> > People keep talking about the performance and stability of
> IMAGE. Do you
> > think it has those qualities because it runs on MPE?
> Hardly. It certainly
> > enjoys the advantages provided by the platform, but IMAGE
> does what it does so well because
> >  1) It's a simple DBMS
> >  2) People have learned what it does well, and use it for
> those types of things
> >  3) Mirroring 2), HP has looked at what people use IMAGE to
> do, and used
> > that knowledge to guide its development
>
> I agree with all three items (and note in passing that I said
> "OpenMPE is
> OpenIMAGE" and not the other way around--my intention was to
> assert that the
> folks who are contemplating OpenMPE are fully intending to
> include IMAGE in
> that project).  However, I do feel that some of the
> performace and stability
> of IMAGE come from MPE.  Obviously (see HPEloquence), IMAGE
> can work very well
> in other environments, but giving it the excellence of MPE does make a
> difference.

Of course. I guess my point is that I think we can provide a lot more
bang-for-the-buck if we focus a good chunk of our efforts on
portability/continuity of "IMAGEness" as opposed to "MPEness".

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