Conference 7.286::digital

    
.0>    In any case, the numbers look very good.
    
    Some number look good -- other don't.
    
    				1993		1994		% change
         			-----------------------------------------
    Mainframe VAX 8/9/10000	5		0		-100
    Midrange VAX 6000/7000	1,225		650		-47
    VAX 3000/4000		1250		700		-44
    Alpha Systems		200		925		+363
    MIPS-based Workstations	1,200		550		-54
    PCs				798		1,552		+94
    Hard Drives and network hw	1,510		1,200		-21
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    totals                      6188            5577            -10
    

	InfoServers are currently VAX-based.  We come under the "network hw"
catagory. ;-)

						--Doug

  I read somewhere that the PRC was buying a ton of MIPS based systems due
  to Alpha import restrictions maybe thats whats keeping the
  DECsystem/Ultrix business up.

    re: .2's "-10" in the % columns.
    
    Please don't average percentages...  Besides being meaningless,
    it makes me grind my teeth.  :-)
    
    ed

    re: .1's "-10" in the % columns.
    
    Please don't add or average percentages...  Besides being meaningless,
    it makes me grind my teeth.  :-)
    
    ed

>    re: .1's "-10" in the % columns.
>    
>    Please don't add or average percentages...  Besides being meaningless,
>    it makes me grind my teeth.  :-)
    
Averaging the percentages would have given +27%.  -10% seems to come from
a difference of the sums.  Am I missing something or what is your point?

John

    
    err.  My impression from looking at the table is that the -10% is
    obtained from the difference between the totals in column 1 and 2.
    
    I don;t see how you can interpret this any other way.  I'm sure that if
    you averaged the % column it would appear somewhat different.
    
    N.

    
    The numbers for the large systems 9000 and 10000 are off since we built
    a lot of them in June. 
    
    

 
   				1993		1994		% change
         			-----------------------------------------
    Mainframe VAX 8/9/10000	5		0		-100
    Midrange VAX 6000/7000	1,225		650		-47
    VAX 3000/4000		1250		700		-44
    Alpha Systems		200		925		+363
    MIPS-based Workstations	1,200		550		-54
    PCs				798		1,552		+94
    Hard Drives and network hw	1,510		1,200		-21

I don't have any exact numbers but I know we sold a lot of disks in 94. I
guess that we produced and shipped over billion dollars worth at CXO alone.

I also agree with the comment regaurding the Alphas not being broken out. I
was suprised by the number of DEC 10000s we sold.

>  I read somewhere that the PRC was buying a ton of MIPS based systems due
>  to Alpha import restrictions maybe thats whats keeping the
>  DECsystem/Ultrix business up.


 Worldwide News                                              LIVE WIRE
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Digital signs agreement with China National ...             Date: 05-Jul-1994
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Digital signs agreement with China National Petroleum Corp.  
 
         Digital has delivered AlphaGeneration workstations valued at $3.6
   million to the China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) and its Geophysical 
   Research Institute (GRI) in Beijing, China.  The systems will run seismic 
   processing applications.
         The agreement with CNPC also for the purchase of up to 200 
   additional Alpha AXP systems over the next two years.

...

    There are virtually NO product restrictions applicable to the PRC at
    this time - shipments still have to be licensed but the recent change
    in PDR restrictions means that Digital can sell and ship its entire
    range of products in the PRC.
    
     

    >  I read somewhere that the PRC was buying a ton of MIPS based systems
    >  due to Alpha import restrictions maybe thats whats keeping the
    >  DECsystem/Ultrix business up.
    
    And according to Digital Today, we sold more Alphas (600+) to China
    than to any other Asian country in Q3.  
    

    MY POINT was that doing any kind of arithmetic on percentages is
    a meaningless operation.  It makes it easy to select numbers of
    interest and then produce any kind of statistical lie desired.
    -- not unlike the original bit about breaking the VAX business
    into parts and showing 4 or 5 declining business segments and
    2 increasing.
    
    ed

    
    The assumption that arithmetic was done on the percentages is invalid.
    
