Re: New itaniums out at 2.5x perform gain

In article <yvWdnR1hv-4ek13ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Dave Froble <davef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
In article <44BFC335.32AEF7E8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
And exactly why wold they announce that they were moving VMS to x86-64
rather than just announcing that they are concentrating on their real
business, Windows boxes, and pulling the plug on VMS?
Pride and money.

Lets look at pride: HP has to admit IA64 was a big mistake, but to make
up for it, it promises to port all its IA64 based systems to the 8086.

Too late for that. Intel already publicly admited it was a mistake and
if they had the chance to go back they wouldn't have done it. And they
have never promised to port VMS to anything beyond IA64.

That one statement from Intel is the worst thing I've seen since the
killing of Alpha. As the desire in Intel grows to dump the itanic, the
arguments to do so will grow, and it will happen.

Lets look at money:
First, porting VMS to the 8086 should be less expensive than Alpha to
IA64. They now have setup the abililty to have common code base, cleaned
up the code to make porting easier, AND have already gotten the EFI
stuff installed and running on VMS. So the port to the 8086 should cost
less and take less time.

Your smokin' again. There is little that has been made public so far that
would lead one to believe that because they ported VMS to IA64 it is now
somehow easier to port it to x86-64. The two have little if anything in
common, architecturally.

There have been more than a few things mentioned. Moving hardware
capabilities into code within VMS and things like that.

Maybe so, but after years of hearing how the x86 architecture was
unsuitable for running VMS it seems highly unlikely that the addition
of 64 bit extensions has somehow corrected all those shortcomings.
Not saying it can't be done, just that the idea that porting VMS
to IA64 somehow made it easier to port to x86 is quite a stretch.


Also, while the IA64 port may have been a surprise to all but a very few
VMS engineers, the writing has been on the wall for years now that the
8086 is (unfortunatly) the way to go,

And yet HP has never even hinted at th possibility of porting VMS to
x86-64. As a matter of fact, HP people here have constantly stated
it was not going to happen.

Small correction, they have stated that it was not currently happening
or in planning. They don't have the authority to state that it will not
happen.

True, but JF has always had this pipe dream that a bunch of engineers
are kept chained up in the basement of ZKO working 24/7 on some
mystery x86 port. Many people from HP (in a better position to know than
JF) have repeatedly stated there are no plans, at this time, to do an
x86 port.


and I would be very disapointed if
nobody within VMS engineering had taken a serious look at what it would
take.

My guess is they would look at it as soon as HP paid them to. Being
as they have repeatedly stated, right here, that there is no x86 port
in the works, why would any of them take the time to" look at what it
would take"?

Such a port is far from a 'midnight projects' thing.

When (and if) such a port is to be attempted it will likely get the same
fanfare as all the other ports. It is not the kind of thing that can be
kept hidden away, even if there was some business reason for doing so.


I would also not be surprised if the folks at HP-UX, NSK and VMS had
talks with Intel on what features they might need in the 8086 to make
porting much easier. Such features are likely to appear in the 2007 timeframe.

Why would Intel care? Their only interest right now is figuring out
how to catch back up to AMD. If VMS, HP-UX and NSK go belly up
tomorrow, it doesn't affect Intel's bottom line. Of course, that
IA64 boat anchor does!!

Gee, sounds like many of my posts from the 2001-2004 time frame.

You and many other people here who were not required to toe the HP-line.


I fail to see the logic int his. IA64 is costing them buckets of
money. Cance3ling it would end stop the bleeding and let them cut
even more jobs making them look even better to the Casino Analysts.
It all ddpends on what sort of contracts were signed. Remember that HP
sent 3 billion bucks to Intel not too long ago (along with its remaining
chip engineers), and is also building that 10 billion fund allegedly to
help port software to that IA64 contraption. This may be structured in
such a way that you cannot cancel IA64 until a certain date.

Still smokin'. No one knows what this mythical agreement said or even
if there really is one. Of course, it could just as easily have been
an agreement to pay Intel the 10 billion dollars as reparations for
the damage keeping that IA64 thing alive this long has done.

That's correct.

My theory is just as believable (and verifiable) as yours.

Also, in 2004 when Carly would have set this in motion, it is likely
that she would have wanted to keep the door open should, by miracle,
IA64 become popular. "Give it a couple of years and then can it".

