Home > Archive > Fortran > June 2005 > bye bye CVF
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Walt Brainerd 2005-06-03, 3:57 am |
| I haven't seen anybody else post this, but it
should be of interest to this group, so here it is.
I personally thought CVF was a great product. Of course,
one is expected to migrate to IVF.
http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech...03,7088,00.html
--
Walt Brainerd +1-877-355-6640 (voice & fax)
The Fortran Company +1-520-760-1397 (outside USA)
6025 N. Wilmot Road walt@fortran.com
Tucson, AZ 85750 USA http://www.fortran.com
| |
| Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply 2005-06-03, 9:07 am |
| In article <d7olms$80q$1@iruka.swcp.com>, Walt Brainerd
<walt@fortran.com> writes:
> I haven't seen anybody else post this, but it
> should be of interest to this group, so here it is.
>
> I personally thought CVF was a great product. Of course,
> one is expected to migrate to IVF.
>
> http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech...03,7088,00.html
I remember migrating from VMS to OpenVMS. Quickest migration I ever
did! This is not much worse. CVF has its heritage in the VAX FORTRAN
compiler. In the wake of the demise of Alpha and HP buying Compaq (two
separate events which happened quite close together), many engineers
moved to Intel, including most or all of the Fortran folks. HP now gets
its Fortran compiler from Intel. Thus, under the hood IVF is probably
very similar to CVF.
Look up the thread here or in comp.os.vms where Steve Lionel explained
why the $!DEC directives are still in the compiler!
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-03, 9:07 am |
|
"Walt Brainerd" <walt@fortran.com> wrote in message
news:d7olms$80q$1@iruka.swcp.com...
> I haven't seen anybody else post this, but it
> should be of interest to this group, so here it is.
>
> I personally thought CVF was a great product. Of course,
> one is expected to migrate to IVF.
So surprise them and don't.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"God is not willing to do everything and thereby take away our free will
and that share of glory that rightfully belongs to us." -- Machiavelli.
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-03, 9:07 am |
|
"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"
<helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message
news:d7ovvo$b9j$2@online.de...
> Thus, under the hood IVF is probably
> very similar to CVF.
Utter nonsense, have you ever used CVF and IVF? Clearly not.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"I promise there will be fewer nuclear disasters with me as your mayor
than with me as your nuclear safety inspector." Homer Simpson
| |
| Steve Lionel 2005-06-03, 4:00 pm |
| On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 07:14:00 +0000 (UTC), helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de
(Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
>I remember migrating from VMS to OpenVMS. Quickest migration I ever
>did! This is not much worse. CVF has its heritage in the VAX FORTRAN
>compiler. In the wake of the demise of Alpha and HP buying Compaq (two
>separate events which happened quite close together), many engineers
>moved to Intel, including most or all of the Fortran folks. HP now gets
>its Fortran compiler from Intel. Thus, under the hood IVF is probably
>very similar to CVF.
Indeed - all of the "Fortran" part of IVF comes from CVF (with several more
years of development, of course). The HP Fortran compilers for OpenVMS
(Itanium and Alpha) and Tru64 UNIX (Alpha) are developed jointly by Intel and
HP (though the Alpha compilers are in "maintenance only" mode now.)
For more information, including a "white paper" on the migration process, and
(soon) an upgrade discount for CVF users, see
http://www.intel.com/software/produ...rade_to_ivf.htm We've
also opened a "CVF Migration Center" section of our user forum at
http://softwareforums.intel.com/ids...?board.id=CVFMC where people can ask
questions and share with other users.
Steve Lionel
Software Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH
User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://softwareforums.intel.com/
Intel Fortran Support
http://developer.intel.com/software/products/support/
| |
|
| Walt Brainerd wrote:
>
> I haven't seen anybody else post this, but it
> should be of interest to this group, so here it is.
Whoa, this must be an understatement of the century - the flagbearer is
to quietly desist affecting hundreds of thousands worldwide not to
mention ISVs pumping millions into products integrated with CVF - and
not a peep to the users.
What happened behind out backs? IVF's endless floundering that couldn't
get its compiler out the driveway did the next best thing - buy out and
quietly bury the market leader while s ing a migratory "downgrade"
blessing along the way.
Now listen up Intel; Mathworks had the same idea in not so distant past
- they made a backroom deal, bought out the market leader Matrixx and
did something that stinks the same as Intel's plan above - until DOJ
antitrust div. stepped in and forced them to cease and desist.
