haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (01/19/85)
< Nami nami nami nami ... > The following is a brief summary of the replies I received to my query about IBM PCs and PC/ATs running UNIX(tm Bell Labs). The next article contains the text of the replies (loooong!). Thanks to everybody who contributed and sent me information! PC XT: Venix - faster than Xenix Xenix - mostly compatible with the AT Xenix PC/IX - single-user only Coherent- v7-like, but not licensed UNIX, seems fast Unetix - single-user but with windows and tty ports PC AT: Xenix - full 286 implementation. - can run three applications users [all other UNIXes on the AT run in the 8086 mode, emulating the PC/XT] The general agreement was that INed (the PC/IX editor) is a piece of garbage, unsuitable for programming. Practically all of the abover versions need (for useability) 512K RAM and a 10M hard disk. Unetix can run from floppies, though. Thanks very much all! \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
hbb@hou5a.UUCP (H.B.Braude) (01/21/85)
>The general agreement was that INed (the PC/IX editor) is a piece of >garbage, unsuitable for programming. This is unfortunate, as the version of INed I used when I was using Interactive Systems, Inc's version of the UNIX* operating system in college is far superior to any screen editor I have used since. This may indicate that INed was "hacked" to work on the PC/IX environment at the expense of much of its functionality and human interface. -- Harlan B. Braude {most "backbone" sites}!hou5a!hbb
sharpe@drivax.UUCP (Andrew Sharpe) (01/23/85)
<>
Excuse me, but I must have missed the original question posted to the
net. Basically, I am interested in it, because I am the main kernel
architect of UNIX* System V/286 ( the AT&T sanctioned port to the 286 ).
If you don't like the fact that NONE of the current ports to the 286
are full System V ( and available ), then you should write your own
drivers and use the sanctioned port. We have gone to great pains to make
the V/286 act like a VAX ( in terms of functionality ), and we have closed
up many holes that the other ports have in terms of ability to crash
the kernel. Since the port should have been announced at Uniforum,
I would like to hear from anybody with a UNIX ( or UNIX-like )
operating system that runs on any 286 based box ( especially the
Intel 286/310 ), specifically in terms of crashes ( panics ) that
you have found. I will be more than happy to discuss the
( non-proprietary ) aspects of the problems.
*UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories ( whenever I remember )
--
_____________
/ | _______ |
| | |__ / | |
Andrew Sharpe | | | | | |
| | | | | |
{ ihnp4, mot, ucscc, amdahl } !drivax!sharpe | | |__| | |
| | / | | |
| ------- | /
-------------darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (01/25/85)
When reading comments on full-screen editors remember that the reviewer's
opinion of full-screen editors is heavily colored by the editors (s)he
already knows. There have been at least three radically different
full-screen editors on (mostly) minicomputers.
The Rand editor (INed, Apple Pie are derivatives and/or imitators).
Emacs
vi
The style of interaction of these are all radically different, enough so
that it's very disorienting to use a different one.
I used to use Ined (until it finally became de-supported locally by changes
in operating software).
At that point, I switched to Emacs (more because similar editors are
available under Tops-20 and some Lisp machines, and because of the language
for writing extensions, rather than style of interaction).
The switch to a different editor is harder than learning your first one,
because, not only do you have to learn a bunch of new techniques, you have
to unlearn reflexes which just don't work.
There have been many other full screen editors for other systems, a number
of them also fairly different (e.g. Edgar for VM/CMS, Wordstar and
Wordmaster on CP/M, Tedit on Xerox Lisp machines--where the mouse
considerably simplifies the paradigm in full screen editing. The keyboard
does text, the mouse does positioning, selection, commands all by pointing.
Highlighting and underlining provide feedback)
--
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
!sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPARon Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR> (01/27/85)
IN/ed is a hacked version of the RAND editor. It is helpful for WP types, and is really splendid for browsing through files but it rots for trying to edit C code. -Ron
Jim Guyton <guyton@rand-unix> (01/27/85)
I've not used IN/ed, so I can't comment on how good/bad it is; but there are plenty of people who use (and like) the Rand editor for editing both text and code. -- Jim
johnl@ima.UUCP (01/27/85)
>>The general agreement was that INed (the PC/IX editor) is a piece of >>garbage, unsuitable for programming. >This is unfortunate, as the version of INed I used when I was using >Interactive Systems, Inc's version of the UNIX* operating system in >college is far superior to any screen editor I have used since. This >may indicate that INed was "hacked" to work on the PC/IX environment >at the expense of much of its functionality and human interface. No, the version of INed that comes with PC/IX is pretty much the same as the one that they sell on larger Unix systems, differing only in that it writes directly to the screen for faster display update. People who like vi always seem to have strange overreactions when confronted with any other editor. I programmed for years using INed and got lots of work done. John Levine, Javelin Software, Cambridge MA 617-494-1400 { decvax!cca | yale | bbncca | allegra | cbosgd | ihnp4 }!ima!johnl Levine@YALE.ARPA PS: Please spare me letters telling me that any editor that doesn't leap eight spaces when you cursor over a tab is so broken as to be beneath contempt.