Prev: Life After Moore's Law
Next: Ye Olde Log-Based SpMT Uarch
From: Del Cecchi on 2 May 2010 20:04
Quadibloc wrote:
> On Apr 30, 5:57 am, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <l...(a)garlic.com> wrote:
>
>> from above (2006) article:
>>
>> is that the price per MIPS today is approximately six times higher than
>> the $165 per MIPS that the traditional technology/price decline link
>> would have produced
>
> Part of this is the cost of RAS features (Reliability, Availability,
> Serviceability: others have substituted Scalability or Security for
> the last one), and part a hidden charge for access to IBM's quality
> software.
>
> With the Nehalem-EX, the clock is ticking on part of that.
>
> HP owns OpenVMS, a decent mainframe-quality operating system. It
> should really look into giving IBM some competition.
>
> John Savard

Why should HP try to reintroduce VMS into the market place? Do you
really think that this is a financially beneficial or viable action?
From: Del Cecchi on 3 May 2010 19:38
Quadibloc wrote:
> On May 2, 6:04 pm, Del Cecchi <delcec...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>
>>> HP owns OpenVMS, a decent mainframe-quality operating system. It
>>> should really look into giving IBM some competition.
>
>> Why should HP try to reintroduce VMS into the market place? Do you
>> really think that this is a financially beneficial or viable action?
>
> It's true that I can't be certain this would be a sensible thing to
> do. But I do think that there is a need for more operating systems
> that are reliable and offer the security that real mainframe operating
> systems do. Microsoft Windows doesn't cut it. Neither does Linux. Even
> commercial versions of Unix, while they serve their intended purposes
> better than Linux can as a substitute for them, are still derived from
> what began as an extremely minimalist operating system.
>
> Open VMS might well not be viable as part of an attempt by HP to
> compete directly with IBM's mainframe offerings. But the market has a
> lot of other places where HP could direct a system with a port of Open
> VMS. They could, for example, make it an alternative to Windows
> Server.
>
> John Savard

First they would have to port it to all the x86 server hardware floating
around out there. Then they would have to convince the world that it
was really better than windows or linux. Seems unlikely to have much
return on investment.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Life After Moore's Law
Next: Ye Olde Log-Based SpMT Uarch