    (5577-6188)/6188 = -0.0987394957983 ~= -10%
    
    The point of .1 was that the statement "the numbers look very good" in
    .0 is true only for a carefully selected subset of the numbers provided,
    and would appear to be false in the aggregate.
    

    I see...

    RE: .1
    
    The numbers look good because they are basically according to game
    plan.  I expect Alpha sales to be doing well and VAX sales to be on the
    decline.  It shows that our Alpha systems are being accepted into the
    marketplace.  I doubt we had such numbers on the MIPS systems at this
    point in the product lifecycle.  Also, storage and networking products
    are over a billion (although I would really doubt they are doing as
    poorly as the chart states...  they are selling well).  PCs are
    certainly taking off after only two years of our own manufacturing... 
    this number too looks very good.
    
    The negative numbers on mainframe VAXes are to be expected:  I don't
    even think we are manufacturing some of those systems anymore.  The
    main cause for concern is that we are shrinking rapidly in the non-PC
    systems business.  In 1993, we accounted for $3880M compared to 1994 at
    $2825M for a -27% drop.  However, we are selling many more PCs than
    ever before.  If you include PCs we only dropped 6%.  This demonstrates
    the market's move toward higher volumes of smaller systems on the desk. 
    We are quickly becoming a PC driven company.  I agree that the storage
    and networking number may be off.  StorageWorks is a very competitive
    product and may be helping us get into accounts that have never been
    ours before (SUN, Novell), and will act as an entry into system sales. 
    I expect to see the effect in this next fiscal year.  We can also
    expect a distinct downward trend in service dollars as our VAX sales
    wane.  Alpha comes with 3 year warranties, as do our PCs:  no longer is
    there standard and list pricing.
    
    Although we are shrinking as a large systems company, I tend to doubt
    we are losing footprint.  Our Alpha systems (and even our VAX systems)
    are seriously lower in price than the systems we sold a year ago.  I
    don't have accurate figures, but it may account for the full 27% and a
    bit more.  If it is more than 27% we are growing.  Anything over about
    12% would be fantastic considering our rise in PC sales.
    
    In the final analysis, these numbers demonstrate a company that is
    meeting the trend toward smaller systems.  This is quite remarkable
    considering our initial reluctance and late entry into this business. 
    I would be very scared if our mainframe VAX business was growing and
    our PCs only grew by 5 or 6 percent.  These numbers demonstrate a
    company that is much more focused in its approach to the market.  If
    we sell off some pieces that do not represent potential growth segments
    or compliment the enterprise desktop system user (Rdb and other
    enterprise/mainframe type software, much of consulting, network
    cabling, legacy storage devices, etc.), we can become an $11billion
    company with about 50K employees that are aggressive, well poised for
    the future, and very profitable ($220K/employee).  
    
    It is important to understand, however, that there are only two
    companies in our industry showing a return on shares:  Hewlett-Packard
    and Compaq.  Compaq is exclusively focused on the desktop system
    although they are most likely to include networking in their portfolio. 
    They have no enterprise offerings.  HP has a multi-billion dollar laser
    printer line that helps them with the desktop, but they are otherwise
    as scattered with their product offerings as we are.  As attacks come
    hard against that printer line this next year or two and their systems
    begin to lose steam (move to 64-bit), they will have to go through
    similar changes to our experience today.
    
    Obviously, this is not the end of the computer industry.  We are
    hitting a plateau.  Some will survive, others won't.  We are well
    positioned to see what is on the other side.
    
    ..Larry   

    RE .16
    
    Larry,
    
    Take a look at the current business week featuring Compaq (in addition
    to another article on Digital) and check out their current products and
    strategies before saying they're only on the desktop "and don't offer
    enterprise systems".  They (and MANY customers) think that dual PEntium
    system, rack-mounted with ~4 systems per cab at a cost of $100k
    qualifies more as am "enterprise" or server system (supporting
    2000-node LANs with file, print and application services running NW and
    NT and OS/2) than a "desktop.
    
