Re: SGI files for chapter 11

Malcolm Dunnett wrote:
In article <1147108136.879764.277650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew" <andrew_harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Sun/IBM/The tooth Fairy are not going to buy OpenVMS and port it to
anything.

HP are highly unlikely to port it to x86.


How do you know that?

A valid question: it can't be known with any certainty outside the higher echelons of HP management.

But it certainly can be suspected, based on the evidence:

1. VMS sales took a devastating dive after the Alphacide from which they have never recovered (it may in fact still be continuing at a slower pace, given the degree to which VMS revenues are dominated by service revenues from *existing* installations rather than by new-sales figures). VMS may have been seen as worth porting five years ago back when some of these defections were viewed as potentially recoverable, but could easily not be seen as worth porting now (especially considering that platforms supporting it will continue to be available for years yet even if all active development of them ceases).

2. To all appearances the port of VMS to Itanic was funded at least in significant part by the Intel Alphacide deal - something which Intel does not seem very likely to repeat for another port.

3. HP likely viewed the VMS port as in part worthwhile in its visible support for Itanic (it's certainly devoted more visible effort to publicizing this in its Itanic promotions than it has to promoting VMS per se). x86 needs no comparable demonstration of support.


Presumably they still believe (rightly or wrongly) that IA64 is
a better choice

A questionable presumption at best. HP may well view Itanic as a more desirable choice from their *own* viewpoint (to the degree that Itanic needs all the help it can get to survive), but any objective evaluation of the desirability of potential VMS port target platforms made today would hardly place Itanic at the head of the list if it weren't already supported.

- bill
.

Relevant Pages