west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (02/14/85)
The business section of the New York Times reported today (Wed 13 Feb)
that IBM will support UNIX on its 4300 series computers. This may
be extended to other series in the future. This is an attempt by
IBM to enter the academic/scientific market dominated by DEC.
The main point of the article, though, was the announcement of the
new Sierra (309x) series. Not an astounding improvement on the 308x's,
but a much better cost/performance ratio. Price breaks of 10% or so
on the 308x's, effective immediately. However, the Sierra line
already has a long delay -- first shipments of the low-end model
due at the end of 1985, the higher-end models due in 1987. Yes, 1987.
--
-- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science
-- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west
-- ARPA: west@NPRDC { NOT: <sdcsla!west@NPRDC> }josh@v1.UUCP (Josh Knight) (02/17/85)
> The business section of the New York Times reported today (Wed 13 Feb) > that IBM will support UNIX on its 4300 series computers. The IBM Unix offering on System/370 computers that was recently announced is called IX/370 and runs on ANY System/370 (43XX or 30XX) with VM/SP Release 3.0 or later with or without VM/SP HPO Release 3.4 or later. Planned availability is October 1985. Your IBM sales representative is the authoritative source for information on IBM software and hardware products. You can't trust what those weirdos in the research division say (:-). Josh Knight, IBM T.J. Watson Research josh at YKTVMX on BITNET, josh.yktvmx.ibm on CSnet, ...!philabs!v1!josh
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (02/19/85)
In article <801@sdcsla.UUCP> west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) writes: ||The business section of the New York Times reported today (Wed 13 Feb) ||that IBM will support UNIX on its 4300 series computers. Will this be as a virtual machine (I think that's what they call them) under VM? (What I really mean is, will it be able to run together with other operating systems at the same time?) Also, any word on what the price might be - something cheaper than Amdahl's UTS, I hope... Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
dob@ihu1n.UUCP (Daniel M. O'Brien) (02/19/85)
> In article <801@sdcsla.UUCP> west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) writes: > ||The business section of the New York Times reported today (Wed 13 Feb) > ||that IBM will support UNIX on its 4300 series computers. > > Will this be as a virtual machine (I think that's what they > call them) under VM? (What I really mean is, will it be able > to run together with other operating systems at the same time?) > Also, any word on what the price might be - something cheaper > than Amdahl's UTS, I hope... > > Dave Sherman If you are talking about IX/370, it runs under (and requires) VM and should be shareable with other guest operating systems. It won't be restricted to just the 4300 series machines, however, but should run the entire line. The One-Time Charge, excluding the cost of VM, depends on the number of Currently Signed-on Terminal Users (CSTUs). Here is the breakdown: CSTU Total License Charge ---- -------------------- 16 $10,000 32 20,000 64 40,000 65+ 75,000 --- Daniel M. O'Brien AT&T Bell Laboratories IH 4A-258 Naperville, IL 60566 ....!ihu1n!dob
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (02/19/85)
In article <424@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >In article <801@sdcsla.UUCP> west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) writes: >||The business section of the New York Times reported today (Wed 13 Feb) >||that IBM will support UNIX on its 4300 series computers. > >Will this be as a virtual machine (I think that's what they >call them) under VM? (What I really mean is, will it be able >to run together with other operating systems at the same time?) >Also, any word on what the price might be - something cheaper >than Amdahl's UTS, I hope... > >Dave Sherman >-- >{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave >{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave IX/370 is designed to run solely in a virtual machine environment (i.e., it can't run standalone on a S/370 or 370-XA machine). thus, it can co-exist with other virtual machines running any other operating system supported by VM (almost every one ever made for 360/370 machines). terminal i/o is handled through series/1 mini's that allows full duplex terminal communications within the s/370 channel architecture. cost is high and it comes sourceless. if anyone hasn't seen it posted already (it was on arpanet), i can send the full announcement letter. 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
nishri@utcs.UUCP (Alex Nishri) (02/20/85)
