f0057@uafhp.uucp (James E. Ward) (06/28/89)
Hello out there. I've just read every article available to me in this newsgroup. I have an Atari 520 ST and really lust after Unix. I see that there are 7300 Unix-pc machines available for under $1000 complete with Unix System V. I am considering purchasing one, but would like to get some feel for what I am getting into before I leap. I understand that I may soon outgrow .5 meg RAM and 20 meg of disk space, and that the machine is slow. How slow is slow? My definition of slow: the original IBM PC. Is it that slow? Also, an Internet node is a local call away. What kind of connectivity to Usenet and the rest of the world can I get with a 2400 baud modem? Am I too ignorant to get into this machine? Should I buy the latest release of the os, or get the discounted previous release? I have been a user on a Unix system for several years, and I once had an IBM PC/AT with a Xenix partition. I set it up and administered it, allowed buds to dial-up and login. Have I much more or less to accomplish with this machine? Does the GNU stuff work easily? (I am a GNU emacs fanatic!) Just testing the water before I discover I have drowned or am swimming. Any help or comments will be appreciated. # James E. Ward, The Planet Earth, Ltd. | # # ...uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!f0057@uafhp | Those who speak, do not know. # # harry!uafhp!f0057@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu | Those who know, do not speak. # # Telenet: f0057@130.184.7.103 | Lao Tsu #
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (06/30/89)
In article <2677@cveg.uucp> f0057@uafhp.uucp (James E. Ward) writes: |Hello out there. I've just read every article available to me in this |newsgroup. I have an Atari 520 ST and really lust after Unix. I see |that there are 7300 Unix-pc machines available for under $1000 complete |with Unix System V. I am considering purchasing one, but would like to |get some feel for what I am getting into before I leap. I understand |that I may soon outgrow .5 meg RAM and 20 meg of disk space, and that |the machine is slow. How slow is slow? My definition of slow: the original |IBM PC. Is it that slow? The UNIX-PC is a wonderful bargain. You won't do better in terms of price/performance at the low end. The 20 Mb disk is too small, but it is easily replaced. 0.5 Mb memory is also too small, but is not so easily added (it depends on how handy you are with hardware). The machine is definitely not slow. It uses a 68010 running at 10 MHz, and it is certainly much faster than a Mac SE or an Amiga running the same kind of tasks. Subjectively it is quite impressive how much relative performance there is. |Also, an Internet node is a local call away. What kind of connectivity to |Usenet and the rest of the world can I get with a 2400 baud modem? Am I |too ignorant to get into this machine? Ignorance is by definition self-limiting - don't worry about it. 2400 baud is reasonable for connectivity. The O'Reilly Nutshell handbooks are very useful; you can ask for a catalog from "nuts@ora.uucp". |Should I buy the latest release of the os, or get the discounted previous |release? You should obtain the most recent release of Unix for the machine, which is called version 3.51. It is essentially System V release 2 with some release 3 stuff & some Berkely stuff in it. It comes with the Korn shell, which is pretty nice. |I have been a user on a Unix system for several years, and I once had an |IBM PC/AT with a Xenix partition. I set it up and administered it, allowed |buds to dial-up and login. Have I much more or less to accomplish with this |machine? Probably similar, except the UNIX-PC has some window-based utilities which make maintenance easier (in most cases), and the O/S is certainly better than Xenix. It is real, full-featured Unix with some extensions peculiar to the machine like the windows and support for the built-in modem and phone dialer. |Does the GNU stuff work easily? (I am a GNU emacs fanatic!) Much of the Gnu stuff needs a lot of address space, so there is a problem for things like gcc for instance. There can be a maximum of 4 Mbytes of memory in the machine, and I believe the same maximum virtual space per process, of which part is ownd by the O/S. Cheers, -- __ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \cc/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< >_ "Not only am I the Nair Club president, I'm also a client" - Y. Brynner
jlg@odicon.UUCP (John L. Grzesiak) (07/02/89)
In article <614@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes: > In article <2677@cveg.uucp> f0057@uafhp.uucp (James E. Ward) writes: > > |I have been a user on a Unix system for several years, and I once had an > |IBM PC/AT with a Xenix partition. I set it up and administered it, allowed > |buds to dial-up and login. Have I much more or less to accomplish with this > |machine? > > window-based utilities which make maintenance > easier (in most cases), and the O/S is certainly > better than Xenix. It is real, full-featured ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ !!! > Unix with some extensions peculiar to the machine > like the windows and support for the built-in modem > and phone dialer. > Yes, It is a real (Albeit CONVERGENT enhanced) UNIX , but a value judgement should not be attached here. This form of prejudice had me disliking Xenix for many years (And I had never even used it!) Xenix itself is not bad, and has developed over the years to be a real good operating system. To argue the relative merits of one system over another we must have many questions answered, and even then, we are prone to prejudice and emotionalism, since most of us don't like to remember what is different between the two. (At least I don't) If we keep to facts, we allow others to make their own value judgements and thus allow them a chance to be truly satisfied with their own choices. Hopefully , not taken as preachy, but, If so, so be it. -- John -- +-------------------------+---------------------------------+ + John L Grzesiak | "Genius is the output of + + 47 Spring Street | a mind twisted beyond + + Wallingford Ct 06492 | normal recognition" + + | + + !yale!spock!odicon!jlg | Omega Dynamics - Wallingford Ct + + | + +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/02/89)
Addressing another part of James E. Ward's question ...
Most of the GNU software operates just fine on (an expanded) UNIXPC. By
"expanded" I mean one with 2MB motherboard RAM and a "reasonable" HD.
I use GNU Emacs, gcc, bison, etc. daily.
The GNU software WILL work on a minimal system. In fact, the system I was
demo'ing at the last West Coast Computer Faire had but 512K RAM (with two
512K expansion RAm cards) and a 20MB LaPine 3.5" HD and this machine was
running ALL of ("simultaneously"):
The STORE! graphics demos
The AMAZE game
Mahjongg
GNU Emacs
GNU gcc
The po' lil' disk was thrashing like crazy, but it (subjectively) was still
faster than mainframes I was using 20 years ago!
Uprgading RAM to 2, 3.5 or 4MB and adding larger HD (80 - 190 MB) makes this
beast scream. All these upgrades can be done yourself if you're handy with
[de-]soldering tools and can follow simple HW instructions
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]