Conference 7.286::digital

    time will tell...
    
    We'll show 'em.
    
    gil
    

    I this person .0 _really_ knows what calendar 1993 is going to be like
    for Digital and the rest of the computer industry, we ought to hire him
    or her.
    
    Unfortunately, nothing is certain, and Alpha may be a significant
    contributor to Digital's profitability to our joy and the
    disappointment of our competition.
    
    It's the nature of the medium that negative news gets on the air.

    
    Re .0
    
    >I heard on CNN this morning that DEC may be heading "south" at a 90
    >degree angle due to Wall Street's concerns that although DEC annouced
    >its intention to introduce its new ALPHA chip
    
    But the DEC stock still climbing - DEC 40 5/8, change +0 3/4 as of
    13:20.
    
    Kevin
    

    My experience (I work with customer migration to Alpha) is that
    the folks are in for a big surprize. I've heard only praise and 
    impressed CSO's for the last six months. 
    
    John

    
    	re .4...I share your sentiments 100%. I'm involved in Alpha
    	training, and I agree that the new products are *very*
    	impressive.
    
    	In response to .0, I contend that if we were able to replace
    	our existing VAX base with Alphas by 1994, it will be a major
    	achievement in itself, if only due to the thousands of VAXEN
    	in the world today. Just think..we still have many, many PDP-11s
    	out there on customer sites that have no intention of switching
    	to VAX. 
    
    	And just who is setting this goal for our corporation, anyway?
    	Wall St.? CNN?
    
    	John

    re .4 and .5 - I agree mostly.  The Alpha news is *all* good.  Don't
    let CNN or anybody else tell you different.
    
    But don't expect Alpha products to replace VAX/MIPS products for a
    couple years, and certainly not on day 1.  But that is OK and certainly
    not a surprise - the plan has always been for a gradual transition over
    a couple years.  And we have been telling the world this for several
    months.  a public schedule for alpha layered products is available to 
    anyone who wants it.  It goes out to 1994.  And I'll bet the PR people 
    sent it to the press - I'll bet even CNN got a copy!
    
    So why is this bad news when CNN broadcasts it?  And why do we let the
    world believe that Alpha is all we have to offer?  Check the pricing on
    those VAX systems - you'll find their price/performance ratios are
    right in line.  No more 300% penalties.  And you can buy a 30+ SPECmark
    VAXstation for your desktop now!  And our MIPS stuff also still has
    some life left in it.  These are not SPECmark performance leaders, but
    they are on the curve.  And our storage stuff, get this - we have third
    parties buying storage from us and reselling to end users!  How's that
    for a turnaround?
    
    If we fail to sell what we have *today*, we won't survive for Alpha. We
    need to sell today's products to solve today's problems.  We have good
    products today.  And upgrades are available from just about every VAX
    and MIPS product I can think of to Alpha.  
    
    The story goes like this:  Alpha is a great thing, it's on schedule,
    and it will blow away the competetion.  But it won't have everything
    day 1. Meanwhile, customers have problems to solve right now, *today*. 
    So buy the VAX or MIPS product that makes most sense today and put the 
    appropriate alpha upgrade in the deal for the future.  This gets a
    working solution in the customers' hands today, money in our pockets
    today, and customer investment protection for the future.  Everyone
    wins.
    
    Ok, I'll stop gushing and cheerleading.  The part numbers and tools are 
    out there - let's use 'em!
    
    - Greg Scott

	Hmmmmmm,

	The preceding Alpha "happy talk" sounds remarkably similar
	to all the horn-blowing and flag-waving that preceded the
	introduction of a certain "mainframe-class" VAX.

	Said VAX is now an embarrassment, and haunts the careers of
	the folks involved with it.

	I really hate the possibility that we're hanging our entire
	future on a chip design that isn't being made in quantity, yet.

	Can you image HP or IBM believing that their futures were
	dependent on the XYZ chip ?

	Better be good -- real good.

	Steve H

RE: .7

IBM did just that in 1964, although it was a cabinet back then, not
a chip.  HP did it just 2 years ago (with the Snake).

--PSW

    re .7
    
    though we bet the bank on aquarius, it was a disaster from day one -
    looong before we announced it.  always late and over budget, major
    changes to the hardware every few months, and all the technology had to
    be developed for the design.
    
    alpha (the chip, not the whole systems) has been ahead of time and
    under budget.  the design used existing chip technology - most of the
    i.c. stuff has been around labs for 5+ years (early eighties).  it may
    still need refining, but it looks to ME (a lowly lab grunt) like alpha
    is TODAY where aquarius was around FRS.
    
    lee

    
    
      Re .9 
    
       Alpha has been ahead of schedule and is under budget, and a lot
    of that is because of our new CEO, Mr. Palmer. This to me is another
    good sign.
    
