Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer in his home"

david20_at_alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
Date: 11/28/04

  • Next message: Nigel Barker: "Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer in his home"" 
    Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:44:36 +0000 (UTC)

    In article <DNqdnaVbg9-_SDTcRVn-og@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    >In article <cocjs7$nr0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >>In article <AtOdnQ0uqpGoUTTcRVn-oA@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    >>>In article <co54rl$876$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >>>>In article <i8GdnU8Y9aoJQTjcRVn-pw@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    >>>>>In article <co2cm4$am0$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
    >wrote:
    >>>>>>In article <8_ednfguruIPATncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    >>>>>>>In article <co25q6$88s$1@news.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>>>>>In article <8_edncIuruJnCDncRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com
    >writes:
    >>>>>>>>>In article <41A34237.55FA3814@teksavvy.com>,
    >>>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> HUH!!!! Stay within the decade. We were talking about the
    >>>>>beginnings
    >>>>>>>>>>> of the PC market.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>DEC started to shift to resellers paradigm in the 1980s. I fact,
    >by
    >>>>>>>1986,
    >>>>>>>>>>calling dec to ask to buy a vax
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>This happened because DEC was going out of the VAX business. It's
    >>>>>>>>>exactly how DEC treated people who wanted to buy PDP-10s in 1979.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Going out of the Vax business in 1986 ?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Yes.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Alpha wasn't released until about 1991.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>So?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Jupiter wasn't cancelled until 1983; PDP-10 sales were
    >>>>>>>getting denied in 1979.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>However Vax and VMS was already there in 1979.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>So? My point was that the policy of denying a sale had already
    >>>>>been established when a replacement architecture was years into
    >>>>>the future. And VAX wasn't already "there" in 79. The company
    >>>>>was still doing the 11/780 bit and trying to establish a customer
    >>>>>base for VAXes. Since the performance sucked, there wasn't any
    >>>>>existing customers who bought a VAX when they needed mainframe
    >>>>>computing services.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>As I recall VAX/VMS was riding pretty high in 1986.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Compared to what? In 1986 I was starting to study how to
    >>>>>convince current PDP-10 customers to replace their 10s with
    >>>>>VAXes. This was after the fiasco of "*** you" at 1978 DECUS,
    >>>>>the Jupiter disaster, and then the idiocy that marketing
    >>>>>developed in 1984 and 1985 they called "migration".
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>1985/1986 was about the time I first worked on a VAX. The company part
    >of
    >>>GEC
    >>>>had links to IBM mainframe systems at Chelmsford and a Mcdonald Douglas
    >>>machine
    >>>>running Pick on site. When they came to look for their next system then,
    >>>since
    >>>>they wanted a mid-range system rather than an IBM mainframe, the choice
    >of
    >>>>a VMS system seemed obvious.
    >>>
    >>>Of course, and it should have been. However, by the time of the
    >>>Compaq purchase, it was clear to me that corporate was going to
    >>>treat VMS exactly the same way as they treated TOPS-10. Just
    >>>when they got the OS to a useful computing servicer, it had
    >>>to be destroyed.
    >>>
    >>
    >>The Compaq purchase was much much later than the period
    >>we are talking about.
    >
    >Yes.
    >
    >>By the look of it you are now agreeing with me about the
    >>situation in 1986 -
    >>that in 1986 Digital were not going out of the Vax business.
    >
    >No,no,no. It was going out of the Vax business. It wasn't clear
    >that it was trying to get out of the VMS business. There were hints
    >but those hints could have meant something else.
    >

    Sorry I don't equate investigating possible future hardware strategies with
    a policy of denying sales and getting out of the Vax business.
    You might reasonably make that claim after or even slightly before the release
    of Alpha but not in 1986.
    Similarly on the OS side you might reasonably claim a policy of denying VMS
    sales in favour of first Unix and then Microsoft sales but again this would
    only be supportable some time after 1986.

    Unlike Compaq and HP with Itanic I don't see Digital as a company which
    burned it's bridges to jump to a new untried architecture.

    >>
    >>
    >>>>The year of Unix was still something the computer press was saying would
    >>>be
    >>>>next year.
    >>>
    >>>And it never would have been the OS of choice if there had been a
    >>>company that backed an OS that did useful work without insisting
    >>>that all users constantly wrestle with the OS.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>IOW, DEC managed to piss off, alienate, and loudly announce
    >>>>>to all current mainframe customers that they had absolutely no
    >>>>>say in the matter. This was a 180 degree turn from corporate
    >>>>>policy where we tried to include customer input when planning
    >>>>>the future hardware product lines.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>In my personal experience we were still dealing directly with Digital
    >in
    >>>>>1989
    >>>>>>when I joined Middlesex University it wasn't until maybe 92/93 that we
    >>>>>were
    >>>>>>forced to go through resellers (and then that was for both VAX and
    >>>>>>Alpha systems).
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Palmer was supposed to strip the company of cash and all product lines
    >>>>>that had nothing to do with the customer support piece of the biz.
    >>>>>This is an educated guess based on what happened inside the company; I
    >>>>>saw no documents.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>When I said dealing direct with Digital I meant purchasing VAX systems
    >>>direct
    >>>>from Digital nothing to do with maintenance or support.
    >>>
    >>>And how did you learn about the bugs and bug fixes in the
    >>>version of the VMS software you bought?
    >>>
    >>I was just responding to your "had nothing to do with the customer support
    >>piece of the biz." by clarifying that we were buying hardware directly
    >from
    >>Digital rather than through resellers.
    >
    >yes, Compaq didn't want manufacturing nor, apparently, development
    >business when they bought DEC out. They were primarily interested
    >in [what we used to call the] hotline facilities.
    >
    >> ... We were also buying hardware and
    >>software maintenance directly from Digital.
    >>
    >>
    >>In this discussion you seem to be mixing up the 1980s with the 1990s.
    >
    >I am talking about both times. You seem to be, too. :-) Please
    >note that the phrase you questioned was in a paragraph that talked
    >about what _Palmer_ did before the Compaq buyout. Thus, that comment
    >couldn't have been about the 80s.
    >

    Yes I didn't really see the relevance of that to the discussion.
    My only foray into the 90s was my mention of 92/93 in order to show that not
    everyone was being forced to buy through resellers during the late 80s.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

    >
    >/BAH
    >
    >Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

  • Next message: Nigel Barker: "Re: interesting take on Olsen's "no reason for any individual tohave acomputer in his home""
    • Quantcast