In article <424@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: >Will this be as a virtual machine (I think that's what they >call them) under VM? (What I really mean is, will it be able >to run together with other operating systems at the same time?) >Also, any word on what the price might be - something cheaper >than Amdahl's UTS, I hope... - unlike Amdahl's UTS, IX/370 is full duplex and comes with uucp and vi. - IX/370 must run under VM/SP. VM/SP is a very simple program which allows multiple operating systems to run under one IBM 370 Architecture machine giving each the illusion of having their own machine. Operating Systems which know they are running under VM/SP, as presumably IX/370 does, can also issue hypervisor calls to VM/SP to obtain some "hardware" services which are more complex to issue on a real IBM 370. - Prices from the (American) announcement letter: Maximum Number of One Time Charge Concurrently signed on users 16 $10,000 32 $20,000 64 $40,000 65+ $75,000 Monthly Licensed Program Support Charge: $475.00 Monthly Multiple Licensed Program Support Charge: $792.00 - Of course you will also need a machine which can run IBM 370 architecture (with at least 4 Megabyte of storage.) And one Series/1 computer per virtual machine running IX/370. At least 200Mb of IBM type DASD and at least one IBM tape drive. - Source and online documentation are not supplied. One hardcopy of some documentation is shipped free with each license. - IBM had an Announcements Seminar today in Toronto (lasting 5 hours.) Many new strategic products were announced. The IX/370 annoucement was glossed over in a few seconds (and only one slide). A statement was made to the effect that IX/370 could be used to consolidate centrally your currently distributed UNIX. (A key theme from IBM in the last few years has been that distributed systems are a good approach for some applications, but that eventually distributed systems just but a greater demand for large centrally supported services. One joke, "If you have an office near a water fountain, your PC future is better.") - General Availability: October, 1985 Education (IX/370 planning & installation): Third Quarter 1985 What I heard may not be entirely the way it was said, so please verify things for yourself. Alex Nishri University of Toronto BITNET: alex at utoronto USENET: ... utcs!nishri
nishri@utcs.UUCP (Chris Lewis) (02/22/85)
This is the second IBM UNIX for 370 series announced within the last year. The previous one titled VM/IX was a "special bid PRPQ" (I think that is the term). This means that the product is not generally announced. Your local IBM representative is supposed to determine which of his customers would benefit from it, and then petition the regional IBM Office for permission to let the customer ask for it. At a previous employer I was attempting to evaluate and possible acquire a copy of VM/IX. I found out quite quickly that VM/IX wasn't particularly useful. Due to political constraints, VM/IX has two major drawbacks which made it impossible for us to use it with our large 308x VM/SP3 system: 1) It has no support for 327x screens (IX/370 has this problem). You must have a Series/1 front end with ASCII serial terminals. 2) VM/IX will not run on VM/SP HPO (high performance option). Now, we weren't too terribly concerned with point 1 - the Series/1 is fairly inexpensive and we had quite a few serial terminals at the time. It was a substantial inconvenience though, because the building was only wired for 327x clusters. However, the second problem is quite severe. After all, when you have a BIG system with lots of users you really need HPO. Downgrading our system to non-HPO was obviously not an option. So, our only practical alternative was to get a 4300 for the VM/IX. That was too expensive. So, I gave up on it. In addition, I'm not sure that VM/IX was really intended for anything other than 43xx processors. It may not have been supported on anything larger - though I know that it IS running on bigger machines. The reason I bring this up is that people should make sure whether IX/370 supports HPO before dashing out and buying it for your big blue behemoth. Obviously VM/IX was primarily intended for situations where customers were looking for a big blue alternative to buying a VAX. VM/IX is not suitable for existing VM/SP systems. [ These are my own opinions - not necessarily any of my employer's. They don't know anything about this anyhow ] Chris Lewis Computer X (CANADA) Ltd. utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) (02/22/85)
as far as i can tell from the latest Computer System News,
IX/370 is being supported across the entire /370 line including the
new Sierra 309x series. IX/370 runs as a guest operating system
(not native). prices range from $10,000 to $75,000 (object,
not source, as i recall) depending upon number of users. see also
Yates-Gram from Yates Ventures. the guts will hit Datamation and
other mags within a couple weeks, i'm sure.
