[Info-vax] OT: news from the trenches (re: Solaris)

[William Pechter]

In article <ckmtq0FeopeU1 at mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <54e6356d$0$44801$c3e8da3$dd9697d2 at news.astraweb.com>,
>	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
>> On 15-02-19 12:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> 
>>>   I suspect their x86-64 products will only get better each year, and 
>>> this can only be a good thing if OpenVMS can run natively on them.
>> 
>> One risk is ARM.
>> 
>> It can be that mobile/embedded will go ARM and computers/servers will
>> stay x86. Or desktops might move to ARM.
>> 
>> Intel has not had success for mobile devices. So even the x86 isn't a
>> success everywhere.
>> 
>> Consider what happened when AMD decided to make a 64 bit 8086, forcing
>> Intel to throw in the towel on its policy of 64 bit = itanium and
>> following AMD's lead.
>> 
>> Imagine if AMD starts to produce high performance server chips based on
>> ARM architecture ? This might be quite interesting
>
>That is the kind of thinking that brought down Itanium. Do you want
>AMD to do the same and cede the market back to Intel?
>> 
>> In fact, Apple is rumoured to be toying with the idea of moving its
>> desktops/laptops to ARM.
>
>Haven't heard anything about that. Apple alerady was on non-standard
>chips.  Where did they end out?  And if they moved to ARm and were
>successful why shold I think it is anything other than more of their
>followers religion?
>
>So much for devil's advocat (although I place little if any value in
>what Apple users do.  Apple's systems have been technically inferior
>since thevery beginning.)
>
>If you have access to a Windows Server 2012 system take a look in
>C:\Program Files(x86)\Windows Kits\8.0\bin
>
>Come back and tell people what you see.  :-)
>
>
>> 
>> 
>> From a VSI point of view, a move to ARM shouldn't be a big deal. In the
>> past, VMS was tied to vendor who had vested interests in chips, except
>> for short tenure under Pfeiffer at Compaq. VMS was tied to VAX and then
>> Alpha, and then to that IA64 thing under HP.
>> 
>> But with VSI "free", they become architecture agnostic since they have
>> no vested interests in any one specific architecture (until they
>> resurrect the 64 bit VAX, or course :-)
> 
>I expect to see that right after I release  64bit RSTS/E.
>
>bill
>
>-- 
>Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
>billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton   |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

Damn... Bill I started a design layout for 32 bit PDP11's back in the 90's.
You want me to do 64 bit now... 8-).

The main issue was really getting in different memory management with 
larger pages...  I'd use 4096 now to match the new disks.

Who's doing the Basic Plus...

Bill

-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com  http://xkcd.com/705/