To CVF users everywhere this is a call for action to hold corporate
scammers accountable. There's no doubt whatsoever that IVF is anything
but a *giant* leap backwards - it's like forcing you to trade in your
Ferrari for Yugo - do your part to make sure it doesn't happen!
--
Dr.B.Voh
------------------------------------------------------
Applied Algorithms http://sdynamix.com
| |
| Ken Plotkin 2005-06-04, 4:00 am |
| On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:18:27 -0700, Walt Brainerd <walt@fortran.com>
wrote:
>I haven't seen anybody else post this, but it
>should be of interest to this group, so here it is.
>
>I personally thought CVF was a great product. Of course,
>one is expected to migrate to IVF.
>
>http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech...03,7088,00.html
I'm puzzled by the presence on that page of a link to a white paper on
porting programs from CVF to IVF.
If both compilers are standard conforming, why should porting involve
anything more than leaning the compile and link commands?
Why should we be expected to migrate to IVF? Will a goon squad be
coming around to confiscate our copies of CVF?
Ken Plotkin
| |
| glen herrmannsfeldt 2005-06-04, 4:00 am |
| Ken Plotkin wrote:
(snip)
> I'm puzzled by the presence on that page of a link to a white paper on
> porting programs from CVF to IVF.
> If both compilers are standard conforming, why should porting involve
> anything more than leaning the compile and link commands?
Maybe some people used extensions from one compiler and expect
them to be in another compiler? Just a guess.
-- glen
| |
| Tim Prince 2005-06-04, 3:57 pm |
| glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Ken Plotkin wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
>
> Maybe some people used extensions from one compiler and expect
> them to be in another compiler? Just a guess.
>
Did you look at the document? It's largely about changes in Visual Studio
and USE file names.
--
Tim Prince
| |
| Gary L. Scott 2005-06-04, 3:57 pm |
| Ken Plotkin wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:18:27 -0700, Walt Brainerd <walt@fortran.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm puzzled by the presence on that page of a link to a white paper on
> porting programs from CVF to IVF.
>
> If both compilers are standard conforming, why should porting involve
> anything more than leaning the compile and link commands?
>
> Why should we be expected to migrate to IVF? Will a goon squad be
> coming around to confiscate our copies of CVF?
Well, there's no support after next year (if you call current support,
support). And 64 bit is just around the corner. All those 32 bit PCs
will be instantly obsolete...although I think maybe I'll wait for 128 bit...
> Ken Plotkin
>
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garyscott@ev1.net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
Why are there two? God only knows.
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
| |
| glen herrmannsfeldt 2005-06-04, 3:57 pm |
| Gary L. Scott wrote:
(snip regarding CVF)
> Well, there's no support after next year (if you call current support,
> support). And 64 bit is just around the corner. All those 32 bit PCs
> will be instantly obsolete...although I think maybe I'll wait for 128
> bit...
Well, 64 bit is pretty much here now, but I don't believe that it makes
all 32 bit machines instantly obsolete. I actually do have an Athlon 64
machine, Fry's had the Athlon 64 3200+ and motherboard on sale for $200,
and I already had most of the rest of the parts to put a system
together, but I really don't think many people actually need a 64 bit
processor.
For programs that need 64 bit arithmetic, many compilers will generate
the code to do it on IA32 machines, and unless you are doing number
crunching in fixed point 64 bit arithmetic (possible, but rare) the main
advantage is address space. IA32 machines can address 64GB of physical
memory, but the MMU can only do 4GB. If your program needs to address
more than 2GB or 3GB then you need a 64 bit machine, but how many people
are doing that?
I am sure that machines with a 128 bit data bus will be here pretty
soon, but 64 bit addressing should last a while.
(Was there supposed to be a :-) in the previous post?)
-- glen
| |
| Gary L. Scott 2005-06-04, 8:57 pm |
| glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Gary L. Scott wrote:
>
> (snip regarding CVF)
>
>
>
> Well, 64 bit is pretty much here now, but I don't believe that it makes
> all 32 bit machines instantly obsolete. I actually do have an Athlon 64
> machine, Fry's had the Athlon 64 3200+ and motherboard on sale for $200,
> and I already had most of the rest of the parts to put a system
> together, but I really don't think many people actually need a 64 bit
> processor.
>
> For programs that need 64 bit arithmetic, many compilers will generate
> the code to do it on IA32 machines, and unless you are doing number
> crunching in fixed point 64 bit arithmetic (possible, but rare) the main
> advantage is address space. IA32 machines can address 64GB of physical
> memory, but the MMU can only do 4GB. If your program needs to address
> more than 2GB or 3GB then you need a 64 bit machine, but how many people
> are doing that?
