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

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Tom Adams wrote:
> 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,

That is a major *IF*.

> 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?

You might use any source you like to make you own opinion about
VMS (and HP's view of VMS), but I'm not sure that JF is the best
source (anymore).