    Just my .02

    Hmmm, if production systems need to be told 3 times that 10% is
    obtained by dividing the difference between two numbers by the original
    number then i have grave doubts about at least one area of this
    company.
    
    N.

    re: .17
    
    I saw the article.  It said they were "planning" to get into networking
    products.  Microsoft also says dual hundreds of Intel servers tied
    together will replace current enterprise systems.  I don't buy it. 
    Imagine showing two pictures to your customer:  one has 100 rackmounted
    dual Pentium servers all over the room with cables galore; The second
    picture depicts two or three slightly larger machines also in a
    rackmount (maybe three Sables rackmounted).  Which is going to appear
    as the simpler solution?  Which is going to appear the most secure? 
    Which is going to appear to be the easiest to track down and fix a
    failure?  Which is going to be the easier and more cost efficient to
    manage?  PCs offer a great deal, but they are not ready for supporting
    the enterprise in mission-critical computing.  They don't even have
    most of the applications ready to run.  They have other apps, but not
    the more sophisticated MRP, robotic, etc., types of applications ready
    to go.  Even if they are competitive on the $ side, the systems will
    inevitably require much more time and people power to manage, much less
    the cost of downtime.  Maybe in a decade or so.
    
    ..Larry

    >Even if they are competitive on the $ side, the systems will
    >inevitably require much more time and people power to manage, much less
    >the cost of downtime.  Maybe in a decade or so.
    
    This is the same idealogy that Ken Olsen had and caused us to miss the
    PC boat the first time around.  You're wrong.  The dual pentium systems
    from Compaq are already competing very effectively with our AXP servers.
    They are less expensive, and everyone knows they'll still be compatible
    in a decade.  Our performance benefits are there, but that is not enough
    for many customers.  If it were, we wouldn't be losing money.  I only
    wish you were right.

    Cheers,
    --Dave

>    This is the same idealogy that Ken Olsen had and caused us to miss the
>    PC boat the first time around.  You're wrong.  The dual pentium systems
>    from Compaq are already competing very effectively with our AXP servers.
>    They are less expensive, and everyone knows they'll still be compatible
>    in a decade.  Our performance benefits are there, but that is not enough
>    for many customers.  
    
    Gee, maybe we should offer a Sable with a bunch of Pentiums.
    
    -Bruce

    
    	.20 makes the comment about no competent company using PCs for
    "mission Critical" applications
    
    	I regret to have to inform you that DECdirect in Europe (and soon
    to be world wide!!!) now have a system called POINT based upon a PC on
    every sales and support and Mailing List and Product Programme Manager
    and .... and .... and .... desk, through which AAAALLLL the relevant
    business of all the functions of DECdirect is/is to be routed.
    
    	This POINT system is what must be the very most user unfriendly
    system ever devised, it is also not robust giving problems of a
    business stopping level virtually daily (averaged)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    	In DECdirect Tech. Support (where I am), we have asked for dozens
    of changes to the system, mostly of a simple nature, to make the system
    even partly easier to use (things like auto-wrap on the lines as we
    create and update the product tech. info. files that come up on the
    sellers [or anyone else's screen], the ability to print the product
    tech. info. files that we create, the ability to transfer these files
    to/from other systems, etc. etc.), NOTHING has been done since the
    POINT system was imposed upon us last year (at which time we
    immediately asked for these changes)!
    
    	We are led to the conclusion that someone somewhere is in someone's
    pocket!
    
    				Malcolm.

    re .22: From what you wrote, I can't see how these problems are the
    fault of the fact that the system is PC-based. 
    
    One can write lousy software for most any system.
    
    re mission-critical:
    An awful lot of companies in the 10-500 employee range count on PCs day
    in, day out. That's a big market, and PCs are growing up from there. PC
    vendors are learning a lot about maintainability and manageability (as
    well as reliability). And they are deploying it. 
    
    Don't keep the blinders on, it might be unpleasant in the very near
    future.
    