from the description i saw, IX/370 looks like Sys V R2 V2, you
know, the latest with demand paging, record & file locking, etc.
supposedly IBM did the port itself, but picked up a couple of PC/IX
goodies that Interactive Systems adds to Un*x. (yes, IX/370 "replaces" VM/IX)
the biggest chuckle here is the mud in the face of all those
hot-shot industry analysts who have pontificated for several years that
IBM would never, ever support System V because that's what AT&T is pushing.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Should any of your I.M. Forces be caught or killed, the secretary will disavow
any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds."
<< Replace this line with your favorite disclaimer.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Christiansen, Networking Software, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ 85282
{allegra,ihnp4}!sftig!mot!fred {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!fred
{ihnp4,amdahl}!drivax!mot!fred ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!fredschoff@cadtroy.UUCP (Martin Lee Schoffstall) (02/22/85)
> > IX/370 is designed to run solely in a virtual machine environment (i.e., > it can't run standalone on a S/370 or 370-XA machine). thus, it can > co-exist with other virtual machines running any other operating system > supported by VM (almost every one ever made for 360/370 machines). > terminal i/o is handled through series/1 mini's that allows full duplex > terminal communications within the s/370 channel architecture. > cost is high and it comes sourceless. if anyone hasn't seen it posted > already (it was on arpanet), i can send the full announcement letter. > > Herb Chong... > Ahhh, but the rumor is that the UNIX that was FIRST delivered is a standalone operating system and then is GOING to be delivered on top of VM to IBM by their outside contractor. It would be interesting to see if that standalone UNIX could be forced out of the bowels of IBM. I guess that it was just too much of a head-trip for IBM to have an operating system running on their machines that had Nothing to do with them. I understand why they would want it running on top of VM but I could see lots of universities wanting to run it standalone. marty {seismo,wanginst}!ucadmus!schoff schoff@cadmus.ARPA
schoff@cadtroy.UUCP (Martin Lee Schoffstall) (02/23/85)
> > Now, we weren't too terribly concerned with point 1 - the Series/1 is fairly > inexpensive and we had quite a few serial terminals at the time. It was > a substantial inconvenience though, because the building was only wired > for 327x clusters. > Hmmmm, last time I looked Series/1 were in the 50 -> 100K realm. Someone in the know please post how much it will cost to connect 32 terminals to an IBM 4381, this should include: I believe a channel interface between the Series1 and the 4381. 1 Series1 and all that it needs (disks?) 1 UNIX "license" reasonable amount of disk space that have to be added as "mini-disks" to VM 32 3101's I think it will be a real eye opener for those on the net who have only bought IBMPC's from Big Blue. Who says you can't make money on UNIX? marty {seismo,wanginst}!ucadmus!schoff
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/24/85)
> Hmmmm, last time I looked Series/1 were in the 50 -> 100K realm. Someone > in the know please post how much it will cost to connect 32 terminals > to an IBM 4381, this should include: If you think a Series1 is expensive you should price the alternatives, such as an Amdahl 4705e. And that only runs at 4800 baud (the salesman doesn't want to sell me 9600 baud). -- This is my opinion, I guess. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
johnl@ima.UUCP (02/25/85)
Actually, IX/370 is a descendant of AT&T's UNIX/370, which was built on top of the lowest level part of TSS/370, a minor modification of TSS/360, which was IBM's greatest software disaster ever. Is that all clear? TSS/360 was IBM's first attempt to build a time sharing system, on the 360/67 in the late 60's. I used it -- it was a reasonable idea but due to the Mongol Horde programming approach current at the time, it was always much too slow and much, much, too buggy, and IBM eventually withdrew it. A contemporaneous IBM research effort was CP/67 which evolved into VM/370. Except for some reason, the Bell Labs people at Indian Hill liked TSS and continued to use it, porting it along to newer 370 hardware as it came along. When they decided to port Unix to the 370 architecture, they decided to build it on top of the TSS kernel which provided virtual memory and I/O management. Up until this point TSS and UNIX/370 were standalone systems that ran directly on the 370 hardware. The point of VM is that you can run standalone systems under it, so it was no trick to bring up TSS-UNIX/370 under VM. Since few people want to run only Unix on a 370, there being existing applications that run under other quaint systems with names like MVS, I expect that the TSS-UNIX was tuned and modified to work well under VM, and that's what turned into IX/370. John Levine, ima!johnl [The above is the best of my understanding, but no warranties are expressed or implied. Others may disagree. Your milage may vary.] * - This is not a trademark acknowlegdement.
