portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (02/06/90)
From the 2/6 San Francisco Chronicle, Business section, without
permission:
Apple May Lose Big Defense Contract
Apple Computer Inc.'s largest sale to the federal government could be
reversed in the wake of a General Accounting Office ruling that
Apple's Macintosh system did not meet a key Air Force specification.
...
Under the contract awarded in August, Cupertino-based Apple would
supply at least 10,000 Macintoshes and possibly up to 80,000 of the
desktop computers over several years, plus software and peripheral
devices.
...
The award was widely regarded as a breakthrough in Apple's struggle to
win acceptance in the lucrative government mmarket, and in delivering
operating software called Unix that is preferred by federal agencies.
Therefore the GAO's ruling was seen as a blow.
"It definitely puts a cloud over Apple's federal efforts, primarily
because they hyped the contract so much," said Bob Brewin, a senior
writer at Federal Computer Week, a trade publication that follows
government purchasing.
The GAO's recommendation is not binding on the Air Force, but usually
carries considerably weight. "In nearly all cases the agency carries
out our recommendation,' said David Ashen, a GAO associate general
counsel.
The GAO sustained Martin Marietta's complaint that the Macintosh
system did not adequately meet the Air Force's requirements for
capability called "multitasking" -- the ability for a PC to perform
more than one chore at once.
--M
--
__ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
\/ portuesi@sgi.com Entry Systems Division -- Engineering
"Why you? Because you're Electro-Cop, the best there is."GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET (02/12/90)
In article <PORTUESI.90Feb6120521@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>, portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) says: > >From the 2/6 San Francisco Chronicle, Business section, without >permission: >Apple Computer Inc.'s largest sale to the federal government could be >reversed in the wake of a General Accounting Office ruling that > ... (stuff deleted) >system did not adequately meet the Air Force's requirements for >capability called "multitasking" -- the ability for a PC to perform ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - does this mean the Amiga is about to get a massive boost in the federal government arena? Boy oh boy, if Mr. Copperman pushes the Amiga on this sale, phewie! That would be one heckuva push for the 'ole amy. I wonder what will happen.... --dominic
schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (02/13/90)
In article <90042.132253GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET> GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET writes: > >In article <PORTUESI.90Feb6120521@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>, >portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) says: >> >>From the 2/6 San Francisco Chronicle, Business section, without >>permission: >>Apple Computer Inc.'s largest sale to the federal government could be >>reversed in the wake of a General Accounting Office ruling that >> ... (stuff deleted) >>system did not adequately meet the Air Force's requirements for >>capability called "multitasking" -- the ability for a PC to perform > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - does this mean the Amiga is about to >get a massive boost in the federal government arena? Boy oh boy, if Mr. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - I doubt it. >Copperman pushes the Amiga on this sale, phewie! That would be one heckuva >push for the 'ole amy. > I wonder what will happen.... >--dominic The GAO ruling is a non-binding recommendation that the Air Force does not necessarily have to comply with, although such rulings are not usually ignored. In any event, it doesn't look like the competition would go back to square one. From the 5 February 1990 issue of Federal Computer Week: "GAO called on the Air Force to clarify its requirements and run a new round of best-and-final offers from among the bidders within competitive range. Before the aware, Honeywell, Martin Marietta and C3 Inc. were qualified as competitive." Honeywell Federal Systems is the prime contractor who bid the MacIntosh. Martin Marietta apparently bid Sun workstations, and C3 bid a Zenith Data Systems Z-1000 multiprocessor workstation. What the above means is that if the Amiga wasn't already bid, it can't be in the running now. Another issue might also be the lack of an Ada compiler for the Amiga. While it wasn't mentionned in any of the press reports I saw on the issue, I wouldn't be surprised if an available Ada compiler were a requirement for the contract. Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger CompuServe: 74236,1645 Standard Disclaimer ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (02/14/90)
In article <90042.132253GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET> GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET writes: > >In article <PORTUESI.90Feb6120521@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>, >portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) says: >> >>From the 2/6 San Francisco Chronicle, Business section, without >>permission: >>Apple Computer Inc.'s largest sale to the federal government could be >>reversed in the wake of a General Accounting Office ruling that >> ... (stuff deleted) >>system did not adequately meet the Air Force's requirements for >>capability called "multitasking" -- the ability for a PC to perform > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - does this mean the Amiga is about to >get a massive boost in the federal government arena? Boy oh boy, if Mr. >Copperman pushes the Amiga on this sale, phewie! That would be one heckuva >push for the 'ole amy. > I wonder what will happen.... >--dominic As near as I can tell from reading the article in EE Times, the GAO recommended that the Air Force reopen negotiations with the original bidders. The article did not list all bidders, but the bidders that were mentioned did not include Commodore. In addition, the GAO