Conference 7.286::digital

    Re: .0
    
    When you find out, please let me know!

    I thought the terms PMAX and PVAX were internal "code" words only and
    that the marketing name, and hence the name known by customers, is the
    DECstation 3100 and the VAXstation 3100. Don't practically all the CPUs
    have internal code words like Firefox, Nautilus, etc. before they are
    given an "official" name? And aren't those name supposed to be
    "internal use only"?
    
    I'm glad the DECstation's don't have the characters "VAX" in them
    somewhere - that would be *really* misleading. Isn't that the
    distinction between the DECstation and the VAXstation - the latter
    conforms to the VAX architecture, the former doesn't?
    
    -Glenn-

    Yes - but why DECstation and VAXstation with the same numbers?
    This is confusing.
    
    

    I am wondering why there is always an internal name and a market
    name for each computer we produce.  Is there any advantage of doing
    this?
    
    Eugene

    Re:.4
    Sure there's a reason.  Internal names are used during development,
    so developers can know what they're talking about.  (Hey Joe, how's
    the power supply for the XLAX coming along?)  Marketing names are
    made up at the last minute, for market-specific reasons.
    
    Or in the topic case, for inadequate reasons.

    re -1
    
    Thanks for the reply, but I am still wondering why not give the
    product the marketing name to begin with.
                                                                   
    Eugene

    The reason you don't give it the market name right away is because
    the marketing name is never ever decided until just before
    announcement. You can't wait until a name is picked before you
    start development.
    
    			Alfred

Internal names have occasionally been changed during development to slow the
flow of useful proprietary information out of the company.  So it can be a good
thing for internal names to be devised with the expectation that they may change
before the product is shipped.  For instance, "Tenex" => "SNARK"  => "KRANS" => ...
=> "Tops-20.  (And some customers call it "Twenex" anyhow after all that).

Now, changing a product's name may not be an effective way to confuse outsiders
who have been leaked information.  But it seems to work well in confusing people
in-house.
				/AHM
P. S.  Besides, the marketeers come out of the woodwork at the last minute and
try to change the name anyhow.  So why invest a lot of time naming something
the "DECSYSTEM-2080", when you just know some lame committee's going to rename
it to "DECSYSTEM-4050" later on anyhow?

    There's been some discussion of the various 3100s in the
    ASIMOV::MARKETING conference - you may want to look over there for
    some various takes on the subject.
    
    Unfortunately, it seems that due to various trademark considerations,
    our "external" product names end up as minor variations on a boring
    theme.  But I do agree that having two 3100s launched simultaneously
    has got to be one of the dumbest things we've done in a long time...
    
    				Steve

Re: .9 Steve

>    But I do agree that having two 3100s launched simultaneously
>    has got to be one of the dumbest things we've done in a long time...
    
"One" product for the price of two!

				-- Bob

    Seems ok to me.  Both P%AX products occupy a similar slot in
    a range of products.  The PMAX is at the moment the sole occupant
    of its range, but it would be a foolish person who figured that
    the PMAX would be the only RISC machine that DEC will ever build.
    
    The real mistake was in calling it a "DECstation". Yecch, what a nasty
    name.

    
    And don't forget the DECsystem 3100, coming soon to a theatre near you!

>    < Note 758.12 by VMSINT::BOUCHARD >
>    
>    And don't forget the DECsystem 3100, coming soon to a theatre near you!

    What?  Please don't add to the confusion...
    
    Think of the problems we, here at the CSC, might experience with
    our niave customer base:
    
    Cust:  "I'm having hardware problems with my 3100."
    Me:    "Is this a VAXstation 3100 or a DECstation 3100?"
    Cust:  "I don't know, I'm not near the system."
    Me:    "What does it look like?"
    Cust:  "Well, it's a small box that sits on my desk.  It has an
            external hard disk."
    Me:    "Hmm, what software does it run?"
    Cust:  "DECwindows.  Oh, it runs Ultrix.  Does this help?"
    Me:    "Would you mind holding?" <hold> 
           "Aaaaargh!"