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (02/25/85)
In article <170@cadtroy.UUCP> schoff@cadtroy.UUCP (Martin Lee Schoffstall) writes: >> >> IX/370 is designed to run solely in a virtual machine environment (i.e., >> it can't run standalone on a S/370 or 370-XA machine). thus, it can >> co-exist with other virtual machines running any other operating system >> supported by VM (almost every one ever made for 360/370 machines). >> ... >> Herb Chong... >> >Ahhh, but the rumor is that the UNIX that was FIRST delivered is a standalone >operating system and then is GOING to be delivered on top of VM to IBM by their >outside contractor. It would be interesting to see if that standalone >UNIX could be forced out of the bowels of IBM. I guess that it was just >too much of a head-trip for IBM to have an operating system running on >their machines that had Nothing to do with them. I understand why they would >want it running on top of VM but I could see lots of universities wanting >to run it standalone. > > >marty >{seismo,wanginst}!ucadmus!schoff >schoff@cadmus.ARPA the original version, VM/IX also requires VM/SP3 to run, and required mods to the CP component (the actual operating system that creates and manages virtual machines). this new version, IX/370, does not require such mods and means less programming effort. the CP mods ruled out certain typical user mods to CP because of the way they were done. both IX/370 and VM/IX require series/1 to do terminal I/O but IX/370 allows you to share the series/1 between different copies of IX/370 in different virtual machines. VM/IX requires dedicated series/1. also, IX/370, is not an exact port of Sys VR2. the blocksize used for I/O is 4K. this means much better typical I/O performance when compared to 1K blocks. 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
ron@BRL-TGR (Ron Natalie) (02/25/85)
I don't know where this piece of crap came from. There was a standalone version of UNIX for the IBM 370. It was done by ripping apart an existing IBM operating system and glueing a UNIX kernel to it. This has not been available to Joe IBM-owner. The reason people have implemented no fewer than 3 UNIX's for 370's under VM, is that you'd be stupid not to. 1. It's easier to do that way. 2. IBM correctly percieves that many sites that buy UNIX would also still want the more traditional IBM operating systems at the same time for compatibility. 3. Why not. First, I can't see any of the UNIVERSITIES that I know that are currently using IBM's, that would want it native. As a matter of fact, if it were only available native, they probably wouldn't switch. Second, I percieve a problem you are having with VM. Running UNIX under VM is not like running UNIX under VMS. VM is not a full blown operating system in itself but a system for handling the low level I/O and user protection (or should I say isolation) problems. One of the big indicators is that CP has very few commands. If you are going to run on an IBM mainframe, being under VM is probably the only way to go. The obstacles for a native O/S are substantial. Finally, does anyone know how much of IX/370 is being handled by IBM itself, howmuch is being done by Inactive Systems, and how much is being done by other people. From the product announcements it would seem that it doesn't reek as much of Santa Monica as PC/IX does. -Ron
josh@v1.UUCP (Josh Knight) (02/26/85)
> It would be interesting to see if that standalone > UNIX could be forced out of the bowels of IBM. Why not try to force the 370 Unix described in the BLTJ October 1984 issue "out of the bowels of" AT&T? It claims to be "standalone", and (from the available public descriptions of both systems) appears to be very similar to what IX/370 would be "on the bare metal". One word of caution. Those who try to force things "out of the bowels of" other entities should watch where they stand (:-). Any opinions (stated or implied), errors (obvious or subtle), or other bad things are mine, not Big Blue's. Josh Knight, IBM T.J. Watson Research josh at YKTVMX on BITNET, josh.yktvmx.ibm on CSnet, ...!philabs!v1!josh
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (02/26/85)
<> > . . . I used it -- it was a reasonable idea but due to the Mongol > Horde programming approach current at the time, it was always much too slow > and much, much, too buggy, and IBM eventually withdrew it. Someone (in a Computerworld column, if memory serves) several years ago noted that the term "Mongolian Horde" is grossly misapplied to the idea of using monster programmer teams to develop applications. It seems the Mongol Hordes operated as relatively small, fast, expert bands. Destructive they were, but they were very efficient at it and were almost always outnumbered by the opposition. (If you think about it, it's relatively unlikely that nomadic invaders would outnumber an indigenous population.) So maybe the REAL Mongol Horde approach might well be imitated by programming groups. (Or at least by headhunters in net.jobs :-) -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
ron@BRL-TGR (Ron Natalie) (02/27/85)
Yes, and the line from AT&T when the company wanted to return the software for a refund was that it wasn't a total loss, the tape is reusable.