>
> I am sure that machines with a 128 bit data bus will be here pretty
> soon, but 64 bit addressing should last a while.
>
> (Was there supposed to be a :-) in the previous post?)
Definitely :-)
>
> -- glen
>
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garyscott@ev1.net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
Why are there two? God only knows.
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-07, 8:59 am |
|
"Steve Lionel" <Steve.Lionel@REMOVEintelME.com> wrote in message
news:hlo0a1198alsj44rl31trnmds67m3vbtou@
4ax.com...
>
> Indeed - all of the "Fortran" part of IVF comes from CVF (with several
more
> years of development, of course).
Baloney. IVF has several more years of development to catch up with CVF.
>
> For more information, including a "white paper" on the migration process,
and
> (soon) an upgrade discount for CVF users, see
> http://www.intel.com/software/produ...rade_to_ivf.htm
We've
> also opened a "CVF Migration Center" section of our user forum at
> http://softwareforums.intel.com/ids...?board.id=CVFMC where people can
ask
> questions and share with other users.
>
To date nobody has asked, and with good reason: CVF works and IVF continues
to be a remedial work in progress.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the fault of his
feet." -- Samuel Beckett.
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-07, 8:59 am |
|
"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply"
<helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message
news:d7ovvo$b9j$2@online.de...
> Look up the thread here or in comp.os.vms where Steve Lionel explained
> why the $!DEC directives are still in the compiler!
>
The Intel wa wa obviously meant the metacommand !MS$ which maps to !DEC$
and lately to !IVF$ or whatever. Thanks to Microsoft, it's not necessary to
use such abominations in MS FPS, DVF, CVF, or IVF.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Take away the right to say "XXXX" and you take away the right to say "XXXX
the government." Lenny Bruce.
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-07, 8:59 am |
|
"Tim Prince" <timothyprince@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gRhoe.2329$wy1.854@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Did you look at the document? It's largely about changes in Visual
Studio
> and USE file names.
Not so: the deficiencies in IVF wrt to C++.NET (a necessity for IVF) and
CVF (its alleged forerunner) read (from the IVF release notes):
Limitations on integration with Visual C++ .NET
1.. When converting a CVF V6 project that uses the default CVF calling
conventions, the calling convention of the converted project is set to CVF.
You may want to change this setting back to the default unless you are
developing a mixed-language application.
2.. The Help button is not yet supported in the Fortran AppWizard
windows.
3.. Selecting the "Application will use ActiveX controls" option in the
Fortran AppWizard dialogs is not yet supported.
Missing features
The following features of Compaq* Visual Fortran 6.6 are not currently
available in Intel® Visual Fortran 8.1:
1.. Support for a user routine MATHERRQQ, used in library routine to trap
errors in math library intrinsics
2.. The /check:overflow option to trap integer overflow at run-time
3.. The /check:power option to signal an error on 0.0 ** 0.0
4.. The /list option to provide source listing files
5.. The Fortran COM Server project type
6.. The Fortran COM Server Wizard
7.. The ability to apply a set of compiler options from an existing
project to new project.(Save Fortran Environment)
8.. The VFRUN self-installing executable to simplify redistributing
applications.
9.. Intel® Visual Fortran Samples are not yet available.
10.. The Source Browser cross-reference tool
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Whereas CVF was claimed by wa wa Lionel to be
the Gold Standard in Fortran, it would appear that IVF doesn't even merit
the leather medal on a wooden string.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Things are not what they seem; or, to be more accurate, they are not only
what they seem, but very much else besides." -- Aldous Huxley.
| |
| Gary L. Scott 2005-06-08, 4:00 am |
| Abdul Qat wrote:
> "Tim Prince" <timothyprince@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:gRhoe.2329$wy1.854@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>=20
>=20
> Studio
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Not so: the deficiencies in IVF wrt to C++.NET (a necessity for IVF) an=
d
> CVF (its alleged forerunner) read (from the IVF release notes):
> Limitations on integration with Visual C++ .NET
> 1.. When converting a CVF V6 project that uses the default CVF callin=
g
> conventions, the calling convention of the converted project is set to =
CVF.
> You may want to change this setting back to the default unless you are
> developing a mixed-language application.
>=20
> 2.. The Help button is not yet supported in the Fortran AppWizard
> windows.
>=20
> 3.. Selecting the "Application will use ActiveX controls" option in t=
he
> Fortran AppWizard dialogs is not yet supported.
