🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan19.122854.22863@jyu.fi> HOUGHTON@jylk.jyu.fi (DAVID HOUGHTON, LK) writes:
>
>We are hoping to obtain a DEC 3000/400 AXP but have to convince
>our management that this is going to be a good buy. There are
>those amongst us that would rather invest in SUN Microsystems.
>We already possess a VAX4000 and several SUNs, both systems
>support SAS/SPSX and a bunch of maths packages for graphics,
>simulation and optimisation.
>
>Has anyone out there had a similar task in convincing their
>management that 
>
>	a) Alpha is the way to go

Alpha is DEC's new hardware architecture.  The architecture seems--thus far--
to have merits over the current offerings by the other major suppliers.  Saying
that the AXP is the way to go is actually sayng teat DEC is the way to go--to
a large extent.  I would not emphasize the purley technical points about the
processor benchmarks as much as DEC and DEC's place in the world.  I know
people that hate DEC because of the past few years that are taking another
look at their offerings NOW.  DEC is the way to go, in my view--and that's
why Alpha is the way to go...

>	b) Licencing/software costs are favourable

DEC's a software company--they like to make software and charge money for
it.  As far as third parties go, I can't imagine it being much more than other
platforms, but I have no first-hand experience here...

>	c) SUNs are not the way to go

Well, there's DEC, IBM, HP, and Silicon Graphics/MIPS versus Sun.  Sun is
out in left field, as far as standards go.  Sun is behind the curve in
the technology department--their processor architecture is getting old.  IBM
and HP look like their going to play tag with DEC's benchmarks, but I don't
see Sun anywhere in sight.  Sun's got a lot of market share right now--but
I look for it to erode, becuase they really have nothing going for them
EXCEPT that market share...

>	d) OpenVMS is better than OSF

Well, this is going to be difficult.  I say this knowing both operating
systems very well (especially VMS).  VMS, by standards of quality, is way
better than OSF.  VMS does what it does really well--without a hitch in
mission-critical environments.  VMS also tends to be overkill for simple
workstation environments.  Software is more expensive (although it tends to
be of higher quality) under VMS--and there's less public domain stuff out
there for it.  Personally, I think VMS is great, and I use many of its
advanced features.  For the uninitiated, though, VMS is a hard sell.  If you
have a shop with lots of VMS in it, then I think you'll find that you can
sell VMS (because the expectation of quality is very high--and only VMS can
deliver it).  OSF, quite simply, breaks a lot (compared to VMS).  I've talked
to lots of people that had never known VMS deny this up and down and tell me
that they have no problems with thier operating environment--it's all about
what you're used to.  I once talked to a developer from Microsoft.  I mentioned
to him the their "Quick-C" development package just plain didn't work.  He
quickly retorted: "But I ONLY need to reboot about once an HOUR!".  Different
planet... (My VAXStation needed to be rebooted a MONTH ago--hit the power
switch by accident...).

>	e) Support for application software is no problem

In the beginning, Alpha is not going to have as much software, because people
need to port their stuff over there.  I've run into the same question for
almost everybody I've talked to when they first buy a UNIX box.  I'll tell
you the same thing I've told them: figure out what you want to run on your
box and then find out what it runs on.  Let your software do the driving.  You
might find out that the software you use is already ported to Alpha.  If so,
then you don't have a problem--Alpha is a major platform, and sooner or later
everybody's going to port to it--it's a simple matter of economics.  On the
other hand, if you can't run the basic applications that you run TODAY on
the Alpha, then the point to moot...

_________
Steve Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com