[Info-vax] VMS to ntegrity application porting report not updated for 2 years?

[Tom Adams]

On Sep 21, 9:33 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam... at vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Since HP has targetted VMS to the installed based only, and since the
> remaining installed base don't buy many new aplications on VMS and
> deploy new stuff on other platforms (at least from HP's viewpoint), my
> guess is that HP doesn't see much of a priority in updating such pages.
>
> Since HP thinks all that is left of VMS are large customers, it would
> conclude that such customers would have relationships with their
> existing software vendors and would know if their alpha based
> application has been ported to that IA64 thing or not.
>
> Such a page had some marketing interest from HP a few years ago when it
> was trying to prop up Itanic by showing growth in number of available
> applications. Now, HP doesn't care much about propping up Itanic anymore
> so such pages have less importance.
>
> When you have limited resources, there are other areas of higher
> priority than updating such a page.

If that is all true, then why did HP give priority to a Gartner report
that says that third-party software is the critical issue in timing
and planning a migration?