Help us defend against VMS!

[H. Lynn Tilley]

In article <4583 at garfield.UUCP> dave at garfield.UUCP (David Janes) writes:
>In article <695 at unm-la.UUCP> jay at unm-la.UUCP (Jay Plett) writes:
>|    100%-|-
>|         |          -
>|         |                   -  VMS
>|         |                    + Ultrix
>|         |           +
>|      0%-|+________________________________________________________
>|                                                           |
>|                                                          1988
>
>This is obviously a plot by DEC.
>
Actually not,   Last year Digital spent more on Ultrix development than
they did on VMS.  They really no longer have a choice, UNIX is pushing
VMS out of the market place and Digital sees the light at the end of tunnel.

Despite what the VMS defenders like to say, RISC is here and VMS is not
projected to be compatible across this architecture.  If this is true 
(I have heard this from a couple of different source, none at DEC though)
Digital is faced with a choice of maintaining PDP and MICROVAX technology
(which even by todays standards is very expensive compared to the power you
get with it) or going to new technology which will largely mean the abandonment
of VMS and any VMS services that can not be supported under Ultrix.

Now as I have said, I have heard this from a couple of different sources and 
since I am in the process of planning equipment purchases for the next two to
three years I would like to know if it is a valid assessment of VMS's future.
-- 
    |   Henry L. Tilley                 UUCP: {cbosgd|uunet}!ukma!ukecc!lynn
    |   University of Kentucky          CSNET: lynn at engr.uky.edu       
    V   Engineering Computer Center     BITNET: lynn%ukecc.uucp at ukma  
    O   voice: (606) 257-1752           ARPANET: lynn at a.ecc.engr.uky.edu