[Info-vax] Building for Customers, Revenue

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <lv1mer$vjf$1 at dont-email.me>, David Froble
<davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes: 

> Not the same thing.  A port to x86 allows a future for VMS.  A future 
> for something unique.  On the other hand, there are plenty of desktop 
> environments now available, and they do a much better job than a VMS 
> based desktop.  That of course depends on the applications, but, you're 
> talking about browsers.

But there is no intrinsic reason why they are better; they've just had 
more development.

> > I would hope so.  But many at VSI, and many customers, remember "desktop 
> > to datacenter".  I think that's still a good idea today.
> 
> And some may also "remember" living in the cave ....

Some of us are still quite happy there: http://www.tmesis.com/vaxcave/ :-)

> > I don't think that VSI should compete against "regular" desktops, but 
> > rather offer enough desktop support so that VMS folks don't have to run 
> > something else just for desktop stuff.
> 
> Specifics ???

These days, that means a browser and little else: http://xkcd.com/934/ :-|

> >> There just aren't enough Phillip-like customers in the world.
> > 
> > I don't know.  Just a few weeks ago, anyone who thought that there would 
> > be a viable port of VMS to x86, or even Poulson support, in the 
> > foreseeable future would have been deemed delusional.  :-)
> 
> That is true.  But there are still many using VMS.  How many are still 
> trying to use VMS on the desktop?  Will you need the fingers of both 
> hands to count them?

The point is, if there is a future to VMS, people might like to go back 
to a VMS desktop, if it is possible.

> > But even if they do, it is a pain to constantly transfer files between 
> > it and VMS.
> 
> Ok, you need to defend that statement.  FTP (sorry Steve) does the job. 
>   I do it all the time.

Sure, it can be done, but it's an unnecessary complication.