Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).

David J. Dachtera wrote:
Dave Froble wrote:

David J. Dachtera wrote:

Dave Froble wrote:


David J. Dachtera wrote:


Dave Froble wrote:



JF Mezei wrote:



Dave Froble wrote:




If HP cared about keeping these customers, they'd be pro-actively
talking to them and insuring them they'd have whatever they need. If
that's 64 CPU Alphas until Cerner is running on the itanic, then so be it.


Consider Swift. Once Swift had agreed to heed's Palmer suggestion they
abandon VMS, there was no turning back, and the owner of VMS wouldn't
have lifted a finger to try to retain customers it knew wouldn't be able
to remain on VMS for long anyways. (and during the Compaq era, Compaq
would have known the odds were very slim that a Swift customer on VMS
would migrate to a windows based solution which didn't fully exist at
that time, and that is all Compaq had to offer).

**IF** Cerner doesn't have intentions of remaining on VMS in the long
term and prefers to focus on other platforms such as AIX, then HP
wouldn't have much in terms of incentives to spend money to retain
customers it knows it will lose anyways.

On the other hand, if the VMS engineers know that VMS works on 64 CPUs
but that they just never got around to documenting it, adding this
qualified support might be easy, or they may simply tell Cerner that it
should work and gice Cerner the tools to test it themselves.

Jumping to conclusions without any reason. I've not read one word that
says Cerner is abandoning VMS. Not saying they are, or aren't, just
haven't seen anything to indicate they are. Unless you have some solid
information, speculating on one of your pet theories isn't very helpful.


Well, consider that two of Cerner's largest sites in the Chicago area
have been lost by HP as storage customers in favor of EMC.

Consider that Cerner's three largest sites in the Chicago area are
contemplating an eventualy move to AIX to obtain 64 CPU support (and a
somewhat less uncertain future for their platforms).

I'd think that an entity could make that switch anytime.


Mighty big investment to discard, and another mighty big investment to
gamble on a whim, don't you think?

My point exactly. If the migration can be made at any time, then to
avoid spending the substantial money such a conversion would cost, the
logical thing to do is to defer the migration as long as possible.
Perhaps it will not be required. Regardless of the odds, they are still
better than jumping in immediately and migrating.


You're ignoring two important facts:

1. Costs *NEVER* go down, they only go up. (Note: I said, "Costs", not
"Prices".)

2. The time-value of money: Compared to today's dollars, tomorrow
dollars are worth less (read: worthless).


The odds there are
100% that you'll incur migration costs.


So best to make the move now before costs go up any further.

If a migration turns out not to be necessary, then there is no cost. however, if the decision is to migrate today, then there will be costs.

Your posts sound like you or someone feels that a migration is mandatory. Regardless of how that perception came about, at this time I see no reason to justify such a perception. Note that at times I don't see very well.

If that's
true, why would any intelligent entity perform what I'd guess is a
rather expensive exercise immediately and upon speculation?


To which speculation do you refer?

Ok, I'm not a Cerner customer and don't have anything to do with Cerner
or any of their customers. All I have to go on is some posts in c.o.v.
All I've seen in those posts is that Cerner customers (at least 1 or
2) are speculating that they will be unable to get 64 CPU Alphas running
VMS, and they will be unable to get anything elsr running VMS to meet
their needs. It reads like it's speculation.


The point is: the is the customer's perception. Liek it or else, their
perception is their reality.

Theirs. And possibly they could be very wrong.

Either you manage perceptions or perceptions manage you.

And what's happening here?

I've not seen anyone say
that they have been told by Cerner that they should prepare to migrate
to IBM. That speculation.


If they wait until they are told, they'll be so far "behind the curve"
that their businesses will die before they can make the migration.

That I don't understand at all. What curve?

If there comes a time when a VMS based solution in no longer viable, then the effort to move to AIX will be the same as now. Possibly less. Cerner might come up with some migration tools and support. There will be the footsteps of others to follow. Better to learn from other's mistakes than to be doomed to make them yourself. There would be more time to plan the migration. I see so many reasons to migrate later if required than sooner. And sooner might prove to be a reaction to something that never materializes.