-Andy

       
       
       	Remember, the people who gave you this wonderful situation are
       	also the same ones "Providing direction for the Corporation!".
       	(Ref: Alice in DigitalLand)
       
       	Sigh.. I'd like to choke the boob who did this one..
       
       						mike

    Probably a room full of boobs and boobettes....AKA a committee...
    

    .11:
    
�    The real mistake was in calling it a "DECstation". Yecch, what a nasty
�    name.
    
    Them's fightin' words!
    
    Dick (who grew up using a number of DECsystem10's)
    

    I can't give the official answer, but having been briefly involved
    with the PMAX, I have some ideas about what happened with the names.
    
    First of all the PMAX is not VAX architecture and so it couldn't
    be called a VAX-something. I would guess that performance between a PVAX and
    PMAX *does* differ in that RISC technology is supposed to have better
    performance than our VAX systems. 
    
    I would guess that the numbers are the same because the external
    hardware is exactly the same. Absolutely no difference in appearance.
    Product Mananagement was having a hard time with coming up with
    a name...I was working on the project about 2 months before product
    ship and they were still debating...at one time, they thought of
    the DECstation 3100R (R for "RISC" ?). I think we documentation
    folks got impatient and demanded that a name be chosen. And the
    big debate was that people would get confused between VAXstations
    and DECstations....
    
    Actually, I like DECstation 3100. It still implies a "workstation"
    type of equipment but makes it clear that this is not a VAX machine.
    
    Joan G
    
    
    
    

>    First of all the PMAX is not VAX architecture and so it couldn't
>    be called a VAX-something.

They could have called it a VAXmate-3100.
				/AHM

    
    
    Well if we're giving our votes, I think it should have been
    called a MIPstation 30000.  From there you could have 
    MIPsystem xxxxx, MIPserver xxxxx .......
    Would have been clear to Digits as well as customers.

    Actually, since it's a co-venture .... how about DIPstation??? 8^)

    I wonder if the people who make these silly decisions read notes???
    
    Donna
    
    

>    < Note 758.17 by DRACMA::GOLDSTEIN "Looking for that open door" >
>
>    I would guess that the numbers are the same because the external
>    hardware is exactly the same. Absolutely no difference in appearance.

    This is precisely the reason why the names should not have been made so
    similar.  As you've already mentioned, we're talking about two totally
    different architectures.  Have you ever looked inside the two boxes?
    The hardware of each system inside differs considerably.
    
    The confusing piece isn't differentiating between VAXstation and
    DECstation -- it's that they both have the same model number.  Kind
    of like having a MicroVAX-II and a MicroPDP-II...but no -- even
    _they_ used identical hardware <sigh>.
    
-Andy

     My two cents,
    
     Maybe we really want to sell VAXstations. The profit margins could
    be higher than on a RISC system and a little confusion between the
    two names could be placed solely on the customer rather than the
    salestaff.
    
     After all, Uxxx and Rxxx are SNAKE OIL.

    Re: .21
    
    If I presume that your Uxxx and Rxxx are UNIX and RISC, do you
    really think they're "snake oil"?  Why?  And don't tell me that
    Ken Olsen said they were, because he didn't.
    
    I suggested in the MARKETING conference that the same numbers were
    chosen because the products both fill the same marketing niche, though
    with different approaches, and that there was a desire NOT to show
    "favoritism" by making one system "numerically better" than the
    other.  Since people tend to think of higher numbers as better,
    an impression would have been made if the DECstation had been called,
    say, 4100.
    
    In my view, though, in what I think might be an effort to not play
    favorites, we ended up looking stupid.
    
    				Steve

    
    	   It's my understanding that the DECstation 3100 is based
    	on the MIPSCO 3000R series chip(s).  Could that have anything
    	to do with the number?
    
