I trot this out periodically. Not to garner sympathy for Digital but
to raise awareness. Hope this helps gain perspective as to what
is going on *in my opinion*.
[BEGIN MAJOR RANT MODE]
Marginalize:
To relagate or confine to a lower or outer limit
or edge, as of social standing.
Dean Takahashi in the 10/21/96 Wall Street Journal writes about
Multimedia interests at tomorrows Microprocessor Forum (page B10).
Towards the end of the article he does manage to mention other
announcements including "a chip for the Power PC design" [Exponential]
and Sun's new PicoJava chip which can "run Java programs at least 20
times faster than a general-purpose chip".
Any mention of the world's fastest CPU? NooOOoooOOooOOoo.
But are we surprised? NooOOOooOOOooOOo.
Writing in the May 25, 1995 San Jose Mercury News Dean says:
^^^
^^^
"The Ultrasparc chip is slower than other chips designed for workstations by
such companies as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Digital Equipment Corp. But those
chips are not yet available, giving Sun a decided advantage for the rush to
the office."
Of course he didn't look at the graph he included with his article:
System SPEC- SPEC-
Company Chip shipping date int92 fp92
Hewlett-Packard PA-8000 by March 1996 360+ 550+
Digital Equipment Alpha AXP 21164 March 1995 330 500
^^^^^
^^^^^
A correction was later printed.
One wonders how Dean missed the TurboLaser and surrounding press
at the very successful April 1995 rollout where Larry Ellison stole
the show??? Let me guess... blinded by the ** SUN ** he was.
How can the number 3 computer company in the world be ignored on
something as important as announcing the World's fastest (BY FAR)
CPU at Microprocessor Forum?
Will Digital continue to be marginalized by the press? Sure, plenty
of free publicity will come out of tomorrow's announcement. But watch
the song and dance of everyone else deflect or minimize such a
fantastic engineering achievement. A watershed.
Can anyone call Dean and ask him out to lunch? A tour of
Network Systems Lab?
But Dean is not alone. I quickly found 2 other recent articles to
help support my premise that Digital is a non-entity. From a MAJOR
computer rag in an article about Sun's current postion in relation
to the industry (contrasting Unix vs. NT) we read not ONE comparison to
Digital. We see IBM, HP and SGI in several different sections
compared to Sun. Digital, number one RISC NT vendor, still
manufactures computers don't they?
But what really takes the cake is an analysis in a MAJOR computer
trade rag regarding IBM's new Server line. Not only is Digital once
again ignored but we read:
(re-worded to hide the guilty)
"IBM closes in on Sun, HP and SGI, according to analystS"
AND
"IBM now can now give SGI and HP a run for their money, analyst says"
Hello?! That is *REVOLTING*. Digital owns the high-end Server
space and can eat alive RS/6000 up and down the line. Perhaps:
"but still can't compete with Digital"
would have been appropriate. Not ONE word about Digital, after
all, they don't manufacture Servers do they?
What I am suggesting is *somehow* elevating Digital's presence in the
industry. It must occur to win back mindshare that has slipped away
in the last 7 years AND to counteract an OBVIOUS inherent bias found
within an industry (the Press) that should be unbiased
(but often isn't). A bias that works something like this: quote an
analyst that has nothing to say (or nice to say) about Digital,
they are poison.
Don't just mail brochures, call these writers up and get to know them,
invite them over. Let them in on some cool information. Let the
writers educate the analysts.
Killer closer? How about elsewhere we read:
"don't think Sun will turn into the next Digital or Wang"
says an industry analyst.
Wang now equals Digital. What a piece of putrid baloney. Gag me.
Rob
The earlier quotes by Dean are direct, all others beginning at
"IBM closes in on" are re-worded in an attempt to paraphrase..
If interested in where who said what, please drop an e-mail. It
is not my intention to embarass but accountability should also
be a priority. |
