saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (01/18/90)
We all know of the several C compilers for the Apple II (Manx Aztec for the classic IIs and a variety (ORCA, APW, MPW IIGS, etc.) for the IIGS). Here's my question. UNIX was written in C. Given this fact, one could theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler. The Apple II has several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple II. However, theory and practice are sometimes two different things. Has anybody ever tried to run UNIX on an Apple II? Does anybody know what kind of hardware it would take? (I've heard UNIX is a bit large.) I could probably forget about running UNIX on my 128K IIe, but maybe someone with a GS and several megs might want to try it. (A TWGS might also be necessary, but I'm not exactly an authority on the IIGS.) ---------------------------------------- /| | Scott Alfter | _ |/_ | Internet: saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | / \// \ | free0066@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu | / / Apple IIe: ---------------------------------------- | | | A keyboard--how quaint! | | \ The power to | --M. Scott, STIV | \ / be your best ---------------------------------------- \_/\_/
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (01/18/90)
In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Here's my question. UNIX was written in C. Given this fact, one could >theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler. The Apple II has >several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple >II. However, theory and practice are sometimes two different things. Particularly if your theory is all wet. By analogy: A refinery process control system is written in Fortran. Therefore I should be able to manufacture gasoline on any computer that has a Fortran compiler. >Has anybody ever tried to run UNIX on an Apple II? A full port would be required, involving a vast amount of work particularly considering how awful the Apple II hardware is. My advice is to forget it. If you want UNIX, buy a real computer.
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (01/19/90)
In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple >II. However, theory and practice are sometimes two different things. Has >anybody ever tried to run UNIX on an Apple II? Does anybody know what kind >of hardware it would take? (I've heard UNIX is a bit large.) I could Andrew Tannenbaum, a Computer Science professor in Holland, has written a UNIX clone called MINIX. He wrote it to teach operating systems concepts and has a book out with the C source code. MINIX runs on a 640K IBM-PC but uses its own disk format on that machine. I mailed Dr. Tannenbaum recently and he gave me the address of a guy doing a Mac port. It takes about a meg and uses the Mac OS as a disk access system (and presumably the memory manager toolset). I'd like to get this version and port it to the GS. It is definately possible. The code to MINIX has only a little assembler to implement interrupt driven context switching, Making it easy to port. Efficiency is another matter. The use of the tools should help, and you have to start somewhere. Slow functions could be optimized in assembler. It would be an interesting, and fun project I think. Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (01/19/90)
In article <11977@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>Here's my question. UNIX was written in C. Given this fact, one could >>theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler. The Apple II has >>several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple >>II. However, theory and practice are sometimes two different things. > >Particularly if your theory is all wet. > >By analogy: A refinery process control system is written in Fortran. >Therefore I should be able to manufacture gasoline on any computer that >has a Fortran compiler. Your logic is what is all wet. The computer controlling the refinery doesn't manufacture gasoline either. It controls the process, so yes any computer that can run the fortran program within the limits of its design can control the refinery and "manufacture" gasoline. The whole point in writing a large portion of UNIX in C was so it could be easily ported as the original poster suggested. It is usually done by writing a compiler on an existing UNIX platform that produces code for a target processor or system, then transferring the program code over. That does not stop one from using a different OS to generate the code and a loader etc. > >>Has anybody ever tried to run UNIX on an Apple II? > >A full port would be required, involving a vast amount of work Why? A subset like MINIX would give the small computer user many of the features they want from UNIX without the overhead of supporting a bunch of useless mini-computer features. >particularly considering how awful the Apple II hardware is. This is relative, the Cray has an "awful" price, as do many of the "REAL" computers you suggest. The Apple hardware is good for what it was designed for, and for its price range. Sure it doesn't have hardware memory management and a lot of other things that make UNIX run more efficiently on high end machines. The IBM PC version of MINIX has decent performance on limited hardware, the GS would be much better. If I remember correctly, the PDP-7 that UNIX was originally written on had 128K. Granted it had virtual memory and hardware memory protection, but it too was limited hardware, much more so in many ways than the IIgs. > >My advice is to forget it. If you want UNIX, buy a real computer. That sounds like what people told Steve Wozniak when he had an idea for a neat little computer using a microprocessor. 