    
    

    You know we have something hot, when the likes of Intel and HP start to
    denigrate it ("Anybody can make a few fast chips").  The technology is
    superb.  The "only" questions are our survival to take advantage of it,
    and our ability to package and market it successfully.
    
    re .9
    
    Lee, if you are a typical "lowly lab grunt", I'll have to spend more
    time cruising the labs. -).  Good luck down there.
    
    Tony

    alpha *is* hot.  this technology has been around, but NO ONE else is
    shipping it - at least not in the chips i've seen in SBO (we support
    external ic acquisition for all of manufacturing).  i don't know what
    you've seen of hp, but the one i got a peep at last year didn't excite
    me much.  hudson's stuff is *good*.  sure hope the systems are equally
    good.
    
    re .11 "lab grunt"
    
    aw shucks...  actually, i meant that; lab folks see only a teeeny tiny
    part of the picture.  just because what *i've* seen is to rave about
    doesn't mean there aren't heavy-duty problems at the systems level. 
    
    those things usually have symptoms, though.  remember when folks with
    aquarius charge numbers bragged about their ability to hire/buy
    anything they wanted?  they still got it wrong (imho).  the alpha folks
    seem to be focussed on the right stuff and that makes me hopeful.
    
    lt

	The thing is, what are we going to do with the chip? Are we going to
	simply sell chips, like Intel? If so, we have have to stop making 
	boxes. You don't see Intel making boxes, if they did, would 
	anyone else would be buying their chip to make boxes out of?
	They'd be in competition with Intel, and who do you think Intel
	will give best prices, support etc, to, the Intel division that makes
	boxes, or some competitor making boxes? Didn't SUN try selling
	chips that they also used to make boxes? How did they do?

	It's like when Burger King stopped selling Pepsi, because Pepsi
	also owned competitors to BK (KFC, Pizza Hut, etc). Companies
	don't like to use competitors as suppliers.

	So I don't think we'll be very successful selling Alpha chips
	for other companies to make boxes with, as long as we are also
	trying to make boxes with them.

					Tom_K

    Intel *does* make boxes.  Lots of 'em.
    
    Our 400st line is one example.
    
    Mark.

	See what happens when a software person sticks his nose into
	hardware... Thanks for the info.

	Does Intel make boxes that say "Intel" on them?

					Tom_K

Well, we know they make 'em that say "Intel Inside".

I kinda like "Alpha on-board", or maybe "Alpha on DEC" (but that might be
stretching things, and probably violates that policy whatever it was).

--Scott

    re .13
    "Are we going to simply sell chips, like Intel?"
    Have you checked into who makes DECs personal computers? (Tandy and ??)
    
    The real challenge, IMHO, is whether DEC can get decent yields in their
    semiconductor fabrication.  If we can crank out the Alpha chips at a
    good rate, we will do well.  If we can't then our customers (end-user
    and repackagers) will be very frustrated and how wonderful the chip is
    will not matter as much.  We would do well to learn from similar
    situations in Apple (when the "low cost" macs were in such short
    supply) and others.  Hopefully the loud noises we are making about the
    Alpha ready computers and upgrade paths will keep us out of the Adam
    Osborne syndrome.
    

    ....pssst, hey wanna buy some good PWB's to go with that chip?
    
    Sdp

    RE: .0, and others.....

    Don't EVER believe that Wall St, investment analysts, or news people 
have any interest in our company OTHER than to make money off off us....

    Wall st and the investors have a traditionally and typically VERY short 
view of our financial picture and no interest in us unless they can buy and 
sell our stock at a profit very quickly. They could care less what we do 
with Alpha and anything else otherwise. And they understand the business 
(typically) enough to do only that.....

    CNN and other news media could care less how we do financially unless 
it is intereting enough to report ahead of the rest of the news media. Then 
they can say "you heard it here on W<mumble> first!" so they can sell more 
advertising and get more revenue. When was the last time you heard any 
media put it on the front page or lead story at 11 that they made a mistake 
on a newstory? 

    Go with our own opinions and, more importantly, the opinions of our 
customers, and business partnerships. They are all impressed with Alpha. 
Lets hope all of Digital can get behind it and make it the success it 
should be!

