x86-64 both as insurance and to increase its exposure
and applicability. It should port Tru64 to *both* Itanic and x86-64 for
the same reasons, plus as clear evidence of its change in direction. It
should devote significant resources not only to marketing but to
developing its proprietary OSs, including reasonable efforts at
convergence - again, both for competitive reasons and to provide clear
evidence of its new direction. Part of this should include significant
innovation at the file-system level (as Sun has done with its new ZFS
file system) - and not only because that's my primary area of personal
interest.
It should extend its OS expertise into PC systems, as DEC at least
started to do - e.g., make clustering PCs something other than a joke,
and extend the file-system work I mentioned above to include them. The
company that controls the data controls the world, which is one reason
why Microsoft is shooting for more lock-in with its new file system for
Longhorn (not that those shots have necessarily come close to the target
yet): while any PC file system extensions HP might create could (and
probably should) be available for anyone to use, the integration with
HP's higher-end systems would constitute a significant proprietary
advantage.
It should revitalize its storage R&D efforts, since between the DECpaq
and original HP storage groups it had much of the cream of the industry
and could get at least some of it involved again if they could be
convinced it was serious. It should get its service organization into
shape rather than seeing just how much of its work can be accomplished
(at least sort-of) via satellite links to India.
It should do with its PC division what IBM used to: partner
intelligently, ship a quality product, and provide one-stop shopping
(and service) as a convenience at prices just high enough to make a
modest profit, rather than try to compete tooth and nail with Dell and
the Asian white-box makers.
If HP actually became an exciting company again the industry would be
excited (and receptive) too, because it really wants a *credible*
alternative to IBM and there's no one around providing one (though if HP
fails to, Sun may pick up that mantle by default).
- bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Froble
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 1172
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:13 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
Bill Todd wrote:
| Quote: | John Smith wrote:
1) Relaunch Alpha
2) Hire/Steal back engineers to do so
3) Port everything high-end to Alpha
4) Dump Intel and get in bed with AMD
5) Advertise, Advertise, Advertise
6) Bring in new teams to market products like VMS and Tru64 and HP-UX.
1. No: that ceased to be a feasible option over 2 years ago, even if
all the engineers could have been retrieved. You just can't add 2 years
(almost 4, now) to *any* processor's schedule and have it remain a
leader (just look at how Itanic fared: if McKinley had been released
even as late as mid-2000, it would have been really exciting) - and with
no work having been done on post-EV8 Alpha designs since 2001, no
fast-pathing of their development could occur either
|
I'd dispute that, from a certain perspective. If by relaunch one would
mean jump back into it at the point it was in 2001, no, that wouldn't be
so good due to lost time. EV8's time is now and the near future, and
EV8 doesn't exist, and probably couldn't exist in that time frame.
Not that that would be a total dog since EV7 even now is still a viable
platform for today's users. As part of a solution, evolving EV7 a bit
would help with business today. But, you're selling to the already
captive audience for the most part. Acquiring new customers when the
competition is Power5+ with a 3+ year lead would be rather tough, from a
performance perspective. VMS and T64 would possibly be some advantage.
But you have to ask, where are the T64 engineers?
Saying that getting back into the CPU arena is not feasible is the same
as saying that all the possible CPU manufacturers already exist, and
someone new, with adequate talent and capitol couldn't become a player.
That I won't believe. What would be required would be spending some
time to come up with a product in say 3-4 years which would be
competitive with where Power will be in 3-4 years, and where Alpha
'could' have possibly been in 3-4 years.
The list of possibilities isn't small. One could take a look at the
'cell' concept that IBM, Sony, and Toshiba just announced. One could
consider using Power. The real issue is what market would you be aiming
at? If it's low volume, high cost, I think that's a dead end. Low
volume, low cost is one possibility. The best would be high volume, low
cost. What that is is the real question. What I vaguely remember about
the research I think was called EV10 was along those lines. A large
number of low cost processors coupled together to give great
performance. Look at the Linux 'clusters' we've read about with
hundreds or thousands of processors. Lots of compute cycles, but not
coupled together very well.
The real key point Bill makes is "no work having been done on post-EV8
Alpha designs since 2001".
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Todd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 408
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:59 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
Dave Froble wrote:
....
| Quote: | Saying that getting back into the CPU arena is not feasible is the same
as saying that all the possible CPU manufacturers already exist, and
someone new, with adequate talent and capitol couldn't become a player.
|
No, it is not: it's saying (in part) that HP has much shorter-term
problems which it must solve than could be addressed by a new
architecture, else it wouldn't have anything viable left to run on said
architecture when it finally appeared.