'Forget it kid, there's no market, It'll never sell. Buy a real computer (for $50,000 plus)'. Fortunately, he didn't listen to the "Experts". Most of those "Real Computers" are now on the junkpile and the Apple II is still going. It all comes down to what you want to use it for. Obviously the IIgs is going to be inadequate to do supersonic airflow simulations. It can do it, it would just be too slow to be practical. But it'll be fine for running a couple of user applications under a multitasking system. Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
scleary@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Sean Cleary) (01/19/90)
> Doug Gwyn writes: >In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>Here's my question. UNIX was written in C. Given this fact, one could >>theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler. The Apple II has >>several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple >>II. However, theory and practice are sometimes two different things. > >>Has anybody ever tried to run UNIX on an Apple II? > >A full port would be required, involving a vast amount of work >particularly considering how awful the Apple II hardware is. > >My advice is to forget it. If you want UNIX, buy a real computer. Running UNIX on a 6502 would be a major headache with its limited address space and relatively slow speed. However, with a big enough coprocessor running UNIX on an Apple II is feasible. I have an old 12.5 MHZ 68000 co-processor board with 4Meg fast RAM for which a good implementation of UNIX exists. (If I remember properly, it required only 512k or even 128k.) I expect that things have changed, but at the time I last considered getting UNIX (1984) for my Apple II the cost was ridiculous: something more than $10000, more than the cost of my (quite suped-up) Apple II- based system. That was before smaller UNIX machines were commonly available and at that time there was only the price for a 'site license.' I don't know what happened to the company with the UNIX implementation for my 68000 board, either. I wouldn't call Apple II hardware 'awful'- I think terms like 'quaint,' 'fascinating,' or 'maddeningly clever' are more appropriate. Sean Cleary scleary@math.ucla.edu
greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) (01/19/90)
In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Here's my question. UNIX was written in C. Given this fact, one could >theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler. The Apple II has >several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple >II. If a person developed a new file system, they'd have to develop the utilities to use the system: disk copiers, recreation tools, editors, etc. It COULD be done, but it would be easier to add a c shell to the existing prodos system. As a matter of fact I've been looking into how practical it might be to develope a c.system program to run under prodos and allow for the use of c commands. I'm not offering to write a c compiler by myself, but last year or so when I perfected shell it occurred to me that if I recoded it as a system program in its own right it would make a handy platform. If you're interested in using unix-like commands on the apple, try taking a peek at Davex. --- Michael J Pender Jr Box 1942 c/o W.P.I. ... (Mankind) has already greyelf@wpi.bitnet 100 Institute Rd. used its last chance. greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester, Ma 01609 - Gen. MacArthur
huang@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Howard Huang) (01/19/90)
In article <6935@wpi.wpi.edu> greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) writes: >In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >> >>Here's my question. UNIX was written in C. Given this fact, one could >>theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler. The Apple II has >>several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple >>II. > >If a person developed a new file system, they'd have to develop the >utilities to use the system: disk copiers, recreation tools, editors, >etc. It COULD be done, but it would be easier to add a c shell >to the existing prodos system. I would say the main reason to use UNIX instead of ProDOS, MS-DOS, etc. is to support a multi-user environment -- e.g., many people logged onto terminals connected to a VAX. If all UNIX handled was files and compilers, it wouldn't have any advantages over any other PC operating system. Actually, its cryptic commands like "ls" and "cp" would put it at a disadvantage unless someone added a GUI. Trying to keep track of several people sharing resources on a single computer presents many problems. For example, synchronizing processes, deciding which user gets how much CPU time, allocating RAM to individual users, protection and privileges to avoid other people reading your files, etc. This all requires lots of processing power and lots of RAM and lots of storage space. I think A/UX for the Mac ships on an 80MB hard drive. Putting UNIX on a IIgs is a pretty big task. Without lots of additional equipment and a faster processor it doesn't seem very promising. Howard C. Huang huang@husc4.harvard.edu
greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) (01/19/90)
In article <1299@husc6.harvard.edu> huang@husc4.UUCP (Howard Huang) writes: >I would say the main reason to use UNIX instead of ProDOS, MS-DOS, etc. >is to support a multi-user environment -- e.g., many people logged onto >terminals connected to a VAX. If all UNIX handled was files and compilers, >it wouldn't have any advantages over any other PC operating system. >Actually, its cryptic commands like "ls" and "cp" would put it at a >disadvantage unless someone added a GUI. > >Trying to keep track of several people sharing resources on a single computer >presents many problems. For example, synchronizing processes, deciding >which user gets how much CPU time, allocating RAM to individual users, >protection and privileges to avoid other people reading your files, etc. > I'm starting to understand now. I never understood why people were all fired up about unix, but basically its because it would allow the user to do several things at once. On the current hardware of an apple IIgs I can't see multiusers (can you say one keyboard boys and girls?) but multiple processes running would be possible. What I think would be a worthwhile investment of time would be a c shell program for the apple II line that runs under prodos 8, requires 64K of ram. Then a c compiler could be just like another system program. For an editor a person could use any editor they like now, just send output as a text file or some such. Multiple tasks would be an option say to people with mouse cards, and if they wanted they could use it, even though it would slow the machine down. In a nutshell I would like to see a primitive add-on to Prodos that would provide the user interface and a couple of commands, like ls, cp, cat (like the type command). That is, merely something to replace BASIC.SYSTEM that wouldn't take up as much space. That way whatever code the c compiler produces could take one of two forms, a p-code that runs under the c.system or Assembler code capable of interfacing directly to Prodos. A neat idea, but I can't write the compiler. The shell maybe, but not the whole compiler. Any takers? --- Michael J Pender Jr Box 1942 c/o W.P.I. ... (Mankind) has already greyelf@wpi.bitnet 100 Institute Rd. used its last chance. greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu Worcester, Ma 01609 - Gen. MacArthur
mitch@rbdc.UUCP (Mitch Berry) (01/20/90)
well speaking of running things Written in C on the apple II (not iigs) i've been working on putting WWIV on the //e with manx C...but i think memory is the main problem....hmm...it will be at least limited to mass storage thats for SURE! 3.5 or HD...... any suggestions eh? thrash
llp@psuhcx.psu.edu (Laura L. Pauley) (01/20/90)
In article <6935@wpi.wpi.edu> greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) writes: |In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: | |If a person developed a new file system, they'd have to develop the |utilities to use the system: disk copiers, recreation tools, editors, |etc. It COULD be done, but it would be easier to add a c shell |to the existing prodos system. Does anyone know if there was ever a c compiler developed for Command Com. I still have it around (Command Com that is). I think that would be the perfect shell to write it for considering that it is so much like ms-dos/unix. |If you're interested in using unix-like commands on the apple, try taking |a peek at Davex. Or Command Com. But Command Com is more like Ms-Dos than Unix. And Command Com costs money. (well I guess i just shot myself out of the water :-) )
llp@psuhcx.psu.edu (Laura L. Pauley) (01/20/90)
In article <6952@wpi.wpi.edu> greyelf@wpi.wpi.edu (Michael J Pender) writes: | |I'm starting to understand now. I never understood why people were |all fired up about unix, but basically its because it would allow the |user to do several things at once. On the current hardware of an |apple IIgs I can't see multiusers (can you say one keyboard boys and |girls?) but multiple processes running would be possible. | Although I can see it. Multi users on a GS wouldn't be that hard. Yes it take time and some money in serial cards, terminals (or modems), and ram upgrades. But I could see it happening. Hell, there is already a chat line (6 lines) that is run on a 128k //e. Now if you can see 6 people on a //e. I can easily see 5-6 people on a //gs. |In a nutshell I would like to see a primitive add-on to Prodos that |would provide the user interface and a couple of commands, like |ls, cp, cat (like the type command). Command Com, Davex, or I think Minix (if it has successfully been ported) will do that. I have benn playing with Command Com since it came out, and I have 2 different enviornments set up on it. Unix style and Ms-Dos.
