[Info-vax] Reimplementing VMS, was: Re: HP adds OpenVMS Mature Product Support beyond the end of Standard Support

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2014-02-02 19:34, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-02-02 18:08, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> At no point is any code actually being written as a part of this. It's a
>> feasibility study.
>
> We'll never know. Such code is probably hidden very deep. It is quite
> likely proof of concept would have been done for very early stages of
> boot. Remember that VMS already knows about EFI so booting from EFI
> 8086s should be easier.

And the fact that various people on the inside repeatedly saying that 
nothing was done just don't do it for you, obviously.

> Knowing if existing X86 compilers can handle VMS code is an important
> part of an evaluation.

Which also have been said has not been done.

So, I repeat my request that you stop spreading unsubstantiated rumours 
that in fact have no other source than you.

>> This part sounds like just nonsense. What has things done in 2004 have
>> to do with anything?
>
> 2004 is when Intel relented and announced 64 bit 8086s.
> 2004 is when Intel announced CSI for both IA64 and 8086 (granting 8086
> servers same memory performance for multi processor/core systems as the
> "high perfrormance computing" IA64.
>
> 2004 is when HP announced IA64 would be reduced to HPC niche, dropped
> workstations and low end servers as a focus for growth.
>
> As a point of reference, Apple announced its move to Intel mid 2005.
> First 64bit Mac was in Aug 2006, full transition to 64 bit chips by 2007.
>
> 2007 is when the first life support deal for IA64 was signed, 2010 is
> when it was renewed/re-adjusted to extend the life again (spread the
> releases over longer period). (Remember that Tukwila, the first CSI (now
> Quickpath) based IA64 was originally due 2007.
>
> 2009 is when dismantlement of VMS engineering began.
>
> So any pilot project to look into porting VMS to 8086 would have been
> between 2004 and 2009, likely just before/around 2007.

That is just pure speculation on your part (the assumption on *when* 
something was done). And in addition, when a feasibility study can be 
done way before or later than that without this being the point at which 
the future on VMS would be decided.

A feasibility study gives you some data. Decisions are made based on 
data, and decisions can change. It has very little to do with *when* the 
study was made.

And you are once more trying to confuse the act of "look into porting" 
and "porting", which are two totally different things.

>> You can do a feasibility study at any point.
>
> Until Intel announced 64 bit 8086s a port of VMS to 32 bit 8086 did not
> make sense. And until Quickpath arrived for 8086 (circa late 2008 as I
> recall), multi-core/processor performance for 8086s did not scale that
> well in a large data centre.

While I suspect that there was not much point in porting to the 32-bit 
x86, any porting to 64-bit x86 would have little relation to multicore 
and multiprocessor issues, since those are changing all the time anyway.

>> The problem is when people start thinking that DEC/Compaq/HP wrote some
>> code to actually get VMS running in x86. Which does not exist.
>> Studies are a different thing than code.
>
> "writing" code. No. But test compiling with the 8086 compilers yes. They
> would need to evaluate differences in code generated and syntax
> translation to know how much code syntax/structures might have to be
> changed.  (and look into compiler/linker issues for off platform
> building, if any.)

You know. Of all the things you have written, this was probably among 
the silliest things so far. What 8086 compilers?

	Johnny