Now if there are those who just want to 'show' HP that they are miffed, hey, go ahead, spend money to sooth their egos.

Remember: I am "insider" in one of the organizations mentioned. This is
not speculation, it is FACT!

What is fact? That your organization is speculating? That your
organization is planning a migration? That Cerner has told your
organization to migrate? I'm pretty dense, I need it spelled out for me.


Simple as A-B-C: Lacking anything concrete, business must follow the
signs it sees, not those it cannot see. The perception is as stated, the
response is also as stated.

Not speculation - FACT!

So, the Alphas quit working today?

Our growth rates are the stuff that IT has been dealing with in years
since PCs went from hundreds of megabytes on their hard discs to
hundreds of gigabytes. It isn't just storage demands that increase (ours
has doubled in the last three years), but processing power as well. If
you understand the mathematical laws of compounding, the situation
should spell itself out for you.

You need more capabilities.


Read: capacity


Ok, I can understand that.


Consider also that we're on the threshold of V8.3 and Cerner has yet to
certify V8.2 (which will be two versions back, allowing for V8.2-1).

Does Cerner have anything to say about their current and future plans?
I'd think that a vendor would be up front and open with their customers.
Has anybody just come out and asked Cerner what their VMS plans are?
If not, why not?


We've been asking for many months. We are still awaiting a reply for the
non-sales side of the organization.

Ok, they're not being helpful. What does the sales side of the
organization have to say?


Who cares? Sales-droids don't run the business.

I've seen situations where that's who runs the business.

Consider that the last sale dates for Alpha are just around the corner
and Cerner has yet to certify I64.

Same questions as above. What does Cerner say about VMS on the good
ship itanic?


"Not yet certified."

Any indication if, and if then when? I'd guess the first part, 'if'
would be all that's required. If it's 'no', then you've got the whole
answer.


As stated prior, no response as yet.

Maybe no news is good news?

If nobody has asked, why not?


See the above.



I know you're an intelligent guy, Dave. I'm sure you can put 2.0 and 2.0
together come with something approximating 4.0, even allowing for
floating-point errors.

No, I don't think that that is the proper way to run an enterprise. If
I was running things at your shop, and I had concerns, I'd be in touch
with upper management at Cerner and be demanding some guidance.


Been there, done that.



As your
vendor, it's their responsibility to let you know where they're going,
and to keep you from wasting money on speculation.


Preaching to the choir.



I'd be asking Cerner
what is the total of 2 + 2.


They'll have to ask their engineering people to see if that kind of math
has been certified yet.

:-)


As someone in my office put it, the "marriage" between Cerner and VMS is
seriously on the rocks.

Do they know this?


Yes.

Can you be explicit about what 'someone in your office' knows, and how
they know it?


Member of management reflecting management's preceptions and
management's plans to act in light of those perceptions.

So they're convincing themselves with their own circular arguments, with nothing from outside affecting their decisions?

Has anyone just asked the vendor?


The vendor has made its intentions/directions unmistakable through its
actions and inactions.

I find it rather hard to believe that a vendor would jerk it's customers
around in this manner.


Welcome to the real world, Neo!


Just what does their software do? Maybe they
need some competition.


Google for IDX, MiSys (formerly Sunquest), ...


Such things can feed upon themselves. Customers are heard to say that
Cerner is abandoning VMS.


Based on the evidence apparent.

That's 'feeding on itself'.


...and the counter measure is ... ?


Cerner hears such, and thinks that their
customers are abandoning VMS,


Try again: Cerner hears VMS customers screaming, and chooses its own
direction regardless. (probably took that cue from DEC/Compaq/HP)

See above about competition.


Like they give a rat's ass. Examine HP's actions re: OpenVMS. Does HP
give a rat's ass about competition? Get real.


so they had better place their resources
elsewhere.