>=20
> Missing features
> The following features of Compaq* Visual Fortran 6.6 are not currently
> available in Intel=AE Visual Fortran 8.1:
> 1.. Support for a user routine MATHERRQQ, used in library routine to =
trap
> errors in math library intrinsics
>=20
> 2.. The /check:overflow option to trap integer overflow at run-time
>=20
> 3.. The /check:power option to signal an error on 0.0 ** 0.0
>=20
> 4.. The /list option to provide source listing files
>=20
> 5.. The Fortran COM Server project type
>=20
> 6.. The Fortran COM Server Wizard
>=20
> 7.. The ability to apply a set of compiler options from an existing
> project to new project.(Save Fortran Environment)
>=20
> 8.. The VFRUN self-installing executable to simplify redistributing
> applications.
>=20
> 9.. Intel=AE Visual Fortran Samples are not yet available.
>=20
> 10.. The Source Browser cross-reference tool
>=20
> etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Whereas CVF was claimed by wa wa Lionel t=
o be
> the Gold Standard in Fortran, it would appear that IVF doesn't even mer=
it
> the leather medal on a wooden string.
>=20
Surprisingly, I agree that IVF remains a dissappointment (not the=20
compiler, the "integration"). It is simply incomplete. I continue in a =
quandary about what upgrade path to take. I don't want to be left in=20
the lurch in the 64 bit switch (re: commitment of some vendors to 64=20
bit). However, I think they're already aware of this particular opinion =
regarding the development environment integration and requirement to=20
purchase a separate non-Intel product (besides the OS). If they were=20
inclined to do something about it, I think they would have done so by=20
now. Still, a kinder, gentler approach might work better...wouldn't you =
think?
--=20
Gary Scott
mailto:garyscott@ev1.net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
Why are there two? God only knows.
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows=20
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
| |
| Steve Lionel 2005-06-08, 8:58 pm |
| On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:52:16 -0400, "Abdul Qat" <AbdulQat@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Here's an
>instance of IVF's deficiencies: you can't migrate a CVF project that uses
>IMSL 4.0 to IVF; you must use IMSL 5.0.
Not true, and this claim makes no sense, either. At most you may have to
change the name of one USE, if you coded to PowerStation conventions. Most
projects simply need the build paths adjusted to accomodate the new DLL and
multithread library types (CVF had only a single-thread, static library.)
Steve Lionel
Software Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH
User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://softwareforums.intel.com/
Intel Fortran Support
http://developer.intel.com/software/products/support/
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-08, 8:58 pm |
|
"Steve Lionel" <Steve.Lionel@REMOVEintelME.com> wrote in message
news:fjnea1th86geju5ks9fs8s8kirhq3bdisj@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:52:16 -0400, "Abdul Qat" <AbdulQat@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
uses[color=darkred]
>
> Not true, and this claim makes no sense, either.
Your grossly mistaken and outright misleading. IMSL 4 or 5 modules are not
compatible with IVF or CVF, respectively. CVF projects using IMSL 4 can be
migrated to IVF provided one has IMSL 5, not 4.
--
HTH,
Gerry T.
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-08, 8:58 pm |
|
"Steve Lionel" <Steve.Lionel@REMOVEintelME.com> wrote in message
news:fjnea1th86geju5ks9fs8s8kirhq3bdisj@
4ax.com...
[wa wa elided]
>... new DLL and
> multithread library types (CVF had only a single-thread, static library.)
>
IMSL 5 that's part of IVF 8.1 is demonstrable not thread safe just like
CVF's IMSL 4 and consistent with IVF 8.1's documentations caution in the
usage of IMSL Fortran Library 5.0:
"When calling the IMSL library routines from a multi-threaded application,
be aware that the IMSL routines are not thread-safe. If your application is
multithreaded, make sure that calls to the IMSL library are made from a
single thread only."
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"Things are not what they seem; or, to be more accurate, they are not only
what they seem, but very much else besides." -- Aldous Huxley.
| |
| Richard E Maine 2005-06-08, 8:58 pm |
| In article <fjnea1th86geju5ks9fs8s8kirhq3bdisj@4ax.com>,
Steve Lionel <Steve.Lionel@REMOVEintelME.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:52:16 -0400, "Abdul Qat" <AbdulQat@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not true, and this claim makes no sense, either....
In case you haven't noticed, "Abdul" is an old "regular" here.
Apparently he gets new throwaway hotmail accounts to avoid kill files or
to otherwise amuse himself.
