SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (04/10/88)
David Douthitt <geowhiz!uwspan!circle!rat@speedy.wisc.EDU> writes: >Why doesn't Apple price Macs and UNIX within the price reach of us mere >mortals? A/Ux does have some advantages over other Unix implementation (user friendly interface for one). According to the trade papers, future releases of most Macware for the standard Mac interface also will run under A/Ux (offering the possiblity of an even larger library of available applications). However, the MAIN reason why Apple sets the prices they do is because customers must feel that's what the products are worth (else why would they pay them?). I'd like to have the purchasing power of GM, and Exxon too, but complaining about it won't help. --------------------- Disclaimer: I like my opinions better than my employer's anyway... (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut
NETOPRMS@NCSUVM.BITNET (Michael Steele) (04/15/88)
Why doesn't someone write UNIX for the GS? Think what that would do for the GS
market! An AFFORDABLE UNIX system! Of course it would be slow (until the
accelerator boards come out...I've given up on apple coming out with a faster
GS....they support the MAC too much). But with the next GS is supposed to
16 meg RAM and it won't have the 32meg disk limitation. We have C for the GS,
the processor will support multitasking, there is enough memory and disk
space for multitasking..etc. Now all we need is someone to write the KERNAL.
Someone mentioned that WE on Netnews should write an operating system for the
Apple. Well UNIX is such a modular operating system! WE could use Prodos 16
v2.0 as the disk access and certain groups could develop the modules necessary
to support a proper UNIX system. The only problem is to get a KERNAL for the
UNIX to which everyone could interface. We could use APW C which is just about
standardized for the GS and others could write their modules in any compiled GS
language...All you have to do is link the modules together (like UNIX somewhat)
How about some feedback on this idea. We have some talented programmers on the
net...what not put our resources together!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: These are my opinions and I'm not a UNIX programmer.
Michael Steele NETOPRMS@NCSUVM.BITNET Co-sysop of NCSU Apple Users Group BBS
Supporting C and Pascal Source Code and discussion (919)783-9010blume@netmbx.UUCP (Heiko Blume) (04/18/88)
for running unix a memory mangement unit is a must. otherwise
much runtime checking would be necessary if you want to avoid crashing the
system with pointerish programming (Segmentation violation -- core dumped :-)
which is nearly unavoidable under unix....
i think it would become *very* slow then...
--
Heiko Blume # DOMAIN: blume@netmbx.UUCP { BITNET: ( mixed }
Seekorso 29 # BANG : ..!{backbone}!netmbx!blume
D-1000 Berlin 22, West-Germany # Phone : (+49 30) 365 55 71 or ... 365 75 01
Telex : 183008 intro d # Fax : (+49 30) 882 50 65 ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre) (04/18/88)
In article <329NETOPRMS@NCSUVM> NETOPRMS@NCSUVM.BITNET (Michael Steele) writes: >Why doesn't someone write UNIX for the GS? Think what that would do for the GS >market! An AFFORDABLE UNIX system! Porting Minix would probably be the best thing, since it exists for the PC and for the Atari ST (I'm told) It would be an affordable V7 Unix system, though, not 4.3BSD. 2.10BSD (which is as much of 4.3 as would fit in a PDP11) You could use the Intel-like segentation warts of the 65c816 and have most of the same effects as having hardware memory management. That's how Minix does it. Check out comp.os.minix (or info-minix-request@udel.edu?) for details. Just be careful with your code generation (you'd want a different C compiler to develop code INSIDE the Minix environment) and all should be well. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/25/88)
In article <1747@netmbx.UUCP> blume@netmbx.UUCP (Heiko Blume) writes: >for running unix a memory mangement unit is a must. otherwise >much runtime checking would be necessary if you want to avoid crashing the >system with pointerish programming (Segmentation violation -- core dumped :-) >which is nearly unavoidable under unix.... I've seen quite good UNIX-like systems running on unprotected memory architectures. Sure, if you don't know what you're doing you could crash the system. How is that different from a non-UNIXy OS on your Apple?