greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) (05/09/85)
I just got back from a NY UniGroup meeting where I got to play
with the 7300.
Some impressions:
Very pretty. It will look wonderful sitting on your desk.
Nice graphics, decent res.
Escaping to shell (or forking to vi) from
$ ls -lR / | more (or ls -lR / | page)
barfs out. Funny error messages, some endless loops, etc.
Looks like a piping problem.
Security needs to be beefed up (although somebody could have screwed
around with file protections). Make sure to check the permissions
on certain devices.
AT&T claim 9 users. Could be. I felt it was *VERY*
slow with one user.
Other impressions will take a few days to form.
Let me know (by e-mail) what you think of it. I'll summarize,
of course.
(Would somebody at AT&T let me know how you could let a product out
the door wih glaring bugs (you can get a panic dump from too
many interrupts in the window manager!)? )
The people from AT&T said they would "get back to me" on these
problems. I tend to believe them....they really seemed to give a damn!
Maybe there will be decent product support??
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<---------
^^^^^^^^^--->New and improved, with added zing!
"If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other,
there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other
loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggertmark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/09/85)
In article <166@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross Greenberg) writes: >Escaping to shell (or forking to vi) from >$ ls -lR / | more (or ls -lR / | page) >barfs out. Funny error messages, some endless loops, etc. >Looks like a piping problem. Why would you want to vi the output of the ls command? This is an old bug in more that was fixed by 4.2BSD - it's execing vi with stdin set to the pipe, so the output of ls is being taken by vi as keyboard commands. More now beeps if you try to do something this silly. I'm not sure what pg does in SVR2. >AT&T claim 9 users. Could be. I felt it was *VERY* >slow with one user. More specifically, the disk is slow, compared to the speed of everything else. CPU processes seem quite fast. However, in a disk that small and that inexpensive, you can't expect a lot of speed. Mark
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/11/85)
In article <1160@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: (Quoting me...): >>Escaping to shell (or forking to vi) from >>$ ls -lR / | more (or ls -lR / | page) >>barfs out. Funny error messages, some endless loops, etc. >>Looks like a piping problem. > >Why would you want to vi the output of the ls command? This is an old >bug in more that was fixed by 4.2BSD - it's execing vi with stdin set >to the pipe, so the output of ls is being taken by vi as keyboard commands. >More now beeps if you try to do something this silly. I'm not sure what >pg does in SVR2. > Mark, if you note from above, I talked about *escaping* to the shell or vi. You know, like when more gives that funky --More-- jazz and awaits your input?? I typed a simple "!sh" or a simple "!vi" and was taken out for breakfast, lunch *and* dinner. Page did it too. You're right in that it appeared to be taking some of the stuff in the pipe as input to the new child process. >>AT&T claim 9 users. Could be. I felt it was *VERY* >>slow with one user. > >More specifically, the disk is slow, compared to the speed of everything >else. CPU processes seem quite fast. However, in a disk that small and >that inexpensive, you can't expect a lot of speed. > > Mark Yes, I can expect a faster performing *machine* from AT&T. If it isn't fast enough to do any practical work, then (whatever the reason) the machine just doesn't have the bang for the buck that I was hoping. I mean, lets be serious: $7000 for a machine that requires over a minute for simultaneous logins on two terminals??? Now this machine only had 512K so there was a lot of swapping going on, but why would AT&T send an army (well, about eight people) to a Uni-Group meeting with machines that were configured as such toys *UNLESS* they actually consider that to be what people will buy. I don't want to buy a Super-Duper Disk Unit from Smith's Computer company to make up for problems in the configuration and pricing scheme that AT&T choose. Whew! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- ^^^^^^^^^--->New and improved, with added zing! "If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggert
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/12/85)
> Now this machine only had 512K [...] with machines that were > configured as such toys *UNLESS* they actually consider that to be > what people will buy. The AT&T guys were vary careful to point out several times during the presentation and in the Q&A that followed that for the type of use most of the audience would have for the machine (i.e. program development) that you should almost certainly only consider the full-blown 2Mb RAM, 20Mb winnie system, with the optional utilities package (C compiler, etc). There was no hint of trying to deceive the audience that the stripped down version would be satisfactory for the intensive environment you seem to have in mind. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making the C compiler, and other utilities optional as long as you make no secret of it. If you don't want them, you don't have to buy them. If you do, you know what you are getting into and how much the option will cost. My biggest complaint about the 7300 (I only played with it for a few minutes; no serious shakedown, no real effort to learn how to take advantage of its features) is that a large percentage of the screen is wasted on the wide borders around the windows. Screen area is at a premium; why waste so much of it on 3/4" wide borders. My personal opinion is that as a stand alone it is probably worth it, but I'd rather sink a few more $k into a diskless Sun. -- allegra!phri!roy (Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/13/85)
