munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) (11/02/89)
Here are my experiences with alternate PC operating systems.
I would like people to respond with their opinions and experiences.
I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq
386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM.
It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C
took over half a minute to compile (without errors), on introducing an
error it took around a minute before giving the error message.
I know this was not the best combination of flavour of Unix and
operating system, but my guess is that even a 25 MHz Caching 386 with
enough RAM and a 16.5 ms ESDI wouldn't be as fast as DOS.
I have experimented with VM386 and Microsoft Windows and find several
of my favourite DOS applications "freeze" (eg SAS, Turbo C).
Has anyone experimented with PC-MOS 386, OS/2, Other Unix's.
DOS is nice but what does one do if one needs multitasking, or
multiple users and doesn't wan't to compromise the speed that one
has enjoyed under DOS.
Munish Mehra ARPA: munish@ms.uky.edu BITNET: munish@ukma.BITNET
UUCP: {uunet,rutgers}!ukma!munish
"After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless."
Geoffrey James, The Tao of Programming.johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (11/03/89)
In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu> munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: >I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq >386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM. >It was ridiculously SLOW. ... I use 386/ix on a 25MHz Intel 302 with an ESDI disk and 8MB of 100ns RAM. It is pretty fast. I used to have 4MB of RAM, and it's considerably faster with 8. I imagine with 3MB it'd be awful. 386/ix has a much faster and smarter disk driver than Microport did, but extra memory for buffers and to avoid paging makes all the difference. (And adding the extra 4MB cost less than $500, too.) -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl Massachusetts has over 100,000 unlicensed drivers. -The Globe
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/03/89)
In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu>, munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: | It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C | took over half a minute to compile (without errors), on introducing an | error it took around a minute before giving the error message. I just timed cc of hello.c on Xenix and got 7sec 1st compile, 3.6 2nd compile. Moderately loaded 386/25, two modems running uucp as I type. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
rick@NRC.COM (Rick Wagner) (11/04/89)
In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu> munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: >Here are my experiences with alternate PC operating systems. >I would like people to respond with their opinions and experiences. > >I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq >386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM. >It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C >took over half a minute to compile (without errors), on introducing an >error it took around a minute before giving the error message. >I know this was not the best combination of flavour of Unix and >operating system, but my guess is that even a 25 MHz Caching 386 with >enough RAM and a 16.5 ms ESDI wouldn't be as fast as DOS. We run SCO Xenix 2.2 on AST 386's (16Mhz I think), 2Mb ram, with Micropolis 18Ms HDs. I just tried the above, hello-world took 5 seconds to compile and link (from hello.c to a.out). ls commands are usually blindingly fast. Sounds like Microport or your system has problems. -- =============================================================================== Rick Wagner Network Research Corp. rick@nrc.com rick@nrcvax.UUCP 2380 North Rose Ave. (805) 485-2700 FAX: (805) 485-8204 Oxnard, CA 93030
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (11/05/89)
In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu> munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: >I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq >386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM. >It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C >took over half a minute to compile (without errors), on introducing an >error it took around a minute before giving the error message. >I know this was not the best combination of flavour of Unix and >operating system, but my guess is that even a 25 MHz Caching 386 with >enough RAM and a 16.5 ms ESDI wouldn't be as fast as DOS. I have a 25MHz uncaching no-name 386 with a 61ms, 65MB disk drive (temporary) and only 2MB of RAM (also a temporary restriction). When I read this message (dialed in via the ``cu'' program) I popped up another virtual terminal and wrote and compiled a ``hello world'' program. It compiled to an a.out in six seconds (clock time). Adding an extra closing brace yielded an error message in about one second. My system? Interactive's 386/ix, a flavor of UNIX System V 3.2, configured right out of the box. Don't judge all UNIX's from the abomination you tried. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
eddjp@althea.UUCP (Dewey Paciaffi) (11/05/89)
In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu> munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: >Here are my experiences with alternate PC operating systems. >I would like people to respond with their opinions and experiences. > >I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq >386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM. >It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C >took over half a minute to compile (without errors), on introducing an >error it took around a minute before giving the error message. Sounds like you need some better UNIX. I just compiled helloworld.c in 10 seconds, and my ls comes back immediately, on a 16Mhz 386 SX, 2 MB memory and a 71 MB MFM disc, using SCO Xenix, 2.3.1. I've benchmarked DOS on 286 and 386 machines against my Compaq 386/20 with a ESDI drive running Xenix, and the DOS performance is so pitiful that I'd laugh if some of my buddies weren't trying to develop software on those beasts. Try some other UNIX combinations. You might find one you like :-). Dewey Paciaffi I don't even work for my boss, let alone anyone I mentioned above.
markd@gamer.UUCP (Mark Davidson) (11/07/89)
In article <1989Nov4.185710.809@rand.org>, edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes: > In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu> munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: > >I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq > >386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM. [...stuff about slowness deleted...] > > I have a 25MHz uncaching no-name 386 with a 61ms, 65MB disk drive > (temporary) and only 2MB of RAM (also a temporary restriction). [...Ed talks about the speed of his Interactive system...] I must agree with Ed. I have a lowly 16 MHz 80386 with only 2 megabytes of RAM running SCO Xenix System V/386. Currently, I use a 65 MB 28 ms RLL drive. While logged on reading news (in addition to having a root session on another screen), I logged onto a third virtual screen and tried your little test. "hello, world" compiled and linked in 6.5 seconds; with an extra brace added to cause a syntax error, the error occurred in about 1 second. Turning on FULL optimization in the C compiler increased the compile/link to about 12 seconds. Considering how little RAM I have in this computer, I am very happy with Xenix's performance. I will admit that one time 'lc' took four seconds to respond, but that was in a directory that contained some 500 files; also, the system was processing the news at the time. Perhaps the version of Unix you were trying was at fault. Those numbers you got are pathetic. However, as Ed has pointed out, there are others using other ports that respond EXTREMELY well on our systems. Just a happy SCO customer... Mark E. Davidson, ...!novavax!gamer!markd
jb@aablue.UUCP (John B Scalia) (11/08/89)
In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu> munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: >Here are my experiences with alternate PC operating systems. >I would like people to respond with their opinions and experiences. > >I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq > ... >It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C > ... >I know this was not the best combination of flavour of Unix and >operating system, but my guess is that even a 25 MHz Caching 386 with >enough RAM and a 16.5 ms ESDI wouldn't be as fast as DOS. Well, I can't and won't speak for every flavor of UNIX, but my experiences with Everex's ESIX, another Sys. V/386 clone, are nothing like you describe. I am running it on a caching 25MHz system with a 16ms ESDI disk, Everex and Imprimis Wren III, and I don't see anything slow about ESIX. I compiled the elm system shortly after bringing up the system and including patches, it did the whole job in something like 2 minutes. I'll confess I didn't time it; this is a subjective approximation. I had left the room after typing "make" and when I got back from the refrigerator it was done. :-) :-) Since I'm the only user on this system, I haven't noticed it being really faster or slower than what little I could do with Dos. Most of the stuff I ask it to do, it just flies through. You mentioned "ls" say vs. "dir", well both commands on my system occur in the blink of an eye. Subjectively, I would say that ESIX scrolls faster than Dos, but execution time are both well under 1 second. I guess what I'm trying to say, is not to let this experience set you against an alternative. I don't know why your system ran so slow, but I would suspect you've got a problem with your disk I/O. jb@aablue -- A A Blueprint Co., Inc. - Akron, Ohio +1 216 794-8803 voice UUCP: {uunet!}aablue!jb (John B. Scalia) Just a little more nonsense to clutter up the net.
akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/08/89)
>I must agree with Ed. I have a lowly 16 MHz 80386 with only 2 megabytes of >RAM running SCO Xenix System V/386. Currently, I use a 65 MB 28 ms RLL >drive. While logged on reading news (in addition to having a root session >on another screen), I logged onto a third virtual screen and tried your little I agree with both you and Ed. I am running SCO Xenix 2.3.2 with 4 megs of ram using 230 meg drives on a 25mhz '386 and it only takes 3 seconds to compile the above "hello world" bench - and that is while 3 modems are going full speed (2 at 2400 and 1 at 19,200) and three windows open.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (11/12/89)
In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu>, munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes: > I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq > 386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM. > It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C > took over half a minute to compile (without errors), on introducing an > error it took around a minute before giving the error message. I don't know what's wrong, but I know you've got something seriously broken there. Other folks have given comparisons with other 386 UNIX systems, but here's a real "lower bound" for you folks to consider: I ran the same test as above on a Microport UNIX System (2.4) on an 8 MHz 286. Note those numbers. Also, the machine has 2.5 Mb of 150 ns RAM and a 40 ms disk. Hello world takes 18 sec to compile/link normally; if I introduce an error, it takes 6. So, don't judge "UNIX" based on one obviously wrong datapoint! -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...Keep your day job 'til your night job pays.