[Info-vax] Current VMS Usage Survey

[David Froble]

One thing to keep in mind is what was going on at those times ....

JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-12-03 08:55, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> 
>> I know of 2 LARGE sites with many Alpha systems that *might* have migrated
>> to Integrity had HP not belied their faith by dismantling VMS engineering
>> and outsourcing it to India.  I also lost a few support opportunities when
>> clients moved to Integrity because HP tossed them a bone of three years of
>> support with the purchase.  Those 2 LARGE sites might now be on HP support
>> had HP not repeatedly stabbed VMS in the back and given the knife a twist.  
> 
> HP placed its bets on that IA64 contraption. And it refused to change it
> in the face of not only delays, but also piss poor performance.

HP appears to have had lots of NIH syndrome ...

> If Digital engineers could produce a report showing why IA64 was
> technically not going to beat tradictional CPUs, then Intel surely had
> similar repport internally and HP too since at the time HP still had
> chip engineers.  So there woudl have been some other reasons for HP to
> stick to that IA64 thing instead of cutting its losses.

Intel stuck with IA-64 because it was their intention to drive it down 
everyone's throat.  Killing Alpha was part of that scheme.  Don't give 
anyone any other options.  As far as Intel was concerned, how good the 
CPU was didn't interest them.  Just that it was the only one.

It was AMD that upset Intel's nice monopoly plans.  Intel was NOT going 
to make a 64 bit x86, and even after Athlon came out, Intel tried to 
maintain that position.  It was only when they saw that the 800 lb 
gorilla was going to starve to death that they made the big "U" turn. 
That in turn was the wooden stake through IA-64's heart.

Understand, as long as they had a monopoly, they were going to stick 
with IA-64, regardless of whether or not it was a good thing for the 
customers.  It was planned to be a "good thing" for Intel.

> HP had the perfect opportunity to ditch IA64 and go Alpha when it bought
> Digital/Compaq. Imagine if the amount of resources HP/Intel poured into
> IA64 had been put into Alpha ?


Well, there can be speculation.  Maybe they would have been able to 
shrink it, and maybe not.  Though if anyone could, it most likely would 
have been Intel, if they were willing to make the effort.

But I feel that AMD still would have made the 64 bit x86, and it would 
have forced Intel to do the same, and Alpha would have become as 
irrelevant as IA-64 has become.  And then Intel would have had no more, 
and quite likely less incentive to stick with Alpha.