[Info-vax] A possible platform for VMS?

[Dirk Munk]

Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2015-02-28 16:04:32 +0000, Dirk Munk said:
>
>> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>> On 2015-02-27 10:27:44 +0000, Dirk Munk said:
>>>
>>> Smartphones have substantially more processing power and RAM and
>>> storage capacity than a MicroVAX II offered.
>>
>> These Intel CPUs are also designed for tablets, same class as powerful
>> smartphone CPUs.
>
> Sort of.  Then there's that Intel's margins are in deep trouble in that
> product range:
>
> <http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089421/how-intel-is-buying-a-piece-of-the-tablet-market.html>
>
> <http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-4-billion-loss-mobile,28413.html>
>
>

But for settop boxes they are great, there are at least 5 different 
brands of . And *if* VSI decides to make a VMS desktop/laptop version 
with GPU support, then it's nice to know that these chips use the same 
family of Intel graphics as a high end i7 CPU. So no need for sperate 
drivers.

>>>> If it runs Windows 8.1 with ease, then it will run VMS even better.
>>>
>>> Facts not yet in evidence.   Microsoft has had decades to tune and to
>>> tailor the performance of their operating system.
>>
>> Less overhead in VMS, and I have confidence in VSI engineering.
>
> Again, facts not in evidence.   Also there's whether incremental
> performance improvements really matter.  More than a few folks are
> swimming in CPU cycles and cores and cheap boxes, which makes
> incremental performance rather less of a marketing and sales advantage
> than competitive features and application compatibility, and — of course
> — price.
>
> Going back to ancient history, DEC tried selling faster boxes for use
> with Microsoft Windows, and got shellacked in that market.  Alpha did
> well with high-performance for a while, but not so well with folks that
> wanted compatible products, or cheaper products, or with folks that
> wanted Windows on x86.
>
> Going forward, VMS will be on x86-64, and so are most of the competitive
> products — there's just not very much room to differentiate on raw
> performance.
>
>> I know, and even on Windows XP. These things have been hacked quite
>> often. With regard to VMS license costs, I'm sure you remember the VAX
>> Pathworks servers with reduced VMS license costs. The same could apply
>> to dedicated systems like points of sale or ATM machines.
>
> What's this "MicroVAX" or "VAX" you keep talking about?

You could buy a special version of these systems that would allow only 
one (or perhaps two) interactive users. They were meant as servers for 
LAD and LAST services and remote booting PC's. There was something in 
the hardware that distinguished these servers from 'normal' VAX servers. 
The VMS license for these systems was much cheaper. I can imagine 
something similar in the bios of an x64 system that will also allow only 
one interactive user.

> Few folks care
> about Alpha, even fewer about VAX or MicroVAX, and PATHWORKS is long
> gone.  Again: that's all ancient history.  Fun for some folks to
> endlessly debate and to what-if (and thankfully with precious little
> fanfic, but I digress), interesting for the OS tourists and retronauts
> to explore, hassles and some revenues for the few folks that are
> maintaining the old Alpha gear and the remaining VAX gear and the
> existing OpenVMS installations, but otherwise irrelevant in the IT
> market.  A very, very small niche.
>
> Want to see VMS or some other product play in the ATM market, or the
> desktop market, or the server market, or the embedded NUC-sized box
> market?  What's the competitive product offering now, and what'll be
> available soon?  How much does it all cost?  How much will I have to pay
> to migrate my existing stuff to this new platform?  How does it
> integrate with my existing user training, existing repair services and
> existing networks and systems and deployment tools?   When can I buy
> it?   Now those questions... are the interesting questions, and those
> are all in the future of VSI.   With VMS outside of the installed base,
> those conversations are just not going to lead anywhere.  Not now, and
> likely not for the next ~five years.
>
> As it is currently priced and configured, VMS is not competitive in the
> NUC server market — again, not outside of the VMS installed base.
>
> An as-yet-unavailable box that might be somewhat faster, but without a
> competitive story around applications and integration and pricing?  Not
> gonna sell many of those.
>
>> Yes, but the functionality of the systems is limited and well known.
>> Compared to Windows an Linux far less need for frequnt security
>> patches etc, and that seves costs.
>
> I'd bet on Windows security and tools and defenses over VMS security,
> but that's not likely going to convince you.  Put VMS and third-party
> VMS applications under the same sort of scrutiny that Windows has been
> under, and VMS will likely crack.
>

Maybe, I don't know. The difference is that VMS was designed with 
security in mind, Windows NT (Windows 8.1 is Windows NT after all) was 
too, but many security aspects were watered down as you will know.

But there is something else. Everybody knows Windows and Linux, no one 
knows VMS. There is a lot of information about Windows an linux, 
including about hacking these operating systems, there is far less 
information about VMS. That is a security feature in itself.

> To be absolutely clear, VMS solves current problems for existing folks,
> and — for most of the existing users — VMS solves those problems more
> economically than the cost of porting to a different platform, or of
> restarting.
>
> But getting VMS into the ATM market?   Or into Point-of-Sale systems? Or
> onto NUC-sized servers?   Or onto high-end systems with hundreds of
> cores, for that matter?  Or displacing existing applications and
> services that are running Windows Embedded or iOS or one of the Linux or
> BSD variants, or some HPTC-focused distro?   That's no small investment,
> and that puts VSI into a price and feature competition with some large
> and established vendors, and with some entrants building on Android and
> iOS platforms; with lower-cost platforms and what is likely lower-cost
> software.
>
> VSI is going to need to engage resellers that foresee being able to make
> a profit here, as VSI itself is probably not going to be creating or
> porting the software necessarily involved in most any of the areas I've
> mentioned here.  Tossing a NUC running VMS over the wall might be fun,
> but there's a whole lot more information and a whole lot more work —
> prices, features, support, compatibility, etc — needed before that might
> ever become a viable product.
>
> Getting VMS over onto x86-64 will solve problems that some existing
> OpenVMS users have.   The rest comes later.  This all assuming that VSI
> can keep going, and can start to grow the VMS installed base, and start
> to show that there are and can be revenues for third-party software and
> hardware providers, too.
>
>
>