recommendation is not binding on the Air Force. The contract is for Unix workstations. Honeywell was the bidder that attempted to provide Macs on the contract, running Apple's A/UX. Apparently (not clear from the article) the requirement for "secure multitasking" is met by A/UX, but not by the Mac OS. I am not certain what is meant by "secure multitasking", but it sounds like they mean multi-user with appropriate passwords and permission levels. If that is the standard then AmigaDOS wouldn't meet the requirement either. In any case, if the Macs are being thrown out because of an auxillary OS (one not required for the contract) then it sounds like a crock to me. All they have to do is remove the Mac OS and ship the boxes with only the required Unix support. It sounds to me like a bunch of bureaucrats reading the fine print without understanding what the purpose of the requirement is. DISCLAIMER: I prefer Amiga over Mac any day, but a crock is a crock -- --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (02/15/90)
In article <-1773786462@convex.convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >In article <90042.132253GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET> GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET writes: >> >>In article <PORTUESI.90Feb6120521@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>, >>portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) says: >>> >>>From the 2/6 San Francisco Chronicle, Business section, without >>>permission: >>>Apple Computer Inc.'s largest sale to the federal government could be >>>reversed in the wake of a General Accounting Office ruling that >>> ... (stuff deleted) >>>system did not adequately meet the Air Force's requirements for >>>capability called "multitasking" -- the ability for a PC to perform >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - does this mean the Amiga is about to >>get a massive boost in the federal government arena? Boy oh boy, if Mr. >>Copperman pushes the Amiga on this sale, phewie! That would be one heckuva >>push for the 'ole amy. >> I wonder what will happen.... >>--dominic >As near as I can tell from reading the article in EE Times, the GAO >recommended that the Air Force reopen negotiations with the original >bidders. The article did not list all bidders, but the bidders that >were mentioned did not include Commodore. In addition, the GAO >recommendation is not binding on the Air Force. > >The contract is for Unix workstations. Honeywell was the bidder that >attempted to provide Macs on the contract, running Apple's A/UX. Apparently >(not clear from the article) the requirement for "secure multitasking" >is met by A/UX, but not by the Mac OS. .... I don't believe the contract required the use of Unix. It does require multitasking. C3 Inc. bid the Zenith Data Systems Z-1000 multiprocessor workstation. I don't know if this runs Unix or not. Martin Marietta originated the protest to the award, which is what GAO ruled on. Martin Marietta bid Sun workstations. [...stuff deleted...] >In any case, if the Macs are being thrown out because of an auxillary OS >(one not required for the contract) then it sounds like a crock to me. [...stuff deleted...] It's my understanding that the Macs were thrown out because the packages proposed to meet certain required applications would run only under Mac OS and not under Unix, therefore could not multi-task. From the Feb 5 1990 issue of Federal Computer Week: ... "GAO found that Honeywell's bid violated the requirement for multi-tasking up to 10 programs. 'The specification did not envision that the overall requirement for multitasking could be frustrated by allowing an offeror to propose a class of software that does not permit multitasking,' GAO said." >--Steve >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger CompuServe: 74236,1645 Standard Disclaimer ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
walrus@wam.umd.edu (Udo K Schuermann) (02/16/90)
In article <-1773786462@convex.convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >In article <90042.132253GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET> GIAMPAL@AUVM.BITNET writes: >> >>In article <PORTUESI.90Feb6120521@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>, >>portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) says: >>> >>>From the 2/6 San Francisco Chronicle, Business section, without >>>permission: >>>Apple Computer Inc.'s largest sale to the federal government could be >>>reversed in the wake of a General Accounting Office ruling that >>> ... (stuff deleted) >>>system did not adequately meet the Air Force's requirements for >>>capability called "multitasking" -- the ability for a PC to perform >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - does this mean the Amiga is about to >>get a massive boost in the federal government arena? Boy oh boy, if Mr. >>Copperman pushes the Amiga on this sale, phewie! That would be one heckuva >>push for the 'ole amy. >> I wonder what will happen.... >>--dominic > [SOME STUFF DELETED] >The contract is for Unix workstations. Honeywell was the bidder that >attempted to provide Macs on the contract, running Apple's A/UX. Apparently >(not clear from the article) the requirement for "secure multitasking" >is met by A/UX, but not by the Mac OS. I am not certain what is meant >by "secure multitasking", but it sounds like they mean multi-user with >appropriate passwords and permission levels. If that is the standard >then AmigaDOS wouldn't meet the requirement either. Secure multitasking, I'm sure, in this case refers to the ability to execute tasks without possible interference to other tasks' address space. This requires an MMU (memory management unit). If A/UX employs memory protection, then it meets this requirement. I know that AmigaDOS does not make use of an MMU, and is in fact engineered so that the addition of an MMU could drastically reduce system performance: message passing under AmigaDOS is done by passing a pointer, not by copying data through operating system controlled shared memory: it's a performance issue. Udo Schuermann "I've got the 'segmentation violation: core dumped' blues."