Re: New Visual Fortran Product Survey

Gary Scott wrote:
eperea wrote:

Gary Scott wrote:

I still don't see how they can call it "visial fortran". Isn't that
trademarked already? MS sure wouldn't allow somebody to put out a
visual something that they produce without a $ fight.


There is at least one commercial Visual Fortran out already:

http://www.intel.com/cd/software/products/asmo-na/eng/compilers/278834.htm


Version 9.1 is for Visual Studio 2005. I imagine Intel would object as
much as Microsoft.

That's what I meant. I assume that MS authorized DEC to use the name, and that that authorization transferred to Compaq/HP and then to Intel (don't know that) when the compiler/components/rights were successively purchased by those companies. So I'd assume that the trademark belongs to Intel (unless Compaq/HP retained it, but I doubt that since they aren't using it). It is also strange to me that Portland thinks that it can compete and provide a better product than Lahey, Absoft, and Intel (and Salford/Silverfrost and Pathscale and ...). (meaning aren't there enough already?)

I work for one of those companies, and I have no idea what the answer is, beyond the public information, which is often misquoted. HP does own and retain the rights to DEC/Compaq Visual Fortran, and their disuse of it does not give anyone else a right to use it. Nor did Microsoft extend the agreement under which CVF was developed to any other successor.
Microsoft exercises a great deal of control over any integration of 3rd party compilers with Visual Studio, and it seems they may have negotiated a change in the rules again in this case. Those rules tend to restrict what kind of debugging facilities will be available etc etc. I have no idea whether HP may have been a party to the naming or development of this product.
I might guess that PGI (as it appears to be responsible according to posted headers) has backing from certain hardware vendors. I believe the wording which says the product is only for Windows X64 EM64T and AMD64, for which only a minority of the vendors mentioned above have a product.
If I believe the most recent report that only 4% of licensed Windows copies are 64-bit (and I've never been offered a pirated 64-bit Windows), it does seem like a confined market. I suspect (as catalog listings appear to confirm) a vast majority of 64-bit capable computers are sold with 32-bit Windows installed, with the customer having no idea of the 64-bit option. I'll let others guess whether another available Fortran compiler will change that.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TRANFER OF LICENSE for WinXP from VPC to Parallels/BootCamp?
    ... Since Microsoft has KILLED Virtual PC for Intel, ... Windows XP) can no longer be used. ... legitimate transfer of the Windows XP License to a program that will ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc)
  • Re: It is almost certain now, INTEL will have 64bit x86 !!
    ... And that when Windows XP was being launched, both Intel ... > How much are drivers specific to a motherboard? ... > But Microsoft already has the experience from its port of Windows to Alpha. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: For RM, another fine article you might enjoy
    ... you can even download your favorite Windows and MS Office ... >>As to Intel being worse than Microsoft, ... >>of Intel that has any chance of being permanent. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • [64-bit native compiler] new Route64 workshops
    ... Microsoft, Intel and HP bring their Route64 Training Tour 2005 to North ... New Windows and SQL 64-bit products from ... Migrating and Optimizing to SQL Server 2000 64-bit Edition ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • SecurityFocus Microsoft Newsletter #176
    ... MICROSOFT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ... Microsoft Windows XP HCP URI Handler Arbitrary Command Execu... ... PHPNuke Category Parameter SQL Injection Vulnerability ... Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer Vulnerability Identific... ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)