someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on August 2, 2012 7:38 am wrote:
> Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on August 2, 2012 6:31 am
> wrote:
> > Paul A. Clayton (paaronclayton.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 2,
> 2012 5:20 am
> > wrote:
> > > A
> > > decline of HP-UX sales would
> seem to be rather bad news for
> > VMS and NonStop
> > > users. If HP
> is unwilling to support migration of HP-UX
> > to x86, there might be
> >
> > justified concerns about the continued life of the
> > less popular
> Itanium OSes.
> > > (Migration from HP-UX to Linux is probably
> >
> much easier than a migration from VMS
> > > to Linux, so moving HP-UX to
> x86
> > might not be perceived as worthwhile but a
> > > greater life
> extension might
> > be considered for VMS.)
> >
> > Maybe, maybe
> not.
> > IBM's zSeries keeps living and
> > being profitable on it's own,
> even though it requires a massive R&D effort,
> > including specific
> CPUs.
> >
> > Does VMS and NonStop bring the same kind of
> >
> revenue?
> > And do they need the same kind of R&D effort or can they be
> ported
> > to x86?
> >
>
> IPF revenues exceeded that of z series in the
> 2007/2008 era of peak IPF
> sales but dropped slightly below in the post 2008
> recession. Oracle's
> campaign against IPF has pushed it distinctly under sales
> of z series
> but not so far that a Poulson based refresh and HP strongly
> promoting
> alternatives to Oracle software couldn't once again push it ahead
> although
> that would depend on the overall health of the Unix server segment.


Although that doesn't directly address Ricardo's question. Without a semi-healthy HP-UX base, it's unlikely that IPF development is sustainable for only the VMS and NonStop customer bases. Likewise System Z would not be viable without the zOS base (despite the existence of zVSE, zTPF, zVM, and Linux).