Re: FW: OT: Microsoft drop more Itanic support

From: JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot_at_teksavvy.com)
Date: 11/14/05 

Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:04:15 -0500

"Main, Kerry" wrote:
> Gee, I seem to remember some folks in the newsgroup getting hammered
> with the coming "real soon now" type discussions.

That is a fair point. There is however a big difference.

The 8086 is the key strategic product for Intel. It has competition and
Intel MUST move the 8086 or die. If Intel is seen by Wall Street Casino
analysts as lagging behind AMD without an clear plan to catch up, Wall
Street will hammer Intel. Intel MUST deliver better 8086s and compete
against AMD.

Another difference betwen the "real soon now" for IA64 and 8086: For
IA64, the "real soon now" was about having a chip catching up to the
8086.

For the 8086, the "real soon now" is about expanding its reach towards
higher end.

> The x86 crowd has been saying "why do we need big servers - we can do it
> all with our solutions!" since the PC was first born.

That is the Windows weenies crowd. You need to separate the 8086 from
Windows. They used to be equal. But with the advent of Linux and Sun
using 8086 on AMD, and soon Apple using Intel 8086s, Windows is no
longer the only visible user of the 8086.

Sun is building its own servers based on the AMD chip. Apple will build
its own proprietary systems using the 8086. Not all 8086 based machines
need to be "commodity that runs Windows" even though they all use
commodity chips.

> Huh? No one tells me what I can say or not say in a newsgroup. Or any
> other HP employee either.

You know full well that because you are seen as an HP employee, you
cannot publically oppose what your employer is saying. I don't blame
you. I understand the situation.

> Option A: build in more UNIX compatibility, new file system, build in
> new performance features, virtualization and workload management
> features, get new ISV's on current platform or...
>
> Option B. Port to a new x86 platform and put option A on hold for 2+
> years.

Option A will never work if you stay on a platform that isn't growing in
reach, remains a small niche market not bog enough to really allow VMS
to grow, and especially a still born platform that may never become
acceptable/popular in the markletplace.

IF you admit that porting VMS to IA64 was a big mistake, you then see
that porting to a winning platform (8086) ASAP is the best way to
correct that mistake and for every month HP delays the announcement that
VMS is to be ported to the 8086, VMS loses strength.

> Because I do not believe the HW platform is a big a deal as it used to
> be. Customers at the level that sign on the bottom line are interested
> in supported solutions, not Mhz speeds and feeds.

They are interested in a platform that will survive. The platform is the
foundation. If the foundation melts away, anything you built on top collapses.

That IA64 thing is like a foundation built on the edge of a precipice.
At first rainfall, it risks falling down the precipice. And the fear is
that it will bring VMS with it because HP refuses to commit to port VMS
beyond IA64.

You have avoided so far answering my question: do you deny that VMS
would have greater growth potential on the 8086 versus a IA64 thing that
is limited to a small market niche ?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heads Up: Intel to axe 20,000 jobs
    ... If Intel is losing money on IA64 (which one Intel exec already admitted ... IIf it feels that neither HP-UX nor VMS have long term growth ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: OT: sound minds, and the benefit of hindsight
    ... This means that the deal with Intel would have been done "with advise ... DEC can continue to develop Alpha until first boot of Windows on IA64, ... Also remember that it was under Palmer that a port of Tru64 to IA64 was ... announced (but port of VMS to IA64 was denied). ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: FW: OT: Microsoft drop more Itanic support
    ... > Intel knows x86 will not soon have much influence on the market served ... originally slated to help IA64 scale even bigger, ... the 8086 may not scale to "galaxy class" machines. ... VMS on 8086 would have far greater sales potential. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: I knows its unsupported, but does current VMS run on ZX2000?
    ... involved in platform support than the bootstrap files. ... Would it be correct to state that the VAX instruction set did not ... In the case of Alpha, seems that since VMS 7.1, any executable can run ... My question with regards to IA64 pertain on whether Merced machines ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Intel confirms itanium will be late ...
    ... Alpha had a large installed base and because the announcement of VMS ... moving to IA64 was made years before IA64 was ready for prime time, ... Intel can continue to claim that it continues it ... commitments to IA64 and will produce Montvale and Tukwilla. ...
    (comp.os.vms)