bcs33424@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (01/20/90)
C'mon, Scott, I've told you time and again that the apple ][ just doesn't cut the mustard. I read the comp.unix news groups just a few times, and I've found that the unix wizards out there won't even recommend unix on a 80286 machine. The machine is just too slow and inflexible. To port unix to the 6502 or 65C02 would just be impractible. The apple ][ is past its day. It can't measure up to the '386,'486, or the 68030. Sure, it is a nice system, but you should face the facts and go use the mac ]['s in Lincoln Hall if you want to run unix (well, actually A/UX). Some of the other responses here recommended a unix-like enviroment. What good would that be, if your original intention was to port unix to the apple ][. A unix-like enviroment wouild only be hard to use. Minix, on the other hand, may have more potential. Bryan Siegfried b-siegfried@uiuc.edu bcs33424@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Chambana "The interests of the landlord always oppose the interests of every other class of society." -David Ricardo
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (01/21/90)
In article <1990Jan18.181506.6059@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >any computer that can run the fortran program within the limits of its >design can control the refinery and "manufacture" gasoline. Wrong again. Apparently you've ever implemented any system that has to deal intimately with hardware details. >The whole point in writing a large portion of UNIX in C was so it could be >easily ported as the original poster suggested. A port of UNIX to a new hardware platform is by no means "easy". >Why? A subset like MINIX would give the small computer user many of the >features they want from UNIX without the overhead of supporting a bunch of >useless mini-computer features. MINIX is no a subset of UNIX, it is a different product altogether. The fellow originally asked about UNIX. Even a MINIX port would be difficult, but less so than genuine UNIX. >>particularly considering how awful the Apple II hardware is. >This is relative, the Cray has an "awful" price, as do many of the "REAL" >computers you suggest. I am applying the standard of what a UNIX implementation would really require, and by that standard the Apple II hardware is truly awful. >>My advice is to forget it. If you want UNIX, buy a real computer. My advice is that of a UNIX guru whose personal computer is an Apple IIGS and who has looked into what it would take to implement UNIX on the IIGS. That is not to say that SOME decently designed operating system for the IIGS wouldn't be feasible, but it wouldn't be UNIX and thus (without Apple's support) would be hard to justify the requisite investment of effort. I suggest that IIGS efforts would be much more wisely invested in developing improvements to the GS/OS environment.
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (01/21/90)
In article <113300246@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> bcs33424@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > C'mon, Scott, I've told you time and again that > the apple ][ just doesn't cut the mustard. I read the > comp.unix news groups just a few times, and I've found > that the unix wizards out there won't even recommend > unix on a 80286 machine. The machine is just too slow > and inflexible. To port unix to the 6502 or 65C02 would > just be impractible. The apple ][ is past its day. It The 65816 is much more suited to UNIX because of its 16 meg memory range 8 meg on the IIgs. It also has very good interrupt response and a small number of registers so context switching could be fast. > can't measure up to the '386,'486, or the 68030. Sure, > it is a nice system, but you should face the facts and > go use the mac ]['s in Lincoln Hall if you want to run > unix (well, actually A/UX). The price doesn't measure up either! I don't want to go stand in line to use someone elses system. Heck if they're paying for it I'll take a Cray over a Mac II any day, the Mac II, 386 or 486 just don't measure up. Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
rnf@shumv1.uucp (Rick Fincher) (01/21/90)
In article <11988@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1990Jan18.181506.6059@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu (Rick Fincher) writes: >>any computer that can run the fortran program within the limits of its >>design can control the refinery and "manufacture" gasoline. > >Wrong again. Apparently you've ever implemented any system that has to >deal intimately with hardware details. Actually, I have. I just recently worked on a low pressure liquid chromatography system used for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. I've also worked on computer control of textile production equipment that had to measure and cut yarn blown through a tube at near-supersonic speed. It is poor design to make a system totally dependent on the eccentricities of a particular hardware design. It makes upgrading and expansion difficult. Time critical operations can be isolated with programable logic controllers which in turn are controlled by the main computer (possibly using your Fortran program). The type of the central computer is irrelevant, so long as its performance is within the range necessary for the overall system. > >>The whole point in writing a large portion of UNIX in C was so it could be >>easily ported as the original poster suggested. > >A port of UNIX to a new hardware platform is by no means "easy". Easy is a relative term, porting UNIX is easier than writing a new operating system in assembler. > >That is not to say that SOME decently designed operating system >for the IIGS wouldn't be feasible, but it wouldn't be UNIX and thus >(without Apple's support) would be hard to justify the requisite >investment of effort. That would depend on the quality of the implementation. > >I suggest that IIGS efforts would be much more wisely invested in >developing improvements to the GS/OS environment. You may well be correct on this point. That's a tough call. If Apple won't do a multitasking system, somebody else will have to. We are looking into a port of Minix that would use the GS/OS file system and memory manager, thus allowing some compatibility with existing windowing applications. Rick Fincher rnf@shumv1.ncsu.edu