Try again. Until it threatens their bottom line rather than supporting
it, they're going to keep drifting away from HP and eventually away from
VMS.

See above about competition.


See above remark.


Has anyone


EVERYONE!



told Cerner that they'd rather remain on VMS, and asked when
the latest version of VMS on itanic will be certified?


Repeatedly.



Maybe you need to ask, so they know what you want.


We have asked. They know. They do like HP and do as they damned well
please anyway.

Strange. I didn't think anyone else could match that madness.


Welcome to the real world, Neo!


Am I the only one who can see this clearly?


Forgive what sounds like a dig at you, but perhaps you're the only one
naive enough to think that those bases haven't been covered since ages.

As I wrote above, all I have to go on is several posts. I try very hard
to not jump to hasty comclusions.


As do I, and most of the business community. The OpenVMS community has
been patient beyond sainthood. In the absence of positive action by HP,
the ball is now in business's court. That is, HP has lost control (not
that they ever really had it to begin with; Compaq - and DEC before it -
tied their hands long before the merger).


C'mon, Dave, plug back into reality.

This is not just the frustrated rantings of disgusted techies, this is a
reflection of what we are exposed to every working day.

Cerner knows what its customers know:

o VMS is a dead-end proposition, barring a major miracle (maybe a deal
with Samsung to keep the Alpha fabs cranking out EV7z's or something, a
miraculous technical breakthrough that makes all of the billions pumped
down the Itanic drain finally come to profitable fruition, voices from
the heavens speaking to someone of influence who brings the news that
x86-64 is the one, true savior of OpenVMS and HP, ... who knows?).

It's my understanding IBM is fabbing the Alphas, and I'd guess they'll
continue to do so as long as they get orders. However, if they're told
there will not be any more orders, who could blame them for selling that
production to someone else. The game consoles will give them more
business than any non-x86 CPU.


Rather a snowball effect: HP fails to market Alpha and VMS; hence, no
new orders (or a mere trickle - not enough to justify continued
operations). Hence, no new orders for ALpha CPU chips, hence no more
Alpha.

Darned old horse! Just *REFUSES* to push that blasted cart! Damnit!


As long as Intel remains committed,


That would be the merciful thing to do.


the itanic is a valid option. It
does work.


How long did it take to get that point? How many $billions of R&D? How
much $'s in sales to recoup that? How long can that be sustained before
the stockholders revolt?

Doesn't matter at all. Customers are not paying for the R&D. Intel will probably never recoup all the costs. Doesn't matter, that money is gone. It does not affect today's decisions. It would be nice if they learned from their mistakes.

Would Alpha work better? I think you've probably read
enough posts from me to know that I think killing Alpha was a hugh mistake.


Hugh who? I thought that was Michael "Curly" Cappellas's "legacy" for
the OpenVMS world.


I may have lost all my previous VMS customers, but I still have hopes
for VMS. Not betting any money though.


...and you expect bigger businesses to do different?


o Alpha is a dead-end proposition, regardless of how infirm those
last-sale dates are touted to be. The mere annunciation of last-sale
dates sealed that fate.

Well, at least HP has indicated their intentions. I'm guessing you'd
like Cerner to do the same. :-)


"Spit or get off the pot" seems appropriate here.


o Even if Itanic does finally arrive in a form that rivals the last
Alphas, it will come years too late - 32 CPU Alphas will have been maxed
out long before then and replaced with something else.

From reading other posts, it seems that all that's needed to purchase a
64 CPU Alpha is to place an order. If you need it, why aren't orders
being placed?


See the certification questions above, as well as previous and the
forgoing discussions of business's perceptions regarding continued Alpha
and OpenVMS viability.


Cerner knows what its customers want:

o Quality application software (not there now)

Don't understand. Are you saying that the current Cerner applications
are not good quality?


Re-read David Harrold's post carefully, and then go over it again and
"read between the lines". (...and before you ask, yes, my management has
made its feelings known to Cerner in no uncertain terms.)



--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: davef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
.

Relevant Pages