    ...tom

    Larry-
    
    Yes, I see your point. My client just received a four sable (dual CPU)
    rack for "enterprise" applications (Oracle applications, EDI, and
    several others). Very powerful, VMScluster for
    manageability/availability. Lots of good things, and a nice sale
    (shipped on 7/3/94).
    
    Unfortunately, for two other applications needed powerful distrbuted
    systems this same client has selected ProLiants. Why? Native Netware
    for one reason (isn't that the defacto "enterprise network" standard?).
    I say unfortunately because this impacts about 40 - 50 sites in the US,
    and another ~100 sites worldwide. Sable wouldn't run the apps (yet),
    the CPQ machines start at about $10k configured, range up to about $35k
    (for dual systems, 5 - 8 GB raid storage) for the File & print servers.
    
    

      <<< Note 3232.23 by TEKVAX::KOPEC "I know what happens; I read the
    book." >>>
                                   -< not so fast.. >-
    
     >>>   re .22: From what you wrote, I can't see how these problems are the
     >>>   fault of the fact that the system is PC-based.
    
     >>>   One can write lousy software for most any system.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    	Tom, From where I stand (OK, sit) it seems to me that the general
    run of software written for PCs must come into this category.  My
    VS3100/76 seems to thunder on for ever without a hiccup, but the POINT
    PC seems like one perennial problem ....!!!!
    
    	It is so bad (and look out folks, it is coming your way too!) that
    we have come to the conclusion mentioned in .22.  Please note that this
    is an opinion, I am not trying to make that conclusion into a fact and
    risk being sued for libel!!!
    
    				Malcolm.
     

    Bill Gates, in the last satellite brodcast, repeatedly used the words
    "enterprise" and "production" and maybe once "mission critical" or was
    it "industrial strength",  to
    describe eXchange and MAPI software from Microsoft running on NT.  They
    always showed Alpha as the enterprise hardware box, but it can be any
    box that runs NT.  The message was clear!!!
    
    My reaction was "there goes the neighborhood".  One of DEC's few
    unique competencies is "production systems".  We all know that once
    Bill announces entry into a market, he has a high potential for owning
    the market, in the perception of the customers.  And perception is all
    that matters.

     >>Why? Native Netware
    
    Native Netware was scheduled to run on Sable in Q4, but Novell has
    delayed this until the Winter I believe.  I think they are leary of our
    relationship and committment to NT.
    
    Re:  The POINT system
    
    Although this may be an important system to Digital and DECdirect, I
    doubt it is mission critical or at least designed that way.  When I say
    that I doubt PCs will be used for mission critical apps, I mean I doubt
    you will see CURRENT Intel design PCs running things like the New York
    Stock Exchange, the NASA Space Shuttle, the Intel chip factories.  I
    would put money on a bet that says Intel is not using their own chips
    to run their factory floors and cell control operations.  Usually,
    silicon manufacturers use software like Consilleum and Promis which are
    mission-critical apps suited for more sophisticated chips.  If the FAB
    goes down, you are looking at about $30-$100K+/hour in losses.
    
    RE: WNT
    
    Microsoft does not even support Mission Critical computing for Windows
    NT.  They don't even know what it means.  I have a customer that is
    deeply investing in WNT.  They need mission critical support. 
    Microsoft told them they have no desire to deliver and that they should
    contact one of their service providers for NT (DEC, NCR, HP, etc). 
    With VMS, you can get a patch made within 24 hours if you buy mission
    critical support.  Digital can't deliver such patches for an operating
    system they don't own.  We can't write to the NT source code.  Unix is
    just getting into this level of computing today.  These vendors know
    what mission critical means, Microsoft does not or does and does not
    care.  Their answer is "the fix is in the next release which will be
    out [include any lie here]."  Can you imagine losing $100K/hour because
    of a system bug and the vendor tells you the fix will be out in nine
    months?  NT wants to take a chunk of the Unix and Enterprise computing,
    but they are not ready for prime time.  And furthermore, there are only
    about 700 apps running on NT.  You can forget mission critical being
    run on DOS/Windows systems.
    