    	   Fear not, gentle noters, for this shall be a fairly short-lived
    	product, I'll wager.  I understand that newer, hotter chips are
    	already on the marked, including the MIPSCO 5000 series and the
    	88000 (presumably by Intel).  When Sun, or some other upstart
    	competitor, picks up these chips and starts cramking out systems,
    	the DECstation 3100 will go the way of all of our non-VMS
    	systems... into the offices of DEC managers.
    
    	   Does the DECmate have Ethernet connections yet?  That might
    	be something worth working on.  We do still sell DECmates, don't
    	we?
    
    	   As for product naming, our customers are confused and that
    	should be indication enough that something should be done.
    	I rather like the idea of abandoning the numbering system
    	(used, I might add, by our number one compeitor), and go with
    	the project names as product names.  Our customers like those
    	names better, anyway.  "Mayfair" is far more imaginative
    	than "6200", and is far easier to remember, amidst the veritable
    	flood of numbered products already on the market.  The trade
    	press prefers "Rigel" to "6400", and I'm sure the customers
    	will feel the same.
    
    	   Sure, it's a little tougher to come up with a good name
    	than it is to assign an arbitrary number, but it makes more
    	of an impact as well.  It's worth the extra effort.  It makes
    	us memorable.  It makes us special.  It makes our products
    	special.  It gives them personality.  
    
    	   Just my humble opinion, of course.  But I have been in 
    	front of a lot of customers who express this attitude, as well.
    	You know what they say... the customer is always right.
    
    	- Greg
    
    	- Greg

>    < Note 758.23 by HSSWS1::GREG "The Texas Chainsaw" >
>    
>    	   Fear not, gentle noters, for this shall be a fairly short-lived
>    	product, I'll wager.  I understand that newer, hotter chips are
>    	already on the marked, including the MIPSCO 5000 series and the
>    	88000 (presumably by Intel).  
    
    Hotter products may be forthcoming, but I doubt the DECstation 3100
    will be short-lived -- it's a hot little product on it's own.
    
>       Our customers like those
>    	names better, anyway.  "Mayfair" is far more imaginative
>    	than "6200", and is far easier to remember, amidst the veritable
>    	flood of numbered products already on the market.  The trade
>    	press prefers "Rigel" to "6400", and I'm sure the customers
>    	will feel the same.
    
    "Mayfair" and "Rigel" are code-names used for products during
    development.  Typically, a great deal of information distributed both
    within and outside the corporation (via computer press) on unannounced
    products refer to the product by it's code-name.  Of course it is
    difficult for everyone to begin to refer to this product by it's new
    name -- they've been calling it by another for 'x' length of time.
    Kinda like changing your name from Greg to Charlie after a couple of
    years (no offense meant for anyone Greg or Charlie). 

-Andy

The DECstation 3100 is based on the R2000.

    ... and the 88000 is from Motorola, not Intel.

    Actually, the DECstation 3100 is based on the R2000A, which is an R3000
    die in an R2000 package.  The R2000A is the CPU; in addition, there is
    an R2010A FPU and the R2020A write buffers.  The R2000A family qualified
    at Digital runs at 16 MHz, and work is in process to qualify the R3000
    family at 25 MHz.  R4000 and R6000 (ECL version) are under development.

    BTW, the name of the company is MIPS (or Mips) not MIPSCO.  They designed
    the architecture for these RISC processors, but are not selling them
    directly anymore.  The companies that do are Integrated Device Technology
    (Idt), LSI Logic, Performance Semiconductor, and recently announced NEC
    and Siemens.

    Alfred

    Re: .23
    
>    	   Does the DECmate have Ethernet connections yet?  That might
>    	be something worth working on.  We do still sell DECmates, don't
>    	we?
>    
    
    The VAXmate always had an Ethernet connection and no we are not selling
    the any more.
    
    Larry
    

    Thanks to Alfred, I reread my previous reply - corrected response goes
    here,
    
    Yes we still sell the DECmate.  In essence it does have an ethernet
    interface in that you can attach the printer port of teh DECmate to a
    terminal server (200 for sure, maybe a 500) and use a shared printer on
    the terminal server.  As for DECnet-8, this has been kicked around for
    ages, in general it won't be done.
    
