root@sunybcs.UUCP (User) (07/18/85)
I am interested in information about UNIX running on IBM machines.
I am particularly interested in the new AT&T product SYSTEM V-VM and
how it compares with the Amdol implementation.
Areas of comparison could include performance and completeness.
In fact, any information available would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Gretchen
CSNet : phillips@buffalo
UUCP : {watmath,dual,decvax,rocksanne}!sunybcs!phillipsian@utcs.UUCP (Ian F. Darwin) (07/22/85)
>I am interested in information about UNIX running on IBM machines. >I am particularly interested in the new AT&T product SYSTEM V-VM and >how it compares with the Amdol implementation. The Amdahl (note spelling) port IS the AT&T System V-VM under a new name. Same product, same performance, same completeness. This product is now available as Amdahl's UTS/V, running under VM/SP. There is a `real soon now' version called UTS/N, that runs native mode; it is only supported on Amdahl hardware (you thought the diffs between PDP-11 CPUs were bad? look at the diffs between IBM/370 series CPUs - not in the instruction set so much as in the `machine check' (hardware error) handling). A more interesting comparison would be between the Amdahl/AT&T port and the IBM port, `IX-370'. Among the salient differences, the Amdahl one supports IBM 3270 terminals, while the IBM one does not! However, the Amdahl one is not supported on IBM 3705 front-end processors, since Amdahl doesn't own one to test it on. Anybody have a full, reasonably unbiased comparison between the two commercially-available ports (there are others, such as one done for a heavily-modified TSS, that are not really available outside certain parts of AT&T)?
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (07/27/85)
In article <759@utcs.UUCP> ian@utcs.UUCP (Ian F. Darwin) writes: >A more interesting comparison would be between the Amdahl/AT&T >port and the IBM port, `IX-370'. Among the salient differences, >the Amdahl one supports IBM 3270 terminals, while the IBM one >does not! However, the Amdahl one is not supported on IBM 3705 >front-end processors, since Amdahl doesn't own one to test it on. Amdahl's support uses a re-microcoded 4705 communications controller, which they make as a less expensive version of IBM's 3705. according to one site that uses one to run UTS, they're not happy with the reliability of the box. on the other hand, i know of another site using it in plain 3705 emulation mode and they think it's just fine. IBM's IX/370 uses series/1 mini's to handle the ascii communications and do the neccesary full duplex to half duplex contortions to communicate with a regular IBM channel. the main editor is not vi, it's ined, something that interactive systems corp. wrote which makes less i/o demands upon the mainframe system and is supposedly a windowing editor like emacs. writing and handling channel programs for byte i/o kills the system. >Anybody have a full, reasonably unbiased comparison between >the two commercially-available ports (there are others, such >as one done for a heavily-modified TSS, that are not really >available outside certain parts of AT&T)? i have been speaking to people running UTS and they are generally quite happy with it. it satisfies the need of people who demand unix without requiring the purchase and maintainance of a new computer system. most of the people i talk to run perhaps 30 users on UTS while simultaneously supporting about 300 users on CMS. IX/370, to my knowledge, has not been shipped yet, though the first customers may be receiving theirs now. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
nzm10@amdahl.UUCP (Neal Macklin) (08/03/85)
> The Amdahl (note spelling) port IS the AT&T System V-VM under > a new name. Same product, same performance, same completeness. > ....... > A more interesting comparison would be between the Amdahl/AT&T > port and the IBM port, `IX-370'. Among the salient differences, > the Amdahl one supports IBM 3270 terminals, while the IBM one > does not! However, the Amdahl one is not supported on IBM 3705 > front-end processors, since Amdahl doesn't own one to test it on. > Well, almost true. Amdahl's Unix (UTS) *does* support the 3705, as well as the 4705, our own faster model. And we do own several 3705s. It's IBM's IX/370 that doesn't run on 3705s (or 3725s....or 3270s...) > > Anybody have a full, reasonably unbiased comparison between > the two commercially-available ports (there are others, such > as one done for a heavily-modified TSS, that are not really > available outside certain parts of AT&T)? BTW, the IBM IX/370 product *IS* the TSS/UNIX port that was done at AT&T. AT&T is marketing the Amdahl port because it is a straight Unix port and not a layered kluge like IX. -- Neal Macklin (408) 737-5214 ...{hplabs,ihnp4}!amdahl!nzm10 [There are no opinions expressed in this article].