[Info-vax] OT: IBM Offering $9-10 Per Share for Sun

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <49DA00CD.7060801 at comcast.net>,
	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
> johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 5:01 am, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber... at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> JF Mezei wrote:
>>>> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> I can not see why the VMS engineers would do that.
>>>> Because they love their work ?
>>>> Why did some engineers design the DS10L out of a midnight hack ? Once it
>>>> was done, Compaq liked it and sold tousands of them in high profile uses
>>>> (genome project).
>>>> Also, consider the highly theoretical/speculative scenario when VMS
>>>> engineers learned that VMS was to be canned with IA64 and that the date
>>>> was coming soon. Consider that high end folks at HP were heard saying a
>>>> VMS port to 8086 was not possible or too expensive (excuse).
>>> Did you ever consider that, just maybe, it's NOT feasible to port VMS to
>>> an 80x86 architecture?  Recall that VMS and the VAX architecture were
>>> designed together and that decisions were made regarding what would be
>>> done in software and what would be done in hardware!
>>>
>>> I'm sure that the Alpha architecture was designed with the intention of
>>> supporting both VMS and Unix.  The 80X86 architecture was designed for a
>>> micro-computer/personal-computer that would run PC-DOS/MS-DOS.  The
>>> 80x86 architecture has been a howling success and just about everyone
>>> has used one at one time or another.  It will not run VMS as we know it!
>>>
>>> I'm aware that there's a VAX emulator program for the 80x86
>>> architecture.  As far as I'm concerned it's a toy, a curiosity.  I doubt
>>> that it can compete, in the performance arena with Alpha or IA64 hardware.
>> 
>> Fortunately these days in this picture we're not stuck with classic
>> x86 architecture. We're talking about its next generation successor,
>> the AMD64 architecture, which just happens to have succeeded in being
>> remarkably compatible (transparently so, in the vast majority of
>> cases) with classic x86 when it needs to be, whilst also behaving like
>> a real 64bit architecture when *that* is what's needed.
>> 
>> As for x86 systems hardware: it's already been pointed out that the
>> innards of any reasonably modern low-end Alpha (from any AlphaStation
>> onward) were remarkably PC-like in terms of chips and functionalities,
> 
> The Alpha was intended to be able to run Windows.  AFAIK few people ever 
> did but the possibility was there!

The very first Alpha I saw was running Windows.  It lasted about a week
before being replaced with an Intel box running Windows.  Anyone want to
hazard a guess as to why it was abandoned?


No applications!!!

Now, where have we heard this before?

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>