    Larry
    

    Notes collision

    
    	   Well, that just goes to show you how little accurate information
    	makes it this far south. ;^)
    
    	Re. DECnet-8:  Terminal Emulation <> Network Connection
    
    	Re. VAXmate:   Digital's attempt at product humor.
    
    	Re. Code Name:  Yes, I know that's how things work now.  My point
    	is that customers prefer the more imaginative names, and are
    	expressing confusion over the number-names, as this note evidences.
    	What would be wrong with abandoning the number-scheme and going
    	with the project names?  
    
    	- Greg

    on my bookshelf is an original of
    
    	DECNET/8 IMPLEMENTATION - A SELF PACED COURSE
    
    issued in September 1977 by Software Services Training.
    
    The course was pretty good.  The product was NEVER issued.
    
    	-Barry-
    

        Putting on my moderator hat:
        
        Please do not write notes in this conference giving information
        about products that have not been announced.  In particular,
        do not use code names together with descriptions.  I've chosen
        (for now) not to return the recent notes that do this; please
        use discretion in the future.
        
        We now return you to your scheduled conference..

    One of the reasons for not using code names is that we might not
    be able -- legally -- to use it at all.  Some other company might
    already own the name as a trademark in another product.
    
    Now since Digital owns DEC, VAX, and various derivations of these
    trademarks, it only makes sense to add to this list of trademarks
    for new products.
    
    /Ed 

Concerning code names:

At IBM, they would periodically change a project's code name to confuse the
"IBM watchers". Do we do such things at DEC?

re: .-1

>At IBM, they would periodically change a project's code name to confuse the
>"IBM watchers". Do we do such things at DEC?

	Don't know, but does it matter? MIS Week still screws it up - they
	announced we were about to announce Emerald (a new OS) although we
	had cancelled it 6 months earlier B`).

re: a few back

	"Mayfair" was not the 6200

	Recent code names (announced only, Dr. Blinn!):

	Polarstar		88xx
	Calypso			62xx
	Hyperion		63xx
	PVAX			VAXstation 3100
	PMAX			DECstation 3100
	Lynx			VAXstation 8000
	Firefox			VAXstation 3520/3540
	Mayfair			MicroVAX 3500/3600

re: the basic topic

	having a DECstation, VAXstation and DECsystem 3100 all at the same time
	was not a good move. Out here in the field, customers have already told
	me this.

	Suggestion for how this *could* have been done:

	PVAX	-->	VAXstation 3100
	PMAX	-->	DECstation/R2000 or DECstation 1R (since this is our
			first)
	DECsystem-> 	DECsystem/R2000 or DECsystem 1R

		with the following rule:

			if DECsystem/R2000
			then
				DECstation 1R
			else
				DECstation/R2000
			endif

	these nomenclatures do not put a value judgement on the power of each
	system, since the numbering style (nR, /Rnnnn, nnnn) is different.

	now, that wasn't too hard, was it?

eric

    re: .37
    
>	Recent code names (announced only, Dr. Blinn!):
>
>	Polarstar		88xx
    
   The above isn't quite correct.
    
    	Polarstar		8820/8830/8840
    	Nautilus		8810 (formerly 8700)/
    				8820-N (formerly 8800)
    
    

    We don't have to change names to confuse DECwatchers. Our normal
    procedures are confusing enough. :-)

    BTW, I remember laughing at a DEC Professional editorial asking
    when was DEC going to announce Nautilus. This was some months
    after the 8800 announcement. I think this shows some value to
    not always making internal names public after announcement. Not
    that it is as big a deal but ...

    My favorite internal name was the Fonz-11 but I forget what the
    real product name was.

    		Alfred

    Re: .39
    
    The Fonz-11 or F-11 was the PDP-11/23.
    
