[Info-vax] Current VMS Usage Survey

[Michael Kraemer]

David Froble schrieb:
> One thing to keep in mind is what was going on at those times ....
> 
> JF Mezei wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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 ...

You forget that HP also axed their own PA-RISC chip in
favour of the Itanic. And allegedly there was this study which
predicted they would loose 30% of PA-related revenue in the process.

> 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.

You forget that almost all of the industry, including even IBM and Sun
had lined up behind the Itanic, whereas Alpha was already on the
way out. Continuing with the former and EOL'ing Alpha was just a
logical decision.

>> 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 ?

This is just as hypothetical as the question how rich HP would be
if all 2000+x VMS customers would buy super-expensive
hardware support for all 100000 systems out there.

> 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.

According to that DEC/intel deal in 1997 they were obliged
to produce Alphas. Did they?
The last EV7z Alphas were manufactured by IBM,
and even they allegedly had difficulties with the
next generation EV79, so who would have produced the
later ones?