how would I respond?

either beat him up about the assumption that MPE would wither whilst VMS survive,

or explain technical roadblocks, such as Image relying on the physical structure of dis[c/k] files?

-dtd




[log in to unmask] on 10/30/2001 02:36:00 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]@Internet
cc:      (bcc: David T Darnell/CO/KAIPERM)
Subject:        Re: [HP3000-L] OT - HP's MPE-IX

Crossposting to comp.sys.hp.mpe and the 3000-L. Comments?

--
Greg Cagle
gregc at gregcagle dot com

<[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
 news:OF830EA9D3.8598F247-ON85256AF5.0063BF0A@americhem.com...
> Just curious - I know almost nothing about HP's MPE-IX.  I do know that it
> is a non-UNIX OS developed by HP in the late 1970's to 1980s as a 16-bit OS
> called MPE, then ported to 32-bits as MPE-IX; and that it is not receiving
> a lot of work from HP now.  It does have a file system and database built
> in also.
>
> How difficult would it be to move enough of the MPE-IX system functions and
> RTL's to VMS so that the existing MPE-IX applications could be "easily"
> ported to VMS?  Those applications would then gain the stability of VMS
> along with the best-in-class clustering and growth offered by VMS.  Plus
> additional applications and customers certainly could only enhance the
> visibility of VMS within CHomPaq, and give those MPE-IX users a future on
> the best OS in the world instead of withering on the vine, as they are
> doing now.
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *