| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1834.1 | SoftWindows 95 on Digital UNIX | WTRSKR::cardos | Dave Cardos | Thu Mar 20 1997 08:51 | 2 |
| It will also be available on SUN, HP, and IBM shortly, BUT
Insignia has no plans to put the SoftWindows 95 product on Digital UNIX.
|
| 1834.2 | heard the same no port | BUSY::LEON | | Fri Mar 21 1997 09:41 | 6 |
|
yes I got mail from insignia saying the same thing...
thanks
-leon
|
| 1834.3 | frustration at our lack of success | CHEFS::KERRISON_G | Let the skunk drink the Martini! | Tue Mar 25 1997 07:14 | 23 |
|
Oh deep joy!
again Digital UNIX gets the good deal (NOT!)
it seems that either we get things late OR we just don't get them!
absolutely brilliant. Who do we congratulate for working closely
with Insignia and developing the relationship and convincing them
just how superb Digital UNIX is?
"cost and market considerations lead us to dissolve the plans for
an upgrade"
so THEY obviously believe Gartner!! pah!
yours disgustedly
Gary
|
| 1834.4 | | NPSS::NEWTON | Thomas Newton | Thu Apr 03 1997 23:07 | 21 |
| > Oh deep joy!
>
> again Digital UNIX gets the good deal (NOT!)
>
> it seems that either we get things late OR we just don't get them!
Two modest suggestions:
1. Hold your nose, and pay Insignia to do the port.
2. Merge Digital Unix technology/features into Rhapsody, so the product
we call "Digital Unix" becomes just Rhapsody for Alpha or a superset.
Push the 21164PC for future Macs as well as for NT boxes, signing up
Apple (desktops), Motorola (desktops, chips), and others.
Then any program that is written for Apple's Rhapsody/Alpha desktops
would run on our Digital Unix/Alpha workstations and servers, making
our customers' lives, and our sales, a lot easier.
Wouldn't it be nice if Sun, HP, etc. were wondering "why we got the
good deal (NOT!)"?
|
| 1834.5 | Merging with vapor on vapor ? | KAMPUS::NEIDECKER | EUROMEDIA: Distributed Multimedia Archives | Fri Apr 04 1997 01:37 | 6 |
| Re. .4:
"any program that is written for Apple's Rhapsody/Alpha desktops"
Did I sleep ? Did you fall for an April's fool joke ?
|
| 1834.6 | | NPSS::NEWTON | Thomas Newton | Sat Apr 05 1997 05:11 | 27 |
| Re: .5:
> Did I sleep ? Did you fall for an April's fool joke ?
No, you just quoted that phrase out of context. It presumed some sort
of business deal that would result in Apple making said desktops.
> Merging with vapor on vapor ?
Neither MacOS or NeXTstep (the two operating systems on which Rhapsody
will be based) are vapor. And I hope you're not referring to Alpha as
vapor!
There is every reason to believe that the Yellow Box environment which
will run "new" Macintosh programs can be ported to Alpha, if Apple can
be convinced that it is in their best interest to do so. They already
plan to provide this environment for Intel and PowerPC.
Even the Blue Box could probably be made to run on Alpha (with PowerPC
emulation) if there was the corporate will to make it happen.
But we keep putting down anything that was NIH (other than Windows NT).
Frankly, I think Apple can afford to ignore the Alpha more than we can
afford to miss an opportunity to attract mass-market sales (or to give
our workstation/server customers a way to run mass-market software).
Not that I think Digital will take my suggestion. But one can dream.
|
| 1834.7 | Focus | KAMPUS::NEIDECKER | EUROMEDIA: Distributed Multimedia Archives | Mon Apr 07 1997 04:23 | 12 |
| Ok, I misunderstood that you were supposing a business deal.
Vapor: I meant Rhapsody. Just because the parts exist doesn't imply
the whole thing can be pulled off working together in time.
And sure, stuff could be ported. But do you think adding yet another
operating system would help us ? We are spreading thin as it is.
Better get the one-dozen applications that you need to crack
the high-end of the Mac market native to Alpha-NT (4-5 from Adobe,
2 from Quark and a few singletons from the rest) and you have the
same effect.
|
| 1834.8 | | NPSS::NEWTON | Thomas Newton | Mon Apr 07 1997 17:58 | 26 |
|
> But do you think adding yet another operating system would help us ?
> We are spreading thin as it is.
I'm not talking about adding another one. The final Digital Unix on
Rhapsody product would replace today's Digital Unix.
> Better get the one-dozen applications that you need to crack
> the high-end of the Mac market native to Alpha-NT (4-5 from Adobe,
> 2 from Quark and a few singletons from the rest) and you have the
> same effect.
This thread started with the difficulty of attracting applications -
such as SoftWindows95 - to Digital Unix. Paying the vendors to port
a dozen Macintosh applications will make only 12 programs available,
and most of these will probably soon fall behind the Mac and Windows
counterparts due to the low volume of the Digital Unix platform.
Making the platform compatible with future Macintoshes may be harder
but is a much bigger win - a successful mass-market platform such as
Windows95 or MacOS will attract thousands of shrink-wrapped programs
without the platform vendor having to pay the software vendors.
If we don't think this way about Windows, why did we spend on Alpha-
NT and FX!32, instead of just paying to port 12 Windows applications
to OpenVMS and Digital Unix?
|
| 1834.9 | Digital Unix ? OpenVMS ? Desktop Volume ? | KAMPUS::NEIDECKER | EUROMEDIA: Distributed Multimedia Archives | Tue Apr 08 1997 02:35 | 37 |
| > The final Digital Unix on
> Rhapsody product would replace today's Digital Unix.
Uh-oh. I have a hard time to see that a desktop, small-system
centric design (Rhapsody) would do well with the kind of server
sizes that we are shooting for (like Wildfire).
> instead of just paying to port 12 Windows applications
> to OpenVMS and Digital Unix
You misunderstood me. I was saying that to wipe Apple out we need
to get about a dozen Apple-core-applications native onto Alpha/NT.
That, combined with a hopefully successfully executed strategy of
Alpha/NT boxes at a good price and performance would achieve the
same volume effect for Alpha.
> This thread started with the difficulty of attracting applications -
> such as SoftWindows95to Digital Unix
I don't think of Softwindows as an application. Digital Unix on the
desktop as a mass market OS was never really an option and we've done
everything in the past few years to make sure that it never happened.
It never will (believe me, I'm one of the reviewers of the corporate
tech-strategy) and Apple also isn't interested in even getting a
clean, robust RISC-Mach-kernel from us (we asked people in their
engineering organization after the Copland disaster). They felt it
would kill them and most likely it will.
Apple is facing to get all of it's ISV's to write to new interfaces
(for optimal performance). A lot of these ISV's will think twice at
that point whether they shouldn't also offer their stuff on NT at that
point (partial rewrite required anyway). Capturing them at that point
should be much easier for us than first developing an unknown new
operating system/API (Rhapsody) and then still be binary incompatible
with the mainstream base platform of that OS (PowerPC). Thank you,
we've been in that situation long enough relative to Intel/NT.
|
| 1834.10 | This says it all | NPSS::NEWTON | Thomas Newton | Tue Apr 08 1997 14:28 | 8 |
|
> I don't think of Softwindows as an application. Digital Unix on the
> desktop as a mass market OS was never really an option and we've done
> ----------
> everything in the past few years to make sure that it never happened.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> It never will (believe me, I'm one of the reviewers of the corporate
> tech-strategy)
|