    	Vic

Re: .19:

>> CNN .... could care less ....
            ^^^^^

Argghhhh!  This has to be the most MIS-USED PHRASE in English.  The correct 
phrase is 

	"<Someone>  couldN'T care less" 
                         ^^^
- ie, they are already at the lowest possible level of caring.

Next in line is "Irregardless" (a non-existant word).  The right term is 
"Irrespective".

Nits for the day.

    <<< Note 2020.20 by GANTRY::HULL "Digital Services Delivery - Motown" >>>

>Argghhhh!  This has to be the most MIS-USED PHRASE in English.  The correct 
>phrase is 
    
    1. "Mis-use" (sic) has no hyphen.  The correct spelling is misuse.
    
    2. The word "English" as a noun refers to a person from England. 
    
    Mark.
    

    re .21
    
>    2. The word "English" as a noun refers to a person from England. 
    
    This is a legitimate meaning, but from the context of .20 it is quite
    clear that he meant the English language.

>2. The word "English" as a noun refers to a person from England. 

"English" is an adjective.    

As an adjective, it indicates that the affected noun refers to something
from or relating to England.

When used to refer to the language, the complete phrase is "English language"
where it is still an adjective. Most people drop the word "language" and
everybody knows what they are talking about.

    Besides, he probably meant the "American English language".
    
    JK (Abused I may be, mis-used I'm not!!) (-:

Well really it is the Modern English which spawned from Middle English
which came from the combination of Danish,Celtic,French and Latin influences
on the Anglo-Saxon family of languaged which are based on the Germanic Tree
of the indo-European family of languages which some postulate arising from 
the Nostratic family of languages which evolved from the Proto-Nostratic
language which was once removed from the Base Language spoken by the first
speaking Homo-Sapiens.

re .-1

Far out, man.

	Re .19
>>	Next in line is "Irregardless" (a non-existant word)

	You really asked for this.  `Non-existant' is non-existent.

    re: .19
    
    "Irregardless" is listed in some American dictionaries.  I had a
    friend from Pennsylvania (where the word seemed quite popular) who *HATED* 
    the term.  He was quite upset when he found it listed in a dictionary 
    (with a notation that its usage was regional).
    
    -- Russ

    Re: .-1

    A debate has raged in various notes conferences concerning
    dictionaries, the words they list, and whether a word is "proper" by
    virtue of being listed.  There are two basic camps: those which
    "prescribe" how the language should be; and those which "describe" how
    the language is.  Most dictionaries are taking the "describe" approach,
    although some of them have "usage panels" to help indicate how educated
    and learned people use the language.  There is little point in claiming
    that "irregardless" isn't a word, but "regardless" will be preferred by
    those usage panels over "irregardless".  Decide for yourself whether
    you want to sound literate or illiterate.

> - ie, they are already at the lowest possible level of caring.

	What does "ie" mean?  How do you pronounce it?  Are you
	possibly confusing it with "i.e.," the abbreviation for
	"id est," the Latin for "that is"?  

	If you're going to use Latin abbreviations in your prose,
	I would strongly urge you to get them correct.

	See you in JOYOFLEX,

		-- Cliff

    re: "What does "ie" mean?
    
    It's a Latin scream of pain, pronounced "IIIIEEEE!!".  Its proper
    usage is that when you are pinched, er, tapped on the shoulder,
    you may scream "ie".
    
    Unlike its lookalike "i.e." (that is), "ie" means "I am gone".
    
    Chris

If memory serves, the "I could care less" form derives from Yiddish usage 
where such inversions are often used for emphasis, as in "So, I could 
care less?"

\dave

Idioms don't necessarily make sense.

Sentences are not equations.

"I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are fully equivalent.

    ref .-1
    
>"I could care less" and "I couldn't care less" are fully equivalent.
    
    I bet you can't proof this?
    
    /Nasser
    I spell checked
    

    Sorry to add to the rathole but I looked up "could care less," and
    "couldn't care less;" in "Webster's Dictionary of English Usage." and
    there is almost two full columns on the subject.  The upshot of it all
    is that "couldn't care less" is an older expression.  Showing up around
    1945.  "Could care less," showed up around the late '50's.  They mean
    the same thing; however, "could care less" is used in spoken English
    than, "couldn't care less" which is used more in written English.
    
    We also have ravel/unravel, can but/cannot but,
    flammable/inflammable........and the list goes on.....
    
    Now back to the regularly scheduled topic.
    
    
    DAR

     All this poop, and I still couldn't POSSIBLY care less.

                                     GB

    Since people seem to be having trouble sticking to the topic of this
    note, I'm write-locking it for a few days.
    
    Bob - CO-moderator DIGITAL