It has been a number of decades since I last seriously programmed under VMS. Actually the 11/750 was announced just prior to us starting a Call Center project on a 11/70. The announcement of the '750 caused me to do a quick redo of the project budget. The cost of the '750 project coming in less than the '70 was a bonus.
The only real mistake that we made was deciding to go with Basic rather than Fortran. We had a number of issues with Basic and in fact ended up do some of the critical parts of the APP in Fortran speeded things up. (at one point the Basic compiler would stop (with no messages) compiling when the code segment hit 64K. If we had stuck with Fortran, we would not have had the problem of pummeling one of the programmers whenever they used a gosub or a dynamically allocated string. Gosubs because there was no traceback and dynamic strings because we didn't want the overhead. RMS was a joy for us - so much more reliable than what we had used with BP2 in the past. Pretty archaic by today's standards - but - it lasted for more than 25 years, until the need that had driven it's creation disappeared. It was Y2K compliant - they contracted me to do (I had left the company some 20 years before). It did have some pains just prior to final termination. It had problems as the call volume dropped down to almost nothing. It kept complaining that it wasn't getting any calls! We used all three types of RMS files, VMS mailboxes, the queue management software was a doubly linked linklist of doubly linked linklists (of calls). One linklist for each minute of the day. We had an audit routine that would periodically traipse through the linklists - checking them for saneness. I think it took a month - to get all of the mistakes out. After that it just worked and worked and worked. Never stressed the 11/750 - we ran a simulation the showed that the 11/750 could have easily handled 10x the peak load that we expected over the planned 5 year life. It ran on the '750 until it was moved to a cluster. Do I miss having a natively supported file system like RMS - I sure do. Far simpler than using a relational database where I don't need the capability of ad-hoc queries. I won't call the lack of RMS an advantage - and I don't classify the imposition of file data structures on an application is I don't think a negative thing. Sure there are times when you need such things, but looking at the quality of much of the software that we see these days, I really wonder how much of an advantage the freedom to do almost anything with anything really is... Also - as far as the VAX hardware is concerned - remember that it was the first hardware to support no ex. And then of course, if you were using Oracle, it disabled the feature..... Those were the good old days in more ways than one.... Villy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sergey Oboguev Sent: April 22, 2012 17:04 To: Nathan Cutler Cc: SIMH Subject: Re: [Simh] OT - Windows - Re: Alpha simulator performance Hi Nathan, I believe the issue was not whether Windows is exact replica of VMS, but whether there are grounds to believe Windows is substantially inferior to VMS. On specific aspects you mentioned, it is certainly not. Windows does have help systems superior to that of VMS Help: hypertext based, with TOC, navigation, search, context help, tooltips etc. Absence of RMS equivalent in any modern operating system is an advantage compared to VMS. It was a doubtful idea to build the database into the kernel in the first place, and to impose file data structuring on the applications. May be it was an interesting experiment for its time, and in homogenous environment, but it was a failed one. Rdb was an explicit admission of this failure, obvious admission anyway: database layer does not belong to the standard part of the executive, it belongs either to a server process (replaceable, customizable and remote-able) or (for personal databases) in the library. Another aspect of RMS -- imposing structuring on files -- is the bane to anyone attempting to use VMS in heterogeneous environments. Long-term, it were bad ideas to use structured (non-stream) text files, and also to fork file contents in to two segments (data and attributes that are required for the interpretation of data structure), one of which is hidden and gets lost when trying to transfer the file across heterogeneous environment. As for scripting, Windows does offer a variety scripting languages (both Microsoft supported and open-source standards), and many of Windows components are exposed for management either as callable COM/DCOM objects or via WMI/WBEM or through the registry. Admittedly, scripting capabilities came somewhat late. However this is just the reflection of the fact that Windows was developed and targeted as an operating system for desktop market first, where GUI-level management interface certainly had to take a priority; managing via scripting had to be a second priority. Nevertheless it had been available for many years now. Now, I am not quite sure about the "modality" of complaints about Windows vs. VMS. If they are an expression of just purely personal preferences, unrelated to any objective comparative merits, akin to acquired taste (e.g. based on vested effort, attachment to acquired knowledge, emotional nostalgia etc.), than this of course is not a debatable subject. However what I do not see is any objectively justifiable grounds for such complaints. (At least on a significant scale, generally of course it may be possible to find corner cases that are implemented better in this system or in that.) > There is one area where Windows has VMS beat, though: eye-candy. It would be more to the point to rephrase it as usability and productivity. > there's also the 'minor detail' that VMS was never ported to the x86 platform. Such porting would not have changed the fate of VMS very much. Windows won desktop space because it provided expanding continuity of massive desktop application base on the expanding continuity of deployed desktop hardware. Or to put it in other way, because it swam with the strong current of market collapsing to standardization rather than against it. VMS stood no more chances for desktop than, some years earlier, DEC non-x86 PCs with no software applications for them, at the time when market already collapsed to standardization on IBM PC compatibles with thriving software development ecosystem (Gordon Bell in his memories is quite acidic about this situation). Taking over the desktop meant also taking over the large part of software development resources. Therefore if VMS x86 port were available, VMS could have fared better in server space than it did, but it would have been undercut by the shortage of 3rd party development support anyway. _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh _______________________________________________ Simh mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
