Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ncar!gatech!ukma!ukecc!lynn From: lynn@engr.uky.edu (H. Lynn Tilley) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Re: Help us defend against VMS! Message-ID: <2134@ukecc.engr.uky.edu> Date: 18 Mar 88 03:34:04 GMT References: <1636@tulum.UUCP> <20268@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <695@unm-la.UUCP> <4583@garfield.UUCP> Reply-To: lynn@engr.uky.edu (H. Lynn Tilley) Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards Organization: Univ. of KY Engineering Computing Center Lines: 33 In article <4583@garfield.UUCP> dave@garfield.UUCP (David Janes) writes: >In article <695@unm-la.UUCP> jay@unm-la.UUCP (Jay Plett) writes: >| 100%-|- >| | - >| | - VMS >| | + Ultrix >| | + >| 0%-|+________________________________________________________ >| | >| 1988 > >This is obviously a plot by DEC. > Actually not, Last year Digital spent more on Ultrix development than they did on VMS. They really no longer have a choice, UNIX is pushing VMS out of the market place and Digital sees the light at the end of tunnel. Despite what the VMS defenders like to say, RISC is here and VMS is not projected to be compatible across this architecture. If this is true (I have heard this from a couple of different source, none at DEC though) Digital is faced with a choice of maintaining PDP and MICROVAX technology (which even by todays standards is very expensive compared to the power you get with it) or going to new technology which will largely mean the abandonment of VMS and any VMS services that can not be supported under Ultrix. Now as I have said, I have heard this from a couple of different sources and since I am in the process of planning equipment purchases for the next two to three years I would like to know if it is a valid assessment of VMS's future. -- | Henry L. Tilley UUCP: {cbosgd|uunet}!ukma!ukecc!lynn | University of Kentucky CSNET: lynn@engr.uky.edu V Engineering Computer Center BITNET: lynn%ukecc.uucp@ukma O voice: (606) 257-1752 ARPANET: lynn@a.ecc.engr.uky.edu