I would presume that any comments that he makes about products are the
result of the same kind of carefully considered, impartial analysis as
comments he regularly makes about people. :-)
You can, of course, use your own judgment about what, if anything, this
implies to you. I do understand that you may be in a bit of a bind when
people make claims about a product that you support. It might be harder
for you to take the same approach that I prefer.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain | experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
| |
| Steve Lionel 2005-06-09, 3:58 pm |
| On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:57:22 -0700, Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature>
wrote:
>In article <fjnea1th86geju5ks9fs8s8kirhq3bdisj@4ax.com>,
> Steve Lionel <Steve.Lionel@REMOVEintelME.com> wrote:
>
>
>In case you haven't noticed, "Abdul" is an old "regular" here.
>Apparently he gets new throwaway hotmail accounts to avoid kill files or
>to otherwise amuse himself.
Yes, I know it's Gerry T.
It's funny - back in 1997 when DVF replaced PowerStation, we got the same kind
of reaction from a handful of individuals who resorted to insults and, um,
inaccurate statements to disparage DVF. Of course, we were new to the Windows
market then, so I took it in stride.
So now we have a product that comes from essentially the entire CVF
development team, based on CVF sources (DVF was not based on PowerStation),
and there are again some who seem to view the transition as some sort of
personal betrayal. I don't understand it.
I had been ignoring Gerry's bait until now - I should have continued to do so
(and will.)
You'll see more from me next w.
Steve Lionel
Software Products Division
Intel Corporation
Nashua, NH
User communities for Intel Software Development Products
http://softwareforums.intel.com/
Intel Fortran Support
http://developer.intel.com/software/products/support/
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-09, 3:58 pm |
|
"Richard E Maine" <nospam@see.signature> wrote in message
news:nospam-1010BA.15572208062005@news.supernews.com...
LOL, how profoundly asinine. Get off your high horse!
And which of the two duplicitous claims made by the Intel spammer
concerning CVF, IVF, and IMSL usage do you buy? Never mind.
BTW, you're just not so stupid as to put anyone on a killfile.
--
Salaam,
Gerry T.
______
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong." -- Voltaire.
| |
| Abdul Qat 2005-06-09, 3:58 pm |
|
"Steve Lionel" <Steve.Lionel@REMOVEintelME.com> wrote in message
news:c5gga191nfrftremgdp8d5mqk9l70vafc7@
4ax.com...
[...]
>
> Yes, I know it's Gerry T.
>
No kidding!
> You'll see more from me next w.
So in contrast to IMSL 5.0/IVF 8.1, the yet-to-be released IMSL 5.x/IVF 9
will be thread safe. Good.
--
You're Welcome,
Gerry T.
______
"I'm going to be as well known as Murphy one of these days." Gordon Moore,
founder of Intel.
| |
|
| Steve Lionel wrote:
>
> So now we have a product that comes from essentially the entire CVF
> development team, based on CVF sources (DVF was not based on PowerStation),
> and there are again some who seem to view the transition as some sort of
> personal betrayal. I don't understand it.
So now you apparently *DON'T HAVE* a product that measures up to even
minimal standards, you do have an incessant stream of guinea pigs, e.g.
tornado Jeff wrote:
>
> I'm compiling with CVF 6.6. I've tried IVF but was not happy with
> it so I'm sticking with CVF till the next IVF major release.
Can you understand it now? Your silence on an earlier post speaks
volumes - you sought to eliminate the obstacle - not by quality, but by
removing CVF from the market. What was the buyout price?
| |
| Ken Plotkin 2005-06-11, 3:58 pm |
| On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:32:37 -0400, Steve Lionel
<Steve.Lionel@REMOVEintelME.com> wrote:
[snip]
>So now we have a product that comes from essentially the entire CVF
>development team, based on CVF sources (DVF was not based on PowerStation),
>and there are again some who seem to view the transition as some sort of
>personal betrayal. I don't understand it.
[snip]
Some of us just hate change. Hope I'm not regarded as one of those
who spewed insults or felt betrayed, but I do subscribe to some
Luddite attitudes. At least as far as change goes.
Eventually, my colleagues and I will change compilers. But I expect
that to be either when F2003 compilers are out and stable, or when
we've migrated to 64 bit processors. That IVF really is CVF is a
really big plus in favor of IVF when the time comes.
I'm curious about one thing. If IVF is now based on CVF, what was it
based on when first released, i.e. before Intel acquired that part of
Compaq, or just after, when the proposed migration was floated?
Ken Plotkin
|
|
|
|
|