Plus the minor point that any such new architecture has no reason to be
any better, after all the money spent to develop it, than some existing
one - unless it also incorporates some significantly better idea than
existing architectures contain.
| Quote: | That I won't believe.
|
People usually believe what they want to believe. That has little
relevance to reality, unless they can convince large numbers of other
people to share their vision or delusion (as the case may be).
What would be required would be spending some
| Quote: | time to come up with a product in say 3-4 years which would be
competitive with where Power will be in 3-4 years, and where Alpha
'could' have possibly been in 3-4 years.
|
What part of the fact that doing something like that, *if* you succeeded
at all, would take more like 5 - 6 years is difficult for you to
comprehend? The Alpha team hit the ground running (as a coherent
existing development group, no less) at Intel in mid-2001, and - had
Tukwila not been canceled - would have taken at least 5.5 years to get
it to market.
- bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Doe
*nix forums addict
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:07 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
Dave Froble wrote:
| Quote: | I'd dispute that, from a certain perspective. If by relaunch one would
mean jump back into it at the point it was in 2001, no, that wouldn't be
so good due to lost time. EV8's time is now and the near future, and
EV8 doesn't exist, and probably couldn't exist in that time frame.
|
I used to have the DEC brainwash and think that Alpha was decades ahead
of its time. But over time, I realised that what this was all about was
speed to market. Competitors had features similar to Alpha, but
delivered later.
If you were to reconstitute an Alpha team today, they wouldn't start
where they last left off. They'd start a new project today with features
that Intel, IBM and Sun are starting to work on too. And they'd benefit
from other developments done while they were "away". They may not be
able to copy what IBM did to Power, but they'd get some inspiration of
what works and what doesn't.
If the Alpha instruction set does allow for greater speeds and easier to
develop and faster to market, then the newly reconstituted team would be
able to move to the next generation in time to regain its edge within a
few years.
Lets take an extreme case: lets say they were to revive the VAX chip.
Engineers wouldn't have to go though every iteration that they would
have gone though since 1996. They'd develop a twin core VAX with shared
cache with a 90nm process and instantly bring the VAX into the 21st
century in one generation.
copying  If the Alpha team are able to deliver to market faster,
then within a couple of years Alpha would regain its edge. Meanwhile it
could have just simple speed bumps.
One has to look at the big picture now. IBM is marginalizing the wintel
market and pushing Power to lower end. Should HP do the same with
Alpha, it would relegate wintel to cheap commodity desktops and shut
Windows out of true enterprise, leaving Dell with an essential monopoly
(which would probably result in rise in wintel server prices due to less competition). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Doe
*nix forums addict
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:14 am Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
Bill Todd wrote:
| Quote: | existing development group, no less) at Intel in mid-2001, and - had
Tukwila not been canceled - would have taken at least 5.5 years to get
it to market.
|
Working with a dog takes longer. Now, even if it took 5.5 years to get a
new up-to-date Alpha to the market, they could still do process shrinks
of EV7 and do some work at the system level to increase performance.
Consider what it has taken 4.5 years between murder of Alpha and first
commercial version of VMS on that IA64 thing. And there isn't much
software available.
So, if you're going to develop a new platform starting on 2006 when HP
announces the widthdrawal of IA64, it would take about 4 years to get
VMS to restart again. If you announce rebirth of Alpha, you are going to
take about as much time but meanwhile, you inherit the complete software
ecosystem which can grow during thsoe year sbecause VMS is already
available on Alpha, so is Linux.
And consider SGI going Alpha, it would allow SGI to migrate immediatly
to Alpha since Alpha already exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Koehler
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1078
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
In article <420C09D0.795A5F42@teksavvy.com>, Jf Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:
| Quote: | John Smith wrote:
1) Relaunch Alpha
Out of curiosity, if relaunch were to happen, would relaunching Alpha
have any serious advantage over relaunching PaRisc ?
|
1) Alpha was always faster than PaRisc
2) Porting HP-UX to Alpha, running in big-endian mode would be
easier than porting VMS to PaRisc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Todd
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 408
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:52 pm Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
John Doe wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Todd wrote:
existing development group, no less) at Intel in mid-2001, and - had
Tukwila not been canceled - would have taken at least 5.5 years to get
it to market.
Working with a dog takes longer.
|
And starting with an already-existing group takes shorter, so it
balances out.