The UNIX PC is clearly intended as a single user machine. It runs UNIX, so in theory you can have more than one user. They even provide a way to plug in another user or two. But this is also true of the IBM XT running any of the UNIX ports, yet you would never claim the XT is intended as a multi-user machine. So the time it takes 2 users to log in on a stripped model is hardly an important benchmark. $6K gets you a fully loaded machine. (Plus software, and I'm not sure what that's priced at.) At that price, the UNIX PC has no competition. It's MUCH faster than an XT. Unlike the IBM AT, it has a 12.5MHz processor (about 6 times the benchmark speed of the XT), a full 32 bit machine (well, it's a 68010, it LOOKS like 32 bits), and there are no known reliability problems with the disk. The other products in this market, such as the 3B2, the Fortune, and the Tektronix, will run you $10K or more, and you have to supply your own terminal (which probably won't be bitmapped.) (The HP will run you $9K if you want a hard disk.) (These products do have additional capabilities, such as decent multi-user performance and faster disks, but are often used as single user machines anyway.) And yes, given the choice of a UNIX PC or a Sun, I'd choose a Sun any day. The Sun has a much larger screen, is faster, and speaks TCP/IP/Ethernet. However, the Sun is in a totally different market. You have to spend over $16K (list price) for their most stripped standalone system, plus $4K for a 2nd MB of RAM (4.2BSD is a pig with only 1MB) and another $4K if you want the bitmapped display. You need to have several users to make their fileserver oriented system pay off financially.
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/13/85)
In article <228@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: (Quoting me) >> Now this machine only had 512K [...] with machines that were >> configured as such toys *UNLESS* they actually consider that to be >> what people will buy. > > The AT&T guys were vary careful to point out several times >during the presentation and in the Q&A that followed that for the type >of use most of the audience would have for the machine (i.e. program >development) that you should almost certainly only consider the >full-blown 2Mb RAM, 20Mb winnie system, with the optional utilities >package (C compiler, etc). There was no hint of trying to deceive the >audience that the stripped down version would be satisfactory for the >intensive environment you seem to have in mind. I tend to disagree with you. I feel that a system that is buggy and as slow as this system was/is should not be put out by AT&T. Lets be honest: weren't we expecting a machine that would blow your socks off?? I mean, with AT&T coming out with a UNIX machine !!! And then we get this toy with the caveat that if you want to do any productive work, well then the machines that were brought to a UNIX user group really aren't the ones for you.....you need the version that they neglected to bring. Corporate users of the 7300 still need decent response time, and a (as much as possible) bug-free system. And I really wasn't thinking of an "intensive environment". I was thinking about "normal" uses (whatever the heck that is!) > [...] > My personal opinion is that as a stand alone it is probably >worth it, but I'd rather sink a few more $k into a diskless Sun. > And therein is the problem: how can we get corporate management to accept UNIX in personal computers when we can't even reccommend the 7300 to them. It would have been nice to have a machine so powerful and inexpensive that the biggest problem would have been which of the clones to choose from. Do you see that happening? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggert
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/13/85)
In article <1176@cbosgd.UUCP> mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: >The UNIX PC is clearly intended as a single user machine. It runs >UNIX, so in theory you can have more than one user. They even provide >a way to plug in another user or two. But this is also true of the IBM XT >running any of the UNIX ports, yet you would never claim the XT is >intended as a multi-user machine. So the time it takes 2 users to log in >on a stripped model is hardly an important benchmark. > No, Mark. AT&T brought these machines in for a demo. They were the ones who said "the machine in the corner is running UNIX. The one that *we* set up multi-user." So, at least for this demo that *they* ran, it was intended as a multi-user machine. And please recall that the IBM-XT UNIX was a third party UNIX. It (the IBM-XT) was not presented as a "UNIX PC". The 7300 is. And it doesn't (in my opinion) live up to it. I think that it will be a great machine, and it looks real pretty. But it doesn't run UNIX in a fashion that *I* would be comfortable with. So it looks like I'll have to wait until something faster than the Fortune 32:16 comes out from AT&T. <Still collecting those 7300 bugs and fixes, folks...> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggert
dan@rna.UUCP (Dan Ts'o) (05/13/85)
In article <> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >>>AT&T claim 9 users. Could be. I felt it was *VERY* >>>slow with one user. >> >>More specifically, the disk is slow, compared to the speed of everything >>else. CPU processes seem quite fast. However, in a disk that small and >>that inexpensive, you can't expect a lot of speed. >> >> Mark >Yes, I can expect a faster performing *machine* from AT&T. If it isn't >fast enough to do any practical work, then (whatever the reason) the >machine just doesn't have the bang for the buck that I was hoping. >I mean, lets be serious: $7000 for a machine that requires over a minute >for simultaneous logins on two terminals??? Now this machine only >had 512K so there was a lot of swapping going on, but why would AT&T >send an army (well, about eight people) to a Uni-Group meeting with >machines that were configured as such toys *UNLESS* they actually >consider that to be what people will buy. I was at the Uni-Group demo of the AT&T and this comment does not match my impression. Yes, the disk was slow relative to what I am used to (it has an 85ms access time, I don't know the transfer rate). But I thought the machine was quite speedy. It is a virtual memory 10Mhz 68010. Nroff for example, benchmarked at .6 of a 11/780 (Eagles, 4.2BSD). For the price (which I think you have wrong, my impression is that with standard discounts it will be in the $4000 range), I think it is not bad, especially considering an okay window interface and integral phone modem. I believe that you were misled at the demo by trying to do simultaneous logins on a loaded machine. Most of the time at the demo, the 7300's have ~6 active windows, each doing quite a lot of work such as flashing digitized pictures, rotating figures, etc. I am not saying it is the greatest machine. The disk is definitely a problem if you want use the 7300 as a typical multiuser UNIx machine. On the other hand, the disk is probably fine for your average single user business application. The windowing interface is a great step, but not quite up to MacIntosh standards. I also hate green screens. But I think the machine is worth considering, especially if (as someone else thought) the machine might be available to some for $3000.
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (05/14/85)
> Nroff for example, benchmarked at .6 of a 11/780 (Eagles, 4.2BSD).
this is better than it sounds; UNIX System V nroff does a bit more
work, typically, than 4.2BSD nroff.roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/14/85)
Oh boy! a real flame exchange, how fun! :-) > weren't we expecting a machine that would blow your socks off?? Yeah, I was a bit disappointed. But then again, most of the stuff AT&T has done (let's say since PWB) has been disappointing. > Corporate users [..] need decent response time, and a [..] bug-free system. True; the second point even more so than the first. Us "real programmers" know how to work around bugs, and are willing to do so if the payoff is high enough. Corporate users won't be able to handle unexpected situations as well and will just get discouraged. > It would have been nice to have a machine so powerful and inexpensive > that the biggest problem would have been which of the clones to choose > from. Do you see that happening? No, not with the 7300 I don't. This is not to say that I think there won't be 7300 clones. OEMs make clones not because they think the original product was technically good, but because they think it will become popular (look at all the VT-220 ripoffs). Especially with an item aimed towards a non-technical audience, there is little correlation between the two. -- allegra!phri!roy (Roy Smith) System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
aaa@mtunh.UUCP (Aaron Akman) (05/14/85)
******* I have been using the AT&T UNIX PC for 4 months now, and I have yet to be dissapointed: 1. I have been able to do serious development work on the UNIX PC (where serious development work means dozens of source files and complicated makes), 2. I have been able to hook myself into a "uucp" network so that I can do file transfer, print spooling, and mail to remote UNIX sites. 3. I regularly call my own workstation from remote locations and login. 4. I will soon be getting Microsoft Word for my word processing applications. AT&T doesn't claim that the UNIX PC will be faster than a speeding bullet with 1/2 Meg . . . but it certainly works. I happen to also be an MS-DOS user . . . and no one told me that in order to get MS-DOS to run fast enough to satisfy my needs that I would need to upgrade from 128K to 1/2 Meg and buy a RAMDISK program. Sure, it works with 128K, but try using the Lattice "C" compiler, or work with a large 1-2-3 spreadsheet . . . . If turbo-speed is what you want, try a 20 Meg UNIX PC with 1 Meg of RAM. My system never thrashes, the disk is almost never being accessed if I am not exec-ing a program or if it isn't doing a "sync". Aaron Akman (These are my views, not my employer's)
jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro) (05/15/85)
A disk seek time of 85 ms? What cave did they drag that out of? Maybe it's time someone showed AT&T how a UNIX machine should be built...
