Re: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- From: Gary Scott <garylscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:24:36 GMT
Tim Prince wrote:
Gary Scott wrote:I would expect most of the above vendors to produce such a compiler for whatever architecture becomes predominant, eventually.
eperea wrote: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.
Gary Scott wrote: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 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.
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.
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot 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
.
- References:
- ANN: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- From: jpbrooks
- Re: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- From: eperea
- Re: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- From: Gary Scott
- Re: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- From: Tim Prince
- ANN: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- Prev by Date: Re: sockets question
- Next by Date: GPU programming with Fortran?
- Previous by thread: Re: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- Next by thread: Re: New Visual Fortran Product Survey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