Sure glad they don't let that weed you smoke over the border.

None left after JF gets to it.

Good thing too. We already have enough spaced-out people down here.
Some of them running major corporations. :-)


Should Intel kill IA64 prematurely, it might cost Intel mega bucks to
compensate HP, much more than paying a few engineers to thinker with the
contraption and produce a faster one every couple of years.

Not knowing what was in any of the agreements between them, it is really
impossible to say who would end out owing who if IA64 gets killed.


You keep assuming that they have any plan or even desire to migrate VMS
any further. If that were likely, considering how long it can take to
go from desire to a viable commercial product, the work would have already
begun.
Yes, it had begun and was happening in the basement of ZKO, until I
uncovered it and they quickly replaced the office furniture with
sporting equipment, removing any traces that there was ever a covert
porting effort going on :-) :-) ;-)

Keep smokin'......

You can count on it. :-)

The VMS engineers have all the tools already to manage a porting effort.

Now there's another big assumption on your part. Being as they have
repeatedly said there is no port to x86-64, why would HP have paid
for all these tools?

If, in 2007, Intel/HP announce the end of the line for IA64, it will
probably includd one more iteration of that "thing" and last a few
years,

Nobody is buying it now, who would buy it if they announced it was a
deadend? Any further "iteration" would just be money down the toilet.

during which VMS can be ported.

And during all this time you think the IT and business world is just going
to stand still? You thhink MS won't be out there raiding what is left of
HP's customers? Or Sun? Or IBM? Or any of dozen Linux brokers?

(this is where the killing of
Alpha sales at this point in time is a very wrong mistake).

Maybe, but it is a done deal as well.

This is a business decision. If the decision was changed, continuing to
manufacture and sell the current Alphas is definitely doable from a
technical perspective.

Again, I have to defer to the HP people who are in a better position
to know and they have repeatedly stated here that the resources no
longer exist at HP to revive the Alpha line. And, we have been told
that there was also some agreement regarding Alpha in the HP-Intel
deal. It is equally possible that the agreement was that they could
no longer continue development of the Alpha. If that turned out to
be so, what incentive would Intel have to release HP from it? No, I
think as the HP denizens here have stated, Alpha is a dead issue.


Face it, toy controller or high end chip, the 8086 is solid as a rock
with no rumours of it going away anytime soon. Move VMS to the 8086,
and you all once and for all any rumours of VMS's demise because as long
as it is profitable, there is no reason to kill it. And customers having
more confidence in a VMS rejuvenation will stay or buy in to VMS and
you'll see real growth.

Keep on smokin'......


Right now, the sad reality is that a weakened VMS is using its last
energies to try to support IA64. Move to 8086 and it is the strong 8086
(in the marketplace) that will help and support VMS and let it grow.

IA64 is a liability to VMS. 8086 would be an asset to VMS.

Probably way too little, way too late. But in any event, it isn't even
a blip on the radar and businesses are not going to wait around to see
what comes next. If we are truly seeing the last hurrah for IA64 then
we should be very concerned about the future of VMS.

Very!


So, Dave, how's the injury?

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When HP loses to Oracle....
    ... HP won't cause your VMS machine to suddently stop. ... As sales and BCS revenues continue to drop, the cost of continued IA64 ... porting HP-UX or whether each of the OS had its own separate evaluation. ... I'd be interested in knowing how hard it would reall be to port the very ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Is OpenVMS certified yet for 64-way Hard partitions (GS1280 M64).
    ... Especially if a migration is to a chip with uncertain future. ... Oracle the big bucks to announce a port of Oracle to HP-UX on that IA64 ... would HP subsidize Cerner to port its VMS software to VMS-IA64 the same ... HP could still order another bacth of Alpha chips if it wanted to. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: SGI files for chapter 11
    ... HP are highly unlikely to port it to x86. ... for an equally long period of time the VMS engineers that hang out here ... Presumably they still believe that IA64 is ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: HP, Intel becoming laughing stock of computer industry
    ... > would consider moving out of mainframes and concentrate on blade systems ... > Consider that when they announced blade IA64 things, ... > not announced ports of VMS NSK or HP-UX to the 8086. ... Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page: ...
    (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)