    ..Larry                          

>    months?  NT wants to take a chunk of the Unix and Enterprise computing,
>    but they are not ready for prime time.  And furthermore, there are only
>    about 700 apps running on NT.  You can forget mission critical being
>    run on DOS/Windows systems.
    
    
    Couldn't agree more...
    
    What worries me is the note of arrogance I hear in these comments i.e.
    "it's not an engineered mission-critical framework so it's crap".
    
    This sounds too much like "VAX's are real computers, PC's are toys"
    that was our death-knell in the early 80's.
    
    If Bill Gates says he does enterprise, mission critical, production
    infrastructure software, then, in the minds of a huge segment of the
    market, he does, and already owns the market.
    
    The NASA's and the NYSE's may know better and stick with CICS and ACMS.
    A few customers will get burned but then they like being pioneers
    anyway.  They'll probably learn from the experience by becoming
    consultants and application developers for Microsoft.  
    The great majority will buy into Gates' strategy and by the
    time they have applications ready, Gates will have used their money to
    deliver acceptable technology (not great, just acceptable).  By that
    time the NASA's and NYSE's will have noticed that Microsoft
    mission-critical frameworks are a fraction of the cost and truly
    open...
    
    

     RE: last couple
    
    Never discount your competitor, particularly Microsoft, Intel and
    others. When you dismiss them you will find yourself out of
    business.  They have the marketing might that we lack and the
    technology is not that unreliable and getting more reliable by the
    year.  Can some of our products say that, maybe, maybe not.
    
    Digital is where it is today by dismissing PCs, software and new technology
    to save the sacred cows and I see very little evidence that things are
    changing.  Don't get me wrong, I think Digital has some of the best
    technology around today, we just don't seem to know how to capitolize
    on it.
    
    
    
    	

          What I find interesting about the numbers in .0 is that
    according to a group mtg this week we shipped 1,670 Sables in
    Q4. I think the Alpha sales figures for 94 may be closer
    to 3,000+ unless of course my mgt. is lying. 
    
    
       Bob 

    If we sold only 3000 Alphas worldwide for the quarter, that implies
    Alpha's growth has stalled, although the bigger iron Sable configs
    bring in lots of money on peripherals.  We were supposedly nearing
    50,000 shipped since Nov '92 (= 7 quarters, or about 7k/quarter avg,
    and very slow at the beginning).  The cost per box of selling those
    3k units has got to work out to something incredible.  kb  

    .30, I wonder how you came up with 3000?  Your management's claim of
    1670 sables in q4 is good news -- I think we sold them as fast as we
    could make them.  So are you perhaps assuming that sables were 1/2 our
    q4 *server* business, for 3000 servers overall?
    
    .31 I gather you are referencing note 207.4 in MR4SRV::MARKETING, which
    is an IEEE article that says we are selling somewhere between 8000 to
    15000 Alpha *workstations* per month.  The article says some negative
    things about Alpha, but it does NOT say that we are selling only 1000
    per month!
    
    Perhaps our friends in marketing will tell us the real numbers for Q4
    sometime later this month.
    
    	/john

    > would put money on a bet that says Intel is not using their own chips
    > to run their factory floors and cell control operations.  Usually,
    > silicon manufacturers use software like Consilleum and Promis which are
    >> mission-critical apps suited for more sophisticated chips.  If the FAB
    > goes down, you are looking at about $30-$100K+/hour in losses.
    
    To my mind, that should read
    " mission-critical apps suited for more sophisticated PLATFORMS"
    
    i.e., operating system combined with a robust hardware platform.  I
    hate to say this, but I suspect that a Proliant server running a
    competent Unix would probably qualify.  There is nothing inherently
    unreliable or "mickey mouse" about the Pentium chip, even if it has
    only a (significant) fraction of an Alpha CPU's performance, and Compaq
    and others are now building robust servers.
    
    Of course, I'm not sure what would constitue a competent Unix that
    runs on Intels, yet (Solaris? ha!).  Is there such a beast?

    SCO UNIX runs on Intel processors.  Indeed, it outsells every other
    UNIX on any platform.  We sell it as well.
    