cyliao@eng.umd.edu (Chun-Yao Liao) (01/21/90)
In article <1299@husc6.harvard.edu> huang@husc4.UUCP (Howard Huang) writes: >[lots stuffs deleted] >This all requires lots of processing power and lots of RAM and lots of >storage space. I think A/UX for the Mac ships on an 80MB hard drive. >Putting UNIX on a IIgs is a pretty big task. Without lots of additional >equipment and a faster processor it doesn't seem very promising. > >Howard C. Huang >huang@husc4.harvard.edu I just happen to have a friend at Sweden who has an Unix system on an IBM AT with just 20 megs of hard driver and 640K of RAM. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I think it is possible to put Unix on GS. If speed is the question, get a TWGS and speed it up to 12 MHz. -- |I want Rocket Chip 10 MHz, Z-Ram Ultra II, UniDisk 3.5 | cyliao@wam.umd.edu | |I want my own NeXT, 64 Mb RAM, 660 Mb SCSI, NeXT laser | Chun Yao Liao | | printer, net connection, software, color.| Accepting Donations!| /* If (my_.signature =~ yours) coincidence = true; else ignore_this = true; */
edward@pro-harvest.cts.com (Edward Floden) (01/22/90)
In-Reply-To: message from hackman@pnet51.orb.mn.org > Aren't most (or possibly all) of the pro-(whatever) sites running on Apples? > What the system is running on (at least on pro-hysteria in Minneapolis) looks > a *lot* like UNIX. When you leave the "PLUSH" menu-driven prompts, you can go It's not UNIX, it just looks like it. The ProLine software has a shell that runs under ProDOS 8 which emulates a UNIX system, but it's really just another P8 program. :Edward UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!edward ProLine: edward@pro-harvest ARPA: crash!pro-harvest!edward@nosc.mil CIS: 73220.1624@compuserve.com INET: edward@pro-harvest.cts.com America Online: EdwardF4 BITNET: edward%pro-harvest.cts.com@nosc.mil GEnie: E.FLODEN
bcs33424@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (01/22/90)
In a previous article, rnf@shumv1.ncsu.uucp (Rick Fincher) writes: >In article <113300246@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> bcs33424@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >> >> C'mon, Scott, I've told you time and again that >> the apple ][ just doesn't cut the mustard. I read the >> comp.unix news groups just a few times, and I've found >> that the unix wizards out there won't even recommend >> unix on a 80286 machine. The machine is just too slow >> and inflexible. To port unix to the 6502 or 65C02 would >> just be impractible. The apple ][ is past its day. It > >The 65816 is much more suited to UNIX because of its 16 meg memory range >8 meg on the IIgs. It also has very good interrupt response and a >small number of registers so context switching could be fast. If the 65816 can access a 16 meg memory range, that's all well and good. But can that actually compare to the poten- tial 4 gigabytes of memory that a 80386 processor can access? You also mention that the computers that I'm talking are very expensive. I can't understand why. I have seen '386 machines (not '386SX's) with VGA and hard drives for under $2,000. If you don't get color, the price drops even further. Bryan Siegfried b-siegfried@uiuc.edu University of Illinois at Chambana "The interests of the landlord always oppose the interests of every other class in society." -David Ricardo
bcs33424@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (01/22/90)
/* Written 12:36 am Jan 17, 1990 by saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.apple */ /* ---------- "UNIX on the Apple II?" ---------- */ We all know of the several C compilers for the Apple II (Manx Aztec for the classic IIs and a variety (ORCA, APW, MPW IIGS, etc.) for the IIGS). Here's my question. UNIX was written in C. Given this fact, one could theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler. The Apple II has several C compilers. Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple II. However, theory and practice are sometimes two different things. Has anybody ever tried to run UNIX on an Apple II? Does anybody know what kind of hardware it would take? (I've heard UNIX is a bit large.) I could probably forget about running UNIX on my 128K IIe, but maybe someone with a GS and several megs might want to try it. (A TWGS might also be necessary, but I'm not exactly an authority on the IIGS.) ---------------------------------------- /| | Scott Alfter | _ |/_ | Internet: saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | / \// \ | free0066@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu | / / Apple IIe: ---------------------------------------- | | | A keyboard--how quaint! | | \ The power to | --M. Scott, STIV | \ / be your best ---------------------------------------- \_/\_/ /* End of text from uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.apple */