X-no-Archive:yes
Jim underlines my point about the advantages of having a fleet of similar
machines, be they HP 3000, NT Servers or desktops. I have upgraded lots of
machines from NT 3.51 to 4.0 and never found this to be an issue. I have
also upgraded lots of MPE machines, through MPEII to MPE-V/P, all MPE/XL
and subsequently MPE/iX releases and for the most part these upgrades were
not an issue. It just makes it even easier when the systems are all the
same. (I do remember UB-MITs, the U-be-sorry-MITs.)
But all this conversation about migration got me to think about something
else. It is my understanding that the final challenges for Windows 2000 is
enabling an easy migration path from Windows 3.x and Windows 9x. When I
look back at the challenges and obstacles encountered with the original
Windows 95, they were mainly dealing with the migration from 3.x. The
systems that shipped with Windows 95, and later Windows 95 OSR2 and
subsequently Windows 98, never really encountered anywhere near the
problems that the upgraders encountered. Most of the support effort was
spent on the upgrades. I also know that a lot of development effort went
into making this migration as smooth as possible. Anything to avoid a
reload. But a reload was the best approach as those who started from
scratch had a lot less problems.
I can't help but think that HP might have to contemplate doing an
on-machine migration (OMM) to go from 32 bit OS to 64 bit OS. It is
conceivable this might be a significant challenge where lots of resources
will be expended. The challenge will be less than the one Microsoft faced
in the past and faces in the future by virtue of the fact HP tightly
controls the hardware and the drivers. But if, (and I am just guessing
here, I have not been told anything about this,) it came down to HP having
to make the following decision: do we force a reload to go to 64 bit or do
we expend considerable effort enabling an OMM, I would lean towards the
reload. If a migration is indeed required but an OMM is a small effort,
then I have raised a non-issue.
What does Alfredo, the originator of this thread, think about this?
Kind regards,
Denys. . .
Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP America, Inc.
(800) 323-8863 (281) 288-7438 Fax: (281) 355-6879
denys at hicomp.com www.hicomp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Alexander [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 1999 10:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Inevitable migration to NT (err... Windows 2000)
With the upgrade of a hundred HP3000 boxes from MPE/iX 4.0 to MPE/iX 5.5,
will
be involved for Donna and I but not difficult, even though those are spread
over a very large distribution. We are lucky to have a group of people to
assist in the effort called RSO (Remote Store Operations). However, I
know
the MPE upgrades will be much easier than the NT4.0 servers to Windows 2000
our
counterparts in Longs NT Server support will have to face. Because of the
proprietary nature of HP3000 hardware, we will have very little problems to
worry about. Comparing this to the trouble of dealing with all of the
potentially different hardware there is on out NT servers throughout Longs
and
even though the numbers for the NT servers is slightly smaller, it will be
a
much more difficult upgrade.
So, Denys, I would say that even using the small numbers argument, there is
a
great deal of difference between the HP3000 MPE upgrade when compared to
the NT
upgrade. While as you suggested, there will be a sample or prototype
server
for NT, but there will be nothing quick to the general server upgrade as
each
could require a good deal of individual attention. This is not true of our
MPE/iX upgrades.
Denys Beauchemin wrote:
> X-no-Archive:yes
> Alfredo, you are comparing apples and oranges here. When you migrate
from
> MPE-V to MPE/iX, you move your applications from one box to another. The
> article you pointed out deals with people migrating from Windows 95/98 to
> Windows 2000, on the same box. Not the same thing at all, as you well
> know.
>
> I believe the challenge would have been significantly more complicated
for
> MPE if the migration from V to XL occurred on the same box. In the case
of
> 95->2000 migration, if you move your applications to a new machine, a la
> 3000, you will have an easy time migrating. This new machine could very
> well be the same one you are currently using but you have wiped out the
> disk and are starting afresh. This is what I did with my laptop and I
have
> had no problems.
>
> Think of it this way: Migrating from Windows 3.x to Windows 95 was akin
to
> going from MPE-IV to MPE-V/P or in some cases MPE-V/R. Migrating from
3.x
> or 9x to NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 is like going to MPE-IV or MPE/V to
MPE/iX.
> And migrating from Windows NT 3.5x and 4.0 to Windows 2000 will be like
> going from MPE/iX 5.0 or 5.5 to MPE/iX 6.0.
>
> The big issue for the folks mentioned in the story is the number of
> desktops they have to deal with. If there were only one or two or a few
> dozens (like one or two or a few dozen classic HP 3000), the migration
> would not be an issue, but when you are talking thousands and tens of
> thousands of desktops, the issue multiplies. What a lot of companies do
is
> prepare a prototype desktop with the target OS and when it is tuned the
way
> the want it, the can quickly clone it to other desktops. This is what
most
> of these people will ultimately do. Of course, this method only works if
> your desktops are all the same to begin with.
>
> One thing the story doesn't talk about is servers. If you want to
compare
> Windows 2000 to MPE, you must do this at the server level. The migration
> from NT 3.51 or 4.0 to Windows 2000 is not an issue, so the story nor you
> mention it.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Denys. . .
>
> Denys Beauchemin
> HICOMP America, Inc.
> (800) 323-8863 (281) 288-7438 Fax: (281) 355-6879
> denys at hicomp.com www.hicomp.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: F. Alfredo Rego [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 1999 3:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Inevitable migration to NT (err... Windows 2000)
>
> The last paragraph says, "Ultimately, users will have to move from
Windows
> 95 and 98 to Windows 2000" and previous paragraphs mention the bright
side:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/CWFlash/990219page1
>
> How does this compare to your experiences regarding MPE upgrades on the
> HP3000? My experiences regarding MPE and the HP3000 have been excellent.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> _______________
> | |
> | |
> | r | Alfredo mailto:[log in to unmask]
> | e | http://www.adager.com
> | g | F. Alfredo Rego +1 208 726-9100
> | a | Manager, R & D Labs Fax +1 208 726-2822
> | d | Adager Corporation
> | A | Sun Valley, Idaho 83353-3000 U.S.A.
> | |
> |_______________|
--
Jim Alexander Longs Drug Stores
Sr. Systems Programmer 925-210-6901
The opinions expressed are Mine and not Longs Drugs
|