    We have changed project names in the past, sometimes because the
    project name comes a bit too close to comfort to an existing
    trademark owned by another company.  The Professional 350 was
    once called CT, but was changed to XT when Convergent Technologies
    got wind of it.  Who would have ever thought IBM would use XT as
    a product name?  (Of course, there was no intention of making that
    the real product name.)
    
    Sometimes we goof - what we now know as VAXELN was originally
    VAX ELAN, but the ELAN name ran afoul of a trademark search QUITE
    late in the game (I have a product brochure with the ELAN name and took
    a course while it was still being called that.)
    
    Then again, sometimes project names sneak into the product anyway,
    such as the name STARLET in VMS (STARLET was the project name for
    VMS).
    
    I can think of one current project (not yet announced) that effectively
    has two project names, and it gets confusing when discussing it because
    the two names used to belong to two different (but related) projects.
    
    				Steve

    If you look at an 11/23 board, you'll see The Fonz's trademark
    thumbs-up sign etched on the board.  When m*rk*t*ng made a poster of it
    the thumbs-up was covered by text.  Intentionally?  Who can say now? 

        As for "Emerald" being the code name for an O/S project that
        got scratched, that may be true, but it was also the code name
        for the ALL-IN-1 V2.3 release, which has since been announced.
        
        Wouldn't this whole discussion be more appropriate in the general
        purpose "marketing" conference at ASIMOV::MARKETING?  (Obligatory
        attempt to re-direct the discussion to a more appropriate forum.)
        
        Tom

    Re: .39 and .40

>   The Fonz-11 or F-11 was the PDP-11/23.

    Not quite ... it was the _chipset_ used in the PDP-11/23. 
    It was also used for the PDP-11-based I/O processor within the HSC50
    (the P.ioc), which most definitely was not an 11/23.
    
    Jim

    RE: .42
    
    Uh, Tom, I'm afraid that ALL-IN-1 V2.3 was known as Amethyst. (Amy
    to friends.)
    
    K.

        Oh, well...  close, anyway.  That's why code names are wonderful!
        
        Tom

    
    
    
    What I like is that now that we are selling DECsystems and DECstations
    and VAXstations that all run the Xwindows based DECwindows we can
    profit by selling such useful products as DECwrite and DECdecision.
    
    I know that I'll sleep easier at night knowing that the fate
    of the western corporate world might be resting on some manager
    in the free world using DECdecision.
    
    
    
    
    DECdecision_query: Should I get up today Microvax
    
    DECdecision_response: nah, stay in bed!
    
    DECdecision_query: What should I have for breakfast
    
    DECdecision_response: Well normally since it is a day without
                          an R you often start with a bowl
                          of cream of wheat and a regular
                          coffee.  Then since it is a cloudy
                          day, you should also have some milk
                          to offset the lack of sunlight
                          produced Vitamin D.  and since
                          you are staying in bed, you may
                          want an aspirin, to thin your
                          blood, so as not to get edema.
    
    DECdecision_query: Should I thank you for this?
    
    DECdecision_response: It would be appropriate
    
    DECdecision_query:  Thanks
    
    DECdecision_response: your welcome...
    .

     <<< Note 758.37 by BOSTON::SOHN "Me & Lou Reed - born today (3/2)" >>>

>>	having a DECstation, VAXstation and DECsystem 3100 all at the same time
>>	was not a good move. Out here in the field, customers have already told
>>	me this.
    
    OK DECstation 3100 & VAXstation 3100 I know, but what's the DECsystem
    3100?  Do you mean the Tandy buyouts which are not available in
    Europe?, I thought these were DECstation 200/300.
    
    My view, working within the product space is that the model number is
    the same in the same sense as a car's model is the same (e.g. Ford
    Escort). the fact that different variations are available to suit
    different needs ( the escort comes as a hatch or two different
    coupe's) shouldn't be confusing if you talk through the logic of the
    name:
    	stations if it's a workstation, 
    	VAX for VAX architecture based 
    	DEC for all others.
    e.g., do you want multi user or workstation? ___station, or microVAX.
    	  do you want VAX or other? VAX____ or DEC____
    	  do you want small medium or high performance? 200,300,3100.
    
