🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3826@creatures.cs.vt.edu>, acciai_g@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (Guy Acciai)
 writes:
> I work for a local company that's about to expand it's production facilities
> next year (12/93 time frame).  [...]
> our DEC sales rep seriously downplayed using Alphaboxes & AlphaVMS in such an 
> enviroment.  He reasons were, "while the hardware's ok, the software will
> not be ready/stable for such a production enviroment".  

At the end of CY 93???  I think this is being very overly conservative.  

> I was very surprised
> by such a response given DEC's claims that VAX/VMS -> ALPHA/VMS ports are
> supposed to be fairly trival and that our application is over a year after
> commerical release.  

> Our software base includes (please, no flames for this):
> Fortran, C, COBOL, FMS, DECNet (end nodes & routers), WPS, DTR, SNA, Ingres,
> DECWindows, TCP/IP, and Pathworks.  

The main issue you will have is whether or not all of these layered products
will be available in time.  If it isn't you can still run VESTed images on the
Alpha.  

> Our rep, instead is pushing for 4000-100's
> to later '(2-3) years' be replaced with alpha boxes.  

Hey, if he'll sign a deal wherein you get the full price of the 4000-100's,
plus any unusable components of those systems, as credit toward the Alpha, this
isn't a bad deal.  DEC has done that in some cases I've heard of. 

Otherwise, it isn't your company's job to help DEC rid itself of inventory of a
box that is about to become a VERY poor price-performance box.  

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  jeh@cmkrnl.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh