mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/14/89)
Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? I hear that AIX can, but that it runs only on PS/2 systems. Are there any other UNIX systems that can run DOS applications? Thanks, Thanasis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How Hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of cource!" R. A. Heinlein Internet: mitsolid@csd2.nyu.edu (mitsolid%csd2.nyu.edu@relay.cs.net) UUCP : ...!uunet!cmcl2!csd2!mitsolid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (11/14/89)
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? >I hear that AIX can, but that it runs only on PS/2 systems. >Are there any other UNIX systems that can run DOS applications? All of the major 80386 UNIX versions (eg AIX, SunOS, 386/ix, ESIX, etc) support the virtual-8086 mode of the 80386 and run most applications that don't directly access the hardware. Even some applications which access the hardware will run, but generally not too fast. jim frost software tool & die "The World" Public Access Unix for the '90s madd@std.com +1 617-739-WRLD 24hrs {3,12,24}00bps
carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) (11/16/89)
In article <11330002@acf5.NYU.EDU> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? >I hear that AIX can, but that it runs only on PS/2 systems. >Are there any other UNIX systems that can run DOS applications? There are a couple of companies that sell a version of UNIX or XENIX that can run DOS applications. Santa Cruz Operations (SCO) XENIX is one of them and I can't recall the other company. I think the add-in is called DOS-Merge. Telephone number is (408) 425-7222 for SCO. From what I recall of the SCO literature, the DOS under UNIX capability will work on an 80286, but works much better on the 80386. This makes sense, since the 80386 memory management allows you to establish separate virtual machines (more or less) and the entry and exit from this protected mode is a lot more graceful than in the 80286. Bruce Carlson
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/17/89)
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? >I hear that AIX can, but that it runs only on PS/2 systems. >Are there any other UNIX systems that can run DOS applications? Yes, SunOS 4.0.x on a Sun 386i (or a Sun with a Sun IPC board) will do the job nicely. Too pricy for you? Ok, get SCO Xenix 386 with DOS Windows (VP/ix) and that will do the job for you. I think the same holds for SCO Unix System V 386 as well. But I would not run any sort of implementation of VP/ix (i.e. DOS Windows) on a 286 box because the 286 is brain damaged with respect to flipping in and out of protect mode, that and there's no virtual 8086 mode like the 386 has. So if running DOS applications under a Unix based OS is a big thing for you, you HAVE to have a 386. Do it from a 286 and I guarantee you it will crash regardless of how well behaved the DOS application is under VP/ix. Not even K&R can get around the design flaws of a 286. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Apple Computer, Inc. is really the Anti-Christ! *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (11/18/89)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: > mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: > >Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? ... > Yes, SunOS 4.0.x on a Sun 386i (or a Sun with a Sun IPC board) will do the job > nicely. Too pricy for you? Ok, get SCO ... [various items about VP/ix] You could also try Interactive's 386/ix. Note - there are various places where VP/ix shows up in other products--Sun's 386i essentially uses VP/ix, for example. VP/ix is *not* a generic name for DOS-under-UNIX, though... there are other such animals. VP/ix was developed by (and is a trademark of) Interactive and Phoenix. > ...But I would not run any sort of implementation of VP/ix > (i.e. DOS Windows) on a 286 box because the 286 is brain damaged with respect > to flipping in and out of protect mode, that and there's no virtual 8086 mode > like the 386 has... This is quite off. VP/ix is a facility which works in a 386 UNIX system, period. The question of running VP/ix on a 286 simply cannot arise, because you cannot run a 386 UNIX system on a 286. But beyond that, VP/ix makes explicit use of "virtual 8086 mode" which (as correctly noted) does not exist on a 286. (I suspect that when Archambeau said "any sort of implementation of VP/ix" he really meant "any sort of DOS-under-UNIX"--which is not the same thing.) -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Keep your day job 'til your night job pays.
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/18/89)
Thanks to everybody that responded. It is clear that When one moves to unix can take his DOS applications along. On a 386 machine at least which is what interests me anyway. Another question is: Is it also possible for these DOS virtual machines to use virtual memory? (ie in 4Mb of RAM a DOS Process uses expanded memory of 40Mb (under a compatibility window in unix)) Is that asking for too much? :-) Thanasis
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/18/89)
>It is clear that When one moves to unix can take his DOS applications >along. On a 386 machine at least which is what interests me anyway. > >Another question is: > > Is it also possible for these DOS virtual machines to use > virtual memory? (ie in 4Mb of RAM a DOS Process uses expanded > memory of 40Mb (under a compatibility window in unix)) > > Is that asking for too much? :-) It should be possible - but I've never tried it. You could do something like have VP/ix boot up and running Desqview with an AST Rampage board installed as LIM 4.0 memory. The neat thing about Unix over other operating systems like QNX - is that with VP/ix one can run multiple DOS tasks at one time where as with QNX you are limited to one.
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/19/89)
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >Thanks to everybody that responded. >It is clear that When one moves to unix can take his DOS applications >along. On a 386 machine at least which is what interests me anyway. > >Another question is: > > Is it also possible for these DOS virtual machines to use > virtual memory? (ie in 4Mb of RAM a DOS Process uses expanded > memory of 40Mb (under a compatibility window in unix)) > > Is that asking for too much? :-) My understanding of how DOS jobs work under a 386 and *nix based OS'es is this. Each virtual DOS machine has it's own 8086 address space. 1 Mb of base and if LIM EMS 4.0 is supported (and I know it is under SunOS 4.0.x and the Sun 386i) that can be used. As for how *nix handles that, it's just swapped in and out as needed. You can only put up to 16 Mb of main physical memory in a Sun 386i, but it supports up to 4 Gb of virtual, so it swaps in and out the rest if I recall correctly. You can NOT however, say I want to give 4 Mb of base to the DOS job and blah blah. The term virtual 8086 machine is taken literally, you literally have the 386 and VP/ix (aka DOS-Merge) juggling multiple 8086 machines. So I think the answer to your question is no, you can't give 4 Mb of base memory to a DOS job. But you can have the standard 1 1 Mb 8086 machine (note that only 640K of it is utilitized because of the MS-DOS address space) and give it up to 32 Mb of LIM EMS 4.0 memory if your *nix based OS and VP/ix (DOS-Merge) will support LIM. I know the Sun 386i and SunOS will. My experience with 386 machines and *nix based OS'es revolves around that. SCO Xenix and Unix System V might do it differently, but I doubt it. Now 4 Mb of physical memory might be allocated to a virtual 8086 machine at some point and time since there might be LIM EMS 4.0 memory involved. If you're running a DOS job that runs DesqView, this is very possible. But you can not alter the physical address space of the 8086 machine. This is an article in Sun Technology on how DOS Windows and the Sun 386i works. If you want a summary of it, I'll dig for it in the bookshelves at work and post it. I don't think that SCO's 386 products do it too differently, and this also helps (in my opinion) to bring about an understanding of how the 386 juggles virtual DOS machines. If you just want the issue, leave me e-mail and I'll tell you which one. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Apple Computer, Inc. is really the Anti-Christ! *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
sprecher@bimacs.BITNET (Sprecher yossy) (11/19/89)
In article <1989Nov14.143339.20288@world.std.com> you write: >mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >>Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? >>I hear that AIX can, but that it runs only on PS/2 systems. >>Are there any other UNIX systems that can run DOS applications? > >All of the major 80386 UNIX versions (eg AIX, SunOS, 386/ix, ESIX, >etc) support the virtual-8086 mode of the 80386 and run most >applications that don't directly access the hardware. Even some >applications which access the hardware will run, but generally not too >fast. > >jim frost >software tool & die "The World" Public Access Unix for the '90s >madd@std.com +1 617-739-WRLD 24hrs {3,12,24}00bps will they run programs which request expanded memory? yossi sprecher
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (11/21/89)
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >> Is it also possible for these DOS virtual machines to use >> virtual memory? (ie in 4Mb of RAM a DOS Process uses expanded >> memory of 40Mb (under a compatibility window in unix)) >> >> Is that asking for too much? :-) >It should be possible - but I've never tried it. Depends on the implementation. I believe that the Sun 386i DOS emulator allows up to 4mb of LIM-compatible expanded memory to be used. I could find nothing comparable in the ISC 386/ix manuals, though. At any rate, the DOS VM's are subject to UNIX virtual-memory management, which means that you can have more of them running than you have available memory even if each of them can't be larger than 1mb. jim frost software tool & die madd@std.com
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (11/21/89)
sprecher@bimacs.BITNET (Sprecher yossy) writes: >>All of the major 80386 UNIX versions (eg AIX, SunOS, 386/ix, ESIX, >>etc) support the virtual-8086 mode of the 80386 >will they run programs which request expanded memory? The answer is "it depends". SunOS does, I don't think any of the others do. I certainly couldn't find mention of LIM-EMS in the 386/ix documentation, which might be the result of poor documentation and might be the result of a real lacking. It's tough to tell with Interactive sometimes. jim frost software tool & die madd@std.com
wgb@tntdev.tnt.COM (William G. Bunton) (11/21/89)
>>>>> In article <1989Nov20.172348.19691@world.std.com>, madd@world.std.com (jim frost) writes:
jim> Depends on the implementation. I believe that the Sun 386i DOS
jim> emulator allows up to 4mb of LIM-compatible expanded memory to be
jim> used. I could find nothing comparable in the ISC 386/ix manuals,
jim> though.
My VP/ix Maintenance Procedures manual has a section titled
5.2.4 Expanded Memory Standard Driver
It says up to 2MB of LIM 3.2 expanded memory is available under VP/ix
with the ems.sys device driver.
Bill
--
William G. Bunton wgb@tntdev.tnt.com
Tools & Techniques, Inc. Austin, TX {cs.utexas.edu,uunet}!tntdev!wgblas) (11/22/89)
In article <11330003@acf5.NYU.EDU> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: }It is clear that When one moves to unix can take his DOS applications }along. On a 386 machine at least which is what interests me anyway. } Is it also possible for these DOS virtual machines to use } virtual memory? (ie in 4Mb of RAM a DOS Process uses expanded } memory of 40Mb (under a compatibility window in unix)) Here at AT&T, I'm running a 6368 WGS with AT&T UNIX and SimulTask (AT&T labeled VPI/X). The SimulTask sessions are paged just like any other process. RAM is currently 4 Mbytes, so it isn't too difficult to push the system into paging. An expanded memory driver is supplied with SimulTask which emulates up to 2Mbytes of expanded memory. The 2 meg limit is probably a somewhat arbitrary choice; it could probably have been made larger, but... } Is that asking for too much? :-) Maybe. You should see what happens to the system when it gets into some serious paging! (The small disk runs it little legs off and after you press return, you simply leave and come back tomorrow). regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (Please note my mailing address. Mail sent directly to cbnews doesn't make it.)
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (11/22/89)
wgb@tntdev.tnt.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: >>>>>> In article <1989Nov20.172348.19691@world.std.com>, madd@world.std.com (jim frost) writes: [about EMS support:] >jim> I could find nothing comparable in the ISC 386/ix manuals, >jim> though. >It says up to 2MB of LIM 3.2 expanded memory is available under VP/ix >with the ems.sys device driver. My mistake, you're right. I would have thought that such a topic would have been listed in the index or under a more major topic, but, like spaghetti sauce, "it's in there." I recall mentioning the quality of the ISC documentation, though.... Happy hacking, jim frost madd@std.com
las) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov17.202018.10930@ico.isc.com> rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: }jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: }} ...But I would not run any sort of implementation of VP/ix }} (i.e. DOS Windows) on a 286 box because the 286 is brain damaged with respect }} to flipping in and out of protect mode, that and there's no virtual 8086 mode }} like the 386 has... }This is quite off. VP/ix is a facility which works in a 386 UNIX system, }period. The question of running VP/ix on a 286 simply cannot arise, }because you cannot run a 386 UNIX system on a 286. But beyond that, VP/ix }makes explicit use of "virtual 8086 mode" which (as correctly noted) does }not exist on a 286. Uhh... sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. There have been versions of VP/ix ("spelled" it right, this time :-)) and it's like competitor, DOSMerge, for the 80286 for some time. They work as described, by flipping the 286 between its real and protected modes with much futzing around in software to integrate into the host Unix environment. When the 386 became available, both products were reimplemented to use the virtual 86 mode (there's still lots of futzing around in software, but at least the chip provides the necessary support). It is true, of course, that the new 386 versions cannot be used on a 286. Also, I don't think that VP/ix has anything to do with Windows; though Windows 286 does some bizarre messing around of its own involving (I've been told) the "secret" LOADALL instruction. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (Please note my mailing address. Mail sent directly to cbnews doesn't make it.)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/23/89)
wgb@tntdev.tnt.COM (William G. Bunton) writes: >My VP/ix Maintenance Procedures manual has a section titled > > 5.2.4 Expanded Memory Standard Driver > >It says up to 2MB of LIM 3.2 expanded memory is available under VP/ix >with the ems.sys device driver. Who uses LIM EMS 3.2 anymore? SunOS supports LIM EMS 4.0 along with the more recent versions of software that support EMS at all. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Apple Computer, Inc. is really the Anti-Christ! *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/23/89)
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >> >Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? >... >> Yes, SunOS 4.0.x on a Sun 386i (or a Sun with a Sun IPC board) will do the job >> nicely. Too pricy for you? Ok, get SCO ... >[various items about VP/ix] > >You could also try Interactive's 386/ix. Note - there are various places >where VP/ix shows up in other products--Sun's 386i essentially uses VP/ix, >for example. VP/ix is *not* a generic name for DOS-under-UNIX, though... >there are other such animals. VP/ix was developed by (and is a trademark >of) Interactive and Phoenix. DOS Windows isn't essentially VP/ix, it *IS* VP/ix. Along with what SCO uses in Xenix and I believe Unix. Since I have great faith in both Sun and SCO (personal bias here) than I do in any other product, to me DOS-under-Unix is VP/ix or it isn't DOS-under-Unix at all. This is sort of how the term "household name" got started. I am well aware of the trademark and copyrights of who owns VP/ix, but the awareness really hit home when SCO and Sun both license it from Interactive and Phoenix in their *nix implementations. >> ...But I would not run any sort of implementation of VP/ix >> (i.e. DOS Windows) on a 286 box because the 286 is brain damaged with respect >> to flipping in and out of protect mode, that and there's no virtual 8086 mode >> like the 386 has... > >This is quite off. VP/ix is a facility which works in a 386 UNIX system, >period. The question of running VP/ix on a 286 simply cannot arise, >because you cannot run a 386 UNIX system on a 286. But beyond that, VP/ix >makes explicit use of "virtual 8086 mode" which (as correctly noted) does >not exist on a 286. Then what does SCO use for DOS Windows on SCO Xenix 286? I'm sure that there is a brain damaged 286 version of it out there, but it is known to crash. I don't remember for sure if it's VP/ix or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if Interactive and Phoenix tried it just once to see if they could break the rules. Anybody who has used DOS Windows under SCO Xenix 286 will agree after a few crashes that Xenix 286 isn't meant to run DOS sessions, period. Either you put it in protect mode and leave it there, or leave it in 8086 mode. Regardless of whether or not VP/ix has a 286 version or not, one can run DOS Windows from SCO Xenix 286. There's no guarantee how long before it will crash, but it is guaranteed from one that knows the 286 well that it will crash. Again, no offense to the makers of VP/ix or SCO, but one can not get around the flaws of the 286. >(I suspect that when Archambeau said "any sort of implementation of VP/ix" >he really meant "any sort of DOS-under-UNIX"--which is not the same >thing.) Yes, that was what I was driving at. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Apple Computer, Inc. is really the Anti-Christ! *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (11/25/89)
From article <754@crash.cts.com>, by jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau): > rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes: >>jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >>> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >>> >Is it possible to run DOS sessions from inside UNIX? [bunch of stuff deleted] > Then what does SCO use for DOS Windows on SCO Xenix 286? I'm sure that there > is a brain damaged 286 version of it out there, but it is known to crash. I > don't remember for sure if it's VP/ix or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if > Interactive and Phoenix tried it just once to see if they could break the > rules. Anybody who has used DOS Windows under SCO Xenix 286 will agree after > a few crashes that Xenix 286 isn't meant to run DOS sessions, period. Don't worry, SCO dosn't sell any DOS ontop of Xenix 286 product. Never did and no doubt never will. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda (A XBBS System) 2-lines BBS: (415)623-8809 2400/1200 (415)623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/30/89)
>You could also try Interactive's 386/ix. Note - there are various places >where VP/ix shows up in other products--Sun's 386i essentially uses VP/ix, If you want problems with your hard disk not booting or even seeing the partition when the power goes out - then by all means install ISC. If you want some of the worst support in the industry from the support crew in Hollis, then again - install ISC. If you want doggie throughput on the serial lines - then again ISC is the answer. If on the other hand - you want a solid, supported product with a fail safe file system - and VP/ix that does run DOS applications - I would suggest SCO. I've been in both shoes and would suggest SCO to EVERYONE over ISC. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.
madd@world.std.com (jim frost) (12/03/89)
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >If on the other hand - you want a solid, supported product with a fail >safe file system - and VP/ix that does run DOS applications - I would suggest >SCO. >I've been in both shoes and would suggest SCO to EVERYONE over ISC. >And I'm not the only one who feels this way. Probably not, but I've been on the other side. SCO's networking support is wretched. Its X11 support is worse. Its compiler is pretty scary. And they don't seem nearly as responsive to bug reports as they could be. ISC has many problems but they are damned responsive; the current release worked just fine for me (didn't try serial throughput but it kicked SCO out the door with ethernet throughput and its network support worked out-of-the-box -- SCO required a hell of a lot of STREAMS configuration -- and disk throughput which is excellent in current releases). The next release looks like it'll be even better. With documentation, on the other hand, SCO wins out over every other UNIX vendor I've ever seen. They have good docs (and they're even going to print my sockets tutorial :-). If you want a system that runs your applications, SCO is the winner. For an X11 system, networked system, or development system, ISC is better so long as you can live without wonderful documentation. It all depends on your needs. jim frost madd@std.com
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/03/89)
>pretty scary. And they don't seem nearly as responsive to bug reports >as they could be. ISC has many problems but they are damned >responsive; the current release worked just fine for me (didn't try >serial throughput but it kicked SCO out the door with ethernet >throughput and its network support worked out-of-the-box -- SCO >required a hell of a lot of STREAMS configuration -- and disk >throughput which is excellent in current releases). The next release >looks like it'll be even better. Yes - I must admit the disk IO blows SCO out of the water (Xenix that is) - I would like to hear from someone with SCO Unix comparing their file system with the ISC one. From experience - the ISC file system is not what I consider fail-safe. If one looses power, sometimes the file system gets so messed up that the machine will not boot --. >With documentation, on the other hand, SCO wins out over every other >UNIX vendor I've ever seen. They have good docs (and they're even >going to print my sockets tutorial :-). I agree. The ISC documentation is bad - I mean real bad. Also - re: support - are you getting yours from Hollis or California? I made some comments in comp.unix.i386 about my support and must have received 10 pieces of mail from others who were left with bad feelings after talking to ISC Hollis. On the other hand - I have heard that the folks in California know the product very well.