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (05/15/85)
> Maybe it's time someone showed AT&T how a UNIX machine should be built...
"Feel free ..."greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/16/85)
In article <395@rna.UUCP> dan@rna.UUCP ( Ts'o) writes: > ... For the price >(which I think you have wrong, my impression is that with standard discounts >it will be in the $4000 range), I think it is not bad, especially considering >an okay window interface and integral phone modem. > > I believe that you were misled at the demo by trying to do >simultaneous logins on a loaded machine. ... > >...is worth considering, especially if (as someone else thought) the machine >might be available to some for $3000. <Sigh...> There's a big difference to how *I* consider the machine for myself and how I consider it as something that AT&T is trying to market to corporate accounts. Now the corporate accouts will not be getting the hefty and spiffy developer discounts that were mentioned at UNI-Group. They *may* get some relatively modest volume discounts, if they buy enough machines in one shot. So I figure that the $6000-$7000 price would probably be what a Fortune 500 would pay for <5 machines. Remember: you have to buy the operating system as an add-on!!!! And, as a note, the machine that I had all my problems with was set up multi-user, with no windowing environment (although I did try that later. I could have had dinner while waiting for the login on the terminal to ask for my password!!) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggart
adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (05/16/85)
The following views are my own, NOT my company's. Aah, Flames.... I have used the UNIX PC for three weeks now, and have found it an excellent machine if used right, with several caveats: 1. The consumer shell (called ua) is an excellent tool for easy performance of all those system adminstration tasks that I never quite became fluent in, like updating uucp control files. I never dreamed uucp administration, or lp queue setup, or port configuration, etc. etc. could be made so easy (even an utter non-programmer can do things on a UNIX PC that require a skilled SA on traditional UNIX systems, and never even notice having done them). But for things that one is fluent in, going through the menus of the ua just slows you down. 2. If you want the 7300 to show its stuff as a UNIX engine, USE IT AS A UNIX ENGINE. Note that you can avoid the ua altogether by logging in as root, or by removing the "exec ua" line from your $HOME/.profile. That is a good idea for anyone who knows how to use an "expert friendly" shell; the ua takes forever to start up (this is why a login takes so long if you leave "exec ua" in your profile), and slows everything down whenever it is running. If you need it, you can always "exec ua" later from your login shell. 3. If you avoid the ua, the UNIX PC can support up to 3 users with reasonable speed. It slows down with more than 3, but that is to be expected: after all, a 68010 is not a 32100. 4. You don't need the ua to have windows. I have implemented a blit-like borderless asynchronous windowing environment with a few simple kernel calls. This needs ksh aliases, though, for full functionality, so I don't plan to post it here unless there is a demand. Incidentally, ksh (as distributed by the AT&T UNIX Toolchest) ports very readily to the UNIX PC. Adam Reed ihnp4!npois!npoiw!adam (npoiw is a UNIX PC)
vip@philabs.UUCP (V. I. P.) (05/17/85)
>it was intended as a multi-user machine. And please recall that >the IBM-XT UNIX was a third party UNIX. It (the IBM-XT) was not >presented as a "UNIX PC". The 7300 is. And it doesn't (in my opinion) >live up to it. I think that it will be a great machine, and it looks real No, the IBM-XT is not a "UNIX PC" but the IBM-IX was and that machine was such a dog that nobody even wanted to hear about it 3 months after it was announced. I think IBM has dropped this product... Brian Day UUCP: philabs!vip
george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (05/21/85)
(eat this :-) In <185@timeinc.UUCP>, Ross Greenberg writes: > Now the corporate accouts will not be getting the hefty and spiffy > developer discounts that were mentioned at UNI-Group. They *may* get > some relatively modest volume discounts, if they buy enough machines > in one shot. So I figure that the $6000-$7000 price would probably > be what a Fortune 500 would pay for <5 machines. Remember: you have > to buy the operating system as an add-on!!!! While you'd be correct in saying that most companies don't get OEM type, discounts, those that buy alot, get alot. I've seen large, non-OEM companies get OEM discounts or better, because of quantity. Over and above that, my guess is that AT&T would *love* to get into the Fortune 500 companies and will be very aggressive in their marketing to large companies. If you really think it's too much for what you get, just think what over 4,000,000 purchasers paid (and got) for their IBM PC's & XT's (shudder). -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. {cbosgd, decvax, harpo, ihnp4}!utcs!mnetor!george