The difference is the cost, HP already owns MPE, VMS will cost only
about 25B$ US.  IMO that alone makes VMS a distant number 2.

-Craig



-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Alan Greig
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 9:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Editorial - Fiorina wants HP to "own" the
high-end server market.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 06:46:04 -0600 (Central Standard Time), Christian
Lheureux <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Clearly this Ross Briosi has never heard of MPE and all its high
>availability features, embedded in MPE.
>
>Plus Disk Mirroring (has been working for 10 years)
>Plus system and transaction redundancy (Shareplex)
>Plus Transaction Manager (which guarantes physical integrity of
databases)
>Plus dynamic transactions (which, along with XM, guarantee LOGICAL
>integrity)
>Plus support of disk arrays (VA, XP...)
>Plus HAFO
>Plus Clustering (Shareplex, Cluster/iX)
>Plus powerfail (N-Class having N+1 power supplies)
>Plus file system resiliency (quarantine corrupt files instead of SA
6xx)
>Plus many, many more.
>
>Need I say more ?
>
>That leaves VMS and others a distant number 2. At best.

I'm not sure which of the features you list above you claim are not
available for VMS. Could you be a bit more specific?


--
Alan

* 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 *