    				Steve

re Note 3232.19 by DPDMAI::ROSE:

>     Imagine showing two pictures to your customer:  one has 100 rackmounted
>     dual Pentium servers all over the room with cables galore; The second
>     picture depicts two or three slightly larger machines also in a
>     rackmount (maybe three Sables rackmounted).  Which is going to appear
>     as the simpler solution?  Which is going to appear the most secure? 
>     Which is going to appear to be the easiest to track down and fix a
>     failure?  Which is going to be the easier and more cost efficient to
>     manage?  

        This brought to mind the picture of the "mail hub" at CNN
        (Cable News Network) in Atlanta which I saw a few years
        ago.  The wall had shelving with about 16 Macintoshes on it
        -- of various vintages, almost all later models of the
        one-piece classic design, almost all "retired" from office
        use, networked together and each with a 9600 baud modem
        connected to some remote CNN site.

        Customers may have a *very* different notion of simplicity
        than we have!

        Bob

>    I
>    would put money on a bet that says Intel is not using their own chips
>    to run their factory floors 
    
    You would win - they use VAX computers.
    
    Peter
    

    re .30
    
    If mfg shipped 1,670 sables in Q4, then we shipped approx. 50% of all
    sable systems certed in Q3 & Q4 total....without stating the actual
    number of orders received, you can infer from the above facts.  Given
    this number, the number of total AXP systems ordered was way over 
    3,000 in Q4....the actual number is closer to 6 times that number.
    
    Mark
    

          My error I'd flossed over the numbers in .0 so quickly I assumed
    that the numbers meant systems 93/94 rather than sales in millions :-).
    
    
    bob

    Intel uses VAXes in their chip manufacturing?
    
    There's *got* to be an ad campaign in there somewhere....

    Oh yes - how about 'Intel Inside - VAX Inhouse' or 'Intel Inside - AXP
    Outasight'

Re .34:   

>> SCO UNIX runs on Intel processors.  Indeed, it outsells every other
>> UNIX on any platform.  We sell it as well.
  
I wouldn't consider SCO UNIX for mission critical applications, either.
The latest version is better, but we still have to reboot our system too often.
(It might depend on what options are being used; it seems to have particular
trouble with TCP/IP)

    >Intel uses VAXes in their chip manufacturing?        
    
    > There's *got* to be an ad campaign in there somewhere....
    
    Great idea!  Let's really piss off one of our better and more loyal
    customers.  
    
    FYI, Intel uses Vaxes and X86 product to run their shop floor, and are
    moving towards all X86 on the factory floor.  That doesn't mean it
    can't be our boxes or we won't be a player in it.  And the $30-100K per
    hour of downtime was off.  Try ten time the number on the high end.
    
    Bruce
    Intel account rep  

    Hey Bruce,
    
    Calm down a stretch, ok?
    
    Haven't you ever seen an American Express commercial that features a
    client?  They're *extremely* amiable productions that make both
    companies look fantastic!
    
    I'm thinking something like....
    
    Intel has the defacto standard for PC processing power.  What company
    do they rely on to ensure their customers will be satisfied into the
    21st century?   Digital Equipment Corporation.
    
    Intel and Digital, technology that makes you warm and fuzzy (or some
    such tag-line with a much better oomph  ;-).
    
    I doubt that's gonna make your customer angry....
    
    Remind me to offer another suggestion - this was really fun....
    
    
    Steve

    
    When are the results due to be announced ?
    
    
    Regards 
    
    Paul

    Come to think of it, I believe Apple runs most of their
    mission-critical systems on VAX as well.  In fact, I seem to remember
    them choosing Digital for their Corporate financials even after their
    partnership was struck with IBM.  I also believe AMD uses VAXes as well
    as Dell and AST.  
    
    We may have a series of commercials to run.  ;-)
    
    ..Larry

SIEMENS is running VAXes at their medical plant in Erlangen (Germany). In fact
SIEMENS is one of our biggest customers in Germany

    re .44 the press has been saying the results will be announced July 25
    or 26th.

    Most chip manufacturers (Intel and Siemens included) use a software
    package called Workstream. This was written using VAX DBMS (now called
    DEC DBMS), and thus is tied to Digital hardware and software. I have
    heard that a version was developed using a relational database
    (Oracle?) but that it does not have the full functionality of the
    original (due to performance problems?).
    
>    FYI, Intel uses Vaxes and X86 product to run their shop floor, and are
>    moving towards all X86 on the factory floor.
    
    Is there a Workstream version or replacement that runs on x86 products?
    Since DBMS shares a lot of code with Rdb and Rdb is going to be
    available on Windows NT, it should not then be difficult to port DBMS
    to WNT, if someone were to request it.
    
    Peter
    

    Bob Palmer addressed employees here in Toronto yesterday and said July
    26 was the date. 

    re : -.1 : so what did Bob say? I am sure he must have portrayed an 
    optimistic long term future - but I am interested in knowing what 
    ifs and buts and dangers to success he may have talked about.

    I won't comment on what he said because There is a senior management 
    meeting followed by a press conference on Thursday July 14th where the 
    Reorg plan that was recently approved by the board will be announced 
    publicly. He gave no details but dropped some hints and I don't want to
    steal any of his thunder.
    

    He was here in Ottawa yesterday. I was impressed by his style, sort of
    one of the guys shooting from the hip. Not like the videos I had
    previously seen. It's interesting to note his phraseology as well;
    although he emphasizess he tries not to take the job and himself too
    seriously, he does personalize his activities ("*I* am doing this"
    instead of "*we* are doing this").
    
    

    Re: .52 
    
    > ... sort of one of the guys shooting from the hip.
    
    Did he hit anyone?
    
    Is this a new way to avoid paying TFSO packages? 
    
    Wouldn't you rather see someone taking careful aim than loosing off
    random shots?
    
    :-)

    re: -.1 Good god man get a grip. Haven't you ever heard of that
    expression before, you know shoot from the hip, say what's on your
    mind, that sort of thing...
    
    Jim 8*)

    Version 6 of Workstream on VMS(VAX or AXP I think) will use RDB. The
    current version still uses DBMS. They do have a product called RTR
    (real time reporting) that loads an RDB database with the same data
    that is in the DBMS database. As the name says this RDB database is for
    reporting only.  RTR was paid for by Semitech(a nonprofit US
    semiconductor industry and US government sponsored organization for 
    the advancement of US semiconductor manufacturing). Intel was very
    involved in pushing for the development of RTR, so I believe they don't
    have plans to move away from a VMS system running their shopfloor
    control software.

    Consilium has this DFS idea that will modularize Workstream
    (application and database). HP is kind of pushing for this and made
    some marketing agreement with them to have exclusive right to market
    this new product in Japan.  For this reason, this product will be based
    on HP systems using informix as the database.

    I have not heard of any migration plans to X86.

    -Bruce   

    I don't think the 18th/21st DVN has anything to do with this, it's a
    product announcement isn't it?
    
    As has been pointed out elsewhere you can't pre-announce something like
    this, insider trading rules and all. I think this has been handled
    quite well. At the same moment Bob started presenting to management the
    text was posted to livewire, he'll walk directly from the management
    meeting to the press conference. Due to the timing of this it won't
    make the papers until tomorrow AM so we have a little advance warning
    before most customers will see it (a few will get it electronically).
    
    Gotta dash now but as soon as I get a chance I'll post more about Bob's
    talk, he did say more than what was announced.

    Well, I got a mail from the UK boss (Chris Conway) with some info in
    it. I cannot repost it (I'm not sure I'm allowed to) but you should all
    have got it by now (it was sent to allUK employees)
    
    Alan

>         That's a good goal.  I've done enough DBMS --> Rdb
>         conversions (one) to know better than to say it would be
>         easy.  Should be doable, though.
    
    I was thinking of a port of DBMS to WNT, but if Workstream is being
    ported to Rdb anyway, then it would not be necessary.
    
    Peter