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/28/85)
> also, IX/370, is not an exact port of Sys VR2. the blocksize used > for I/O is 4K. this means much better typical I/O performance > when compared to 1K blocks. Actually, AT&T's own S/3[67]0 S5R2 UNIX uses 4K blocks also (lots of S5 code has #ifdefs for "ibm" or somesuch that set block sizes to 4K). Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
arnold@gatech.UUCP (Arnold Robbins) (02/28/85)
With all this talk about IBM's port of UNIX to the 370's, what about the
version done at ATT? It is described in pretty good detail in the Oct 84
BLTJ. Essentially, they got IBM to make some mods to TSS, and then put
Unix on top of it. TSS deals with the i/o hardware and paging, Unix does
everything else. This isolates Unix from different hardware configurations
(I/O channels, etc).
Now, would someone at ATT care to tell us if they've worked on it, how it
does, etc? Also, when will it be released, or has it been already, and if
so, what is the pricing?
Personally, I would trust an ATT port to the IBM more than I would IBM's...
--
Arnold Robbins
CSNET: arnold@gatech ARPA: arnold%gatech.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
UUCP: { akgua, allegra, hplabs, ihnp4, seismo, ut-sally }!gatech!arnold
Help advance the state of Computer Science: Nuke a PR1ME today!phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/01/85)
> With all this talk about IBM's port of UNIX to the 370's, what about the > version done at ATT? It is described in pretty good detail in the Oct 84 > BLTJ. Essentially, they got IBM to make some mods to TSS, and then put > Unix on top of it. TSS deals with the i/o hardware and paging, Unix does > everything else. This isolates Unix from different hardware configurations > (I/O channels, etc). You must be kidding if you are proposing to run anything except VM/CP on a 370 type machine. How many machines run TSS? Very few I bet. -- Why, that's more useless than the left thumb of a touch typist! Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (03/03/85)
In article <759@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >> With all this talk about IBM's port of UNIX to the 370's, what about the >> version done at ATT? It is described in pretty good detail in the Oct 84 >> BLTJ. Essentially, they got IBM to make some mods to TSS, and then put >> Unix on top of it. TSS deals with the i/o hardware and paging, Unix does >> everything else. This isolates Unix from different hardware configurations >> (I/O channels, etc). > >You must be kidding if you are proposing to run anything except >VM/CP on a 370 type machine. How many machines run TSS? Very few >I bet. i know of a few machines running TSS/360. aside from running on a faster on a s/370 machine, you gain almost nothing. you lose capabilities of having more than 6 channels, hardware support of virtual addressing, and other performance enhancements that work in microcode. in short, you run TSS/360 because you have to and not because you want to. IBM no longer supports it so you live with all the bugs unless you want to fix them yourselves. there are compelling reasons for running IX/370 in a VM environment. there are only a few possible types of interrupts that a virtual machine receives: i/o, timer, svc (traps), diagnose (for VM services) and external (console commands). receiving any other types of interrupts is a fatal error that indicates something drastically wrong in the CP component of VM that manages the real machine. thus, all code to do with error recovery in the unix kernel that are hardware related can be completely thrown out as they will never be needed. IX/370 doesn't have any and probably never will. why duplicate function when that sort of code is completely redundant. also, the spool manipulation commands of CP are heavily used to handle real i/o to printers and other such devices. again, more code is redundant and not included in IX/370. the CP environment insulates the IX/370 machine from both hardware problems and changes in hardware. the device driver interface assumes that it is working with real disks that are physically blocked at 4K no matter what device it's on and the real devices can be shared with other virtual machines running other systems. there are facilties builtin to communicate with other virtual machines whether they are running IX/370 or not. IX/370 will run on VM in a 370-XA environment which has a drastically changed I/O architecture from S/370. the VM interfaces ensures transparent I/O functions while providing many of the benefits of the new structure. 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