    What IS confusing is that their relative positioning has not been 
    made clear.
    
    Richard.

The DECsystem 3100 is the recently announced multi-user version of the 
RISC machine.

        The DECsystem 3100 announcement article is in the March 20,
        1989 issue of Sales Update.  It is, as described in .48, a
        multi-user version of the DECstation 3100, based on the same
        RISC technology.  
        
                           [putting on moderator cap]
        
        Folks, much of this *really* is marketing issues, and it really
        *does* belong over in the ASIMOV::MARKETING conference, where
        it has already been discussed a lot.  Could we *PLEASE* carry
        on the balance of the discussion there?  Or in one of the other
        conferences that relate to the products?
        
        Discussion of issues that relate to "the way we work at Digital"
        (the topic of this conference) rather than to how we market our
        products (or to the products themselves) are welcome here.
        
        Tom

    A lot of this is relevant to Digital because our naming conventions
    says a lot about the way we think.  For example, the way we have
    simply lumped all non-Vax machines into the DECxxx bag.  Specifically,
    DECstations 3100, 210/316/320.  The first has absolutely no
    relationship with the last three other than the DECstation badge.
    But, naturally, it's confusing hell out of the customers.
           
    (Incidentally, the PCs are the only ones with a logical numbering
    scheme, ie:
                                           
    	DECstation 210 = 10Mhz Intel 80286 CPU,
    	DECstation 316 = 16Mhz Intel 80386 CPU,
    	DECstation 320 = 20Mhz Intel 80386 CPU.)

I first heard about the proposed names a couple of months before announcement.
Since I did not like them, I proposed alternatives to the person in Sales 
responsible for picking the names. The reason for picking DECstation was to 
avoid trademark problems. Any new name would have required an exhaustive search 
and there was allegedly not enough time. Several folks had suggested MAXstation.
Apparently, MAX had trademark issues. I suggested MARStation (MARS = MIPS 
Architecture Risc System) or MARCstation (C for computer). For a while it looked
like MARCstation was a serious candidate, but got dropped suddenly in favor of
DECstation. 

I also suggested a numbering scheme, where a 10 VUP machine would be a 1000,
20 VUPs would be a 2000. I also had a scheme for numbering MP systems, e.g.
a 1020 would contain 2 10 VUP processors. That was ignored too.

Just an engineer's experience,

Dileep

        At one time, Marion Dancy proposed a naming/numbering scheme
        for VAX systems, and it was actually followed for at least
        one system (the 8600, I believe), but it wasn't long before
        systems were introduced that didn't fit the plan.
        
        I doubt very much that product naming decisions are made by
        anyone in Sales.  They are almost certainly made somewhere
        in corporate product marketing, although just who makes the
        final decision for any particular product is hard to say, as
        I've heard that in some cases the final decision has been made
        by Ken Olsen himself.  (Actually, this doesn't surprise me.)
        
        Now, for the really tough question:  what does this discussion
        have to do with "The way we work at Digital", which is the
        topic of this conference?  This is a topic about MARKETING,
        in the broad sense, and unless someone can relate this to "the
        way we work at Digital", perhaps further discussion should
        move to the ASIMOV::MARKETING conference (as has been urged
        more than once already).
        
        Tom

    Re: .50                                                  
                                                             
    As you know by now, David, the logicality (Is that a real word or
    isn't it? :-) is gone with the announced European PC-DECstations:
    
    	DECstation 200 (i286)
    	DECstation 300 (i386SX)
    	DECstation 350 (i386DX)
    
    ...Petri
    
    P.S.  The "iXXX" naming convention is what Intel seems to be prefering
          currently (i386DX is the original 80386).
    
    P.P.S. I wish the RISC DECstations had been called MAXstations;
           we would have had CPU-families with rhyming names.