Now, even if it took 5.5 years to get a
| Quote: | new up-to-date Alpha to the market, they could still do process shrinks
of EV7 and do some work at the system level to increase performance.
|
Which I already noted. The point is that there's no particular reason
to believe that an up-to-date Alpha in late 2010 would be worth the
effort it took to reconstitute the resources necessary to develop it and
then do so. There's a large difference between having been an industry
leader for nearly 20 straight years and being a resurrection of a
product which had been dead for quite some time while the rest of the
industry caught up with and then surpassed it.
| Quote: |
Consider what it has taken 4.5 years between murder of Alpha and first
commercial version of VMS on that IA64 thing.
|
It has been just over 3.5 years. But it's not clear what relevance
either figure has to the question of reentering the leading-edge
processor biz.
And there isn't much
| Quote: | software available.
|
If HP makes it clear that it now takes VMS seriously, there will be -
long before 2010.
| Quote: |
So, if you're going to develop a new platform starting on 2006 when HP
announces the widthdrawal of IA64, it would take about 4 years to get
VMS to restart again. If you announce rebirth of Alpha, you are going to
take about as much time but meanwhile, you inherit the complete software
ecosystem which can grow during thsoe year sbecause VMS is already
available on Alpha, so is Linux.
And consider SGI going Alpha, it would allow SGI to migrate immediatly
to Alpha since Alpha already exists.
|
SGI has no reason to switch from what it's got now, unless Intel
abandons Itanic. And if that happens, SGI will either die or switch to
a faster processor than Alpha is likely to be before - again - late 2010.
- bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Reagan
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:03 pm Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
Bill Todd wrote:
| Quote: |
2. Port the OSs somewhere else. This might be fairly easy for VMS and
even Tru64, though perhaps harder for HP-UX (since Itanic was designed
with its needs in mind).
|
"fairly easy for VMS"? Can I take a hit of what you are smoking? The
large amounts of BLISS and especially Macro-32 code in OpenVMS make any
port more difficult than a system like Tru64 with is mostly in C. We
have more compilers to find/build. Happen to have a AMD64 BLISS
compiler sitting around?
And to the best of my knowledge, I don't know of anything in Itanium
that was specially developed for HP-UX. The instruction set is pretty
unbiased.
Perhaps some of the memory management support... but if OpenVMS could
retrofit our VAX/Alpha designs to Itanium, I'd suspect that HP-UX could
handle that transition as well.
HP-UX's big-endian design might be a better fit for POWER5 than for an
X86 platform.
--
John Reagan
HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader
Hewlett-Packard Company |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Linden
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 841
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:10 pm Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:59:23 -0500, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Tom Linden wrote:
The real
value in the Digital component of HP is VMS, Alpha has lost all its
value.
There is one aspect of Alpha: installed base and available software,
much of which is no longer developped and thus not be available on
Alpha's successor. Continuing the Alpha processor ratins that software
whereas moving to a new platform requires VMS start from scratch with
software availability.
Note that this is also a reason HP-UX customers are still buying PaRisc
based machines instead of that unwanted IA64 thing. But VMS is in a much
worse shape than HP-UX in terms of application ecosystem.
|
Face it Alpha is dead. To make VMS a viable business it _will_ need
to use a supplier for its chips such as Power /and/or Opteron.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Linden
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 841
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:27 pm Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:17:34 +0000 (UTC), <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Also how long would it take to port Tandem NSK to PA-RISC ?
How close was the port to Alpha to completion when the decision to move
to IA64
was made ?
|
Maybe the question that should be asked, is how long would it take to
provide migration tools from NSK to VMS? Or alternatively, to whom can we
sell Non-Stop business unit?
I would give odds that HP will start shedding business units.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 205
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject:
Re: HP should....
|
|
|
In article <G+KLwPFoAVFx@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
| Quote: | In article <420C09D0.795A5F42@teksavvy.com>, Jf Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> writes:
John Smith wrote:
1) Relaunch Alpha
Out of curiosity, if relaunch were to happen, would relaunching Alpha
have any serious advantage over relaunching PaRisc ?
1) Alpha was always faster than PaRisc
2) Porting HP-UX to Alpha, running in big-endian mode would be
easier than porting VMS to PaRisc.
Also how long would it take to port Tandem NSK to PA-RISC ? |
How close was the port to Alpha to completion when the decision to move to IA64
was made ?
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:26 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Myspace Backgrounds | Mobile Phone | Mobile Phone | Debt | Debt Consolidation
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Not Unix
»
VMS