johnl@ima.UUCP (03/04/85)
Like I said a few messages ago, IX/370 is a descendant of the TSS-Unix system that AT&T did and was written up in the October BLTJ. With IX/370, you get Unix on top of (part of) TSS on top of VM. I suppose that makes it compatible with everything. Perhaps we should layer TSO in, for good luck. John Levine, ima!johnl
psc@lzmi.UUCP (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (03/05/85)
>> It would be interesting to see if that standalone >> UNIX could be forced out of the bowels of IBM. > >Why not try to force the 370 Unix described in the BLTJ October 1984 issue >"out of the bowels of" AT&T? It claims to be "standalone", and (from the >available public descriptions of both systems) appears to be very similar >to what IX/370 would be "on the bare metal". > >One word of caution. Those who try to force things "out of the bowels of" >other entities should watch where they stand (:-). [from an IBMer] You're telling me. As I heard it, IBM and AT&T signed a joint agreement; IBM would make a change to some part of their system, and AT&T would port Unix to run on the result. They did so, and got it up and running at several sites. AT&T then wanted to market the result; IBM pointed to some fine print in the agreement and disallowed them. I welcome rebuttles to this rumor. Note that Unix is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories, one of several companies whose official positions on this subject may greatly differ from the story above. -- -Paul S. R. Chisholm ...!{pegasus,cbosgd}!lzmi!psc The above opinions are my own, ...!{hocsj,ihnp4}!lznv!psc not necessarily anyone else's.
nzm10@amdahl.UUCP (Neal Macklin) (03/05/85)
> ... > the original version, VM/IX also requires VM/SP3 to run, and required > mods to the CP component (the actual operating system that creates and > manages virtual machines). this new version, IX/370, does not require > such mods and means less programming effort... > > Herb Chong Herb, you are correct in that IX/370 does not REQUIRE mods to VM, but on page 285-048 of the announcement letter IBM says: "PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Enhanced programming support in VM/SP and VM/SP HPO providing performance improvements for IX/370 will be available prior to general availability of IX/370. Installation of this support is recommended prior to the installation of IX/370." And the next page says: "Applications and editors that interpret each character as it is entered on the user's terminal have the greatest impact on processor utilization and therefore should be used with discretion." So try not to move your cursor around too much. -- Neal Macklin (408) 737-5214 ...{hplabs,ihnp4}!amdahl!nzm10 [The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Amdahl Corporation, its management, or employees.]
jermoluk@hppcgo.UUCP (jermoluk) (03/18/85)
Sorry Josh but it's not AT&T that held up the release of UNIX on the 370
that was written up in BSTJ. AT&T offered their portion (the UNIX) piece
for sale. The part of TSS which it ran on was a modification of RSS (the
kernel of TSS) modified by IBM on an RFP basis for AT&T and called SSS.
This was only allowed to be sold to AT&T. It did indeed run "standalone"
on 370 hardware as written up very nicely in the BSTJ. It also ran under
VM very nicely because most anything IBM does runs under VM.
tom jermoluk
hplabs!hppcgo!jermoluk
UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories