mike@ninja.cc.umich.edu (Michael Nowak) (04/07/88)
In Amazing Computing, Vol 3. Num 4., there is an ad for AMIX from Lamplighter Software. According to the ad, AMIX is: * Unix System V compatible * A multi-user, multi-tasking Unix workalike * Compatible with Amiga-DOS file structure * Access Amiga-DOS special functions such as sound and graphics I called them up and according to the woman on the phone, it is two weeks from shipping, will cost $395, and will allow Amiga applications to run under AMIX. They are sending me more information. Does anyone else have any information on this? It sounds like an interesting alternative. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Real Life: Michael Nowak "Seek truth from facts." Via Internet: mike@ronin.cc.umich.edu - Deng Xiao Ping Via UUCP: uunet!umix!ronin.cc.umich.edu!mike Working for but in no way representing the University of Michigan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (04/13/88)
In article <466@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> mike@ronin.cc.umich.edu () writes: |In Amazing Computing, Vol 3. Num 4., there is an ad for AMIX from |Lamplighter Software. According to the ad, AMIX is: | | * Unix System V compatible | * A multi-user, multi-tasking Unix workalike | * Compatible with Amiga-DOS file structure | * Access Amiga-DOS special functions such as sound and graphics | |I called them up and according to the woman on the phone, it is two weeks |from shipping, will cost $395, and will allow Amiga applications to run under |AMIX. They are sending me more information. |Does anyone else have any information on this? It sounds like an interesting |alternative. Two, out of a thousand, questions: 1) How close to a real Unix is it? Does it provide all of Unix's functionality? All of Unix's utilities? And 2) Would you buy a Unix from someone who couldn't support it? I mean REALLY support it? I wouldn't. Not in a billion years. I'd suggest waiting for C/A's own Unix, since it's already been announced. Might cost you more, but I would think there's a better chance that it'll work right, and do what you want. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (04/15/88)
In article <863@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: >suggest waiting for C/A's own Unix, since it's already been announced. >Might cost you more, but I would think there's a better chance that >it'll work right, and do what you want. That's what I was planning to do, but hmm... A2000 $1500 A2620 2500 (CSA=1000, 551+4M 32bit static=1500) A2420 550 A2090A 350 100M 1100 U**x 800 ----- $6800 U.S. = $9000+ Can. Unless someone convinces me that I'm VERY wrong, I somehow can't see myself getting this! And it makes me sad because I like the Amiga but also feel it necessary to get U**x. >Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/17/88)
In article <391@brambo.UUCP> morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) writes:
-> [Amiga UNIX box] == $6800 U.S. = $9000+ Can.
->
->Unless someone convinces me that I'm VERY wrong, I somehow can't see
->myself getting this! And it makes me sad because I like the Amiga but
->also feel it necessary to get U**x.
->Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP
You are not wrong Morgan. Something to think about, is that people who
make workstations such as Sun are constantly working down the price curve
and trying to make the whizziest system for the least money. IF IT WAS
POSSIBLE TO MAKE A DISKFULL UNIX WORKSTATION FOR < $8K TODAY WE WOULD!
We want to make one because we know people would buy them, but that is
like saying if someone would just make a flying car, rush hour traffic
wouldn't be a problem. Now both of these problems will be solved one
day but that day is not today so all you can do is wait until your
disposable income intersects the cost of a UNIX workstation. I would
be nice but it isn't possible yet. Just like it isn't possible to build
a Cray for less than $100,000. Those would sell too.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (04/20/88)
In article <49800@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >IF IT WAS >POSSIBLE TO MAKE A DISKFULL UNIX WORKSTATION FOR < $8K TODAY WE WOULD! For under $4000 (this is accurate as far as I know) you could run a 386 clone with full SysV. Thus, for less than the cost of upgrading you could run a concurrent SysV and use the 2000 as a terminal, or as many terminals when DNET gets ported. That's the reason that I thought I could be wrong. >--Chuck McManis -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/22/88)
In article <49800@sun.uucp> I wrote : > IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A DISKFULL UNIX WORKSTATION FOR < $8K > TODAY WE (Sun) WOULD! Sorry to shout like that. In article <396@brambo.UUCP> (Morgan W. Jones) replied: > For under $4000 (this is accurate as far as I know) you could run a > 386 clone with full SysV. Ok folks, I may get flamed for this but hey what's life for anyway. The problem comes when we get down to brass tacks and define what a "workstation" is. In my lexicon a workstation has 4 megabytes of memory, 1M pixels (optionally in color), 80Meg+ of disk space, UNIX* in some form or another, and a window system in system in some form or another. Ideally, it also has built in networking. Intel took the initiative to build this exact beast, given the parts they made and some of the parts that others made, and came up with a '386 box with 4 meg of ram, running System V and X11, with an 80Meg drive, and a Blit board and nice 1K x 1K monochrome monitor. Guess what? It cost *them* $8,192 , you and me it would cost $11,264 - $12,288 dollars. Sure, you can run UNIX on an AT clone with probably less memory and an EGA card, but it wouldn't be a workstation in my book. So the next time someone argues that they can build a workstation for cheap try meeting those design specs, and see if it is still cheap. This other thing you have to keep in mind is that it *must* be available *now*, no fair saying "well, by december this 80Meg drive will only be $200." ok? --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (04/23/88)
In article <50356@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >In article <49800@sun.uucp> I wrote : >In article <396@brambo.UUCP> (Morgan W. Jones) replied: >> For under $4000 (this is accurate as far as I know) you could run a >> 386 clone with full SysV. > >Ok folks, I may get flamed for this but hey what's life for anyway. >The problem comes when we get down to brass tacks and define what >a "workstation" is. In my lexicon a workstation has 4 megabytes of >memory, 1M pixels (optionally in color), 80Meg+ of disk space, UNIX* >in some form or another, and a window system in system in some form or >another. Ideally, it also has built in networking. > >Intel took the initiative to build this exact beast, given the parts >they made and some of the parts that others made, and came up with a >'386 box with 4 meg of ram, running System V and X11, with an 80Meg >drive, and a Blit board and nice 1K x 1K monochrome monitor. Guess >what? It cost *them* $8,192 , you and me it would cost $11,264 - $12,288 >dollars. Intel should shoot their parts suppliers (and somebody should should Intel :-). Just reading adds in MicroTimes I come up with: 21 mhz 386 clone w/ 1mb $1,995 19" Mono $1,895 80 MB hard disk $ 839 3 mb of memory $ 600 (approximate quess as noone quotes prices) System V $ 799 (Microport from the Programmer's connection) X/11 Free ------ Total $6,128 I just saved $2,000 without really trying. Of course I don't get a single orginization like sun supporting me, but it might be worth $2000 to take my chances. If you are willing to settle for 800x600 you can drop over $1000 from the price of the monitor. All prices except Microport come from the March 88 issue of MicroTimes. Of course, I havn't put this beast together to see if it all flies together... :-). >--Chuck McManis Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM (Todd South) (04/23/88)
In article <466@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> mike@ronin.cc.umich.edu () writes: >In Amazing Computing, Vol 3. Num 4., there is an ad for AMIX from >Lamplighter Software. According to the ad, AMIX is: > > * Unix System V compatible > * A multi-user, multi-tasking Unix workalike > * Compatible with Amiga-DOS file structure > * Access Amiga-DOS special functions such as sound and graphics > >I called them up and according to the woman on the phone, it is two weeks >from shipping, will cost $395, and will allow Amiga applications to run under >AMIX. They are sending me more information. When you get more information I hope that you will readily post it to the net. It seems amazing that someone is finally coming out with Unix on a machine that can truly handle it in the personal market. Todd South :-----------------------------------------------------------------------: | Todd South : Ewa Beach, HI ||| Pacific Proline: (808) 499-2831 2400bd | | Uucp: {nosc, ihnp4, cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun!ihnp4} | | ...!crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth | | ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-simasd!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL | | INET: tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM BITNET: psuvax1!tsouth@pro-pac.CTS.COM | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------:
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (04/23/88)
In article <49800@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >IF IT WAS >POSSIBLE TO MAKE A DISKFULL UNIX WORKSTATION FOR < $8K TODAY WE WOULD! So I guess my AT&T 3b1 w/ Unix Sys V 3.0 (3.51 now available) w/ 3.5Mb RAM, 67Mb HD, etc etc isn't a unix workstation? At my last place of work, we developed C code for both unix and dos on 3b1's. Think about it. Developing on a semi-kludge like the 3b1 for a MS-DOS abortion. Poetic, somehow. Seriously, with 3b1's as low as they are, I think a great buy would be an Amiga 500 and a full-blown 3b1 with Sys V 3.51; and just use the Amiga as a multi-tasking games machine/graphics terminal to the 3b1. I'll probably get flamed for *that* suggestion. :-) > >--Chuck McManis -- Anytime a computer company needs the entire cast of "MASH" to sell it's newest product line; it's time to take a serious, critical look at that product line. -- Me. J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/24/88)
In article <50356@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > Ok folks, I may get flamed for this but hey what's life for anyway. No flames, just a bit of perspective. > The problem comes when we get down to brass tacks and define what > a "workstation" is. In my lexicon a workstation has 4 megabytes of > memory, 1M pixels (optionally in color), 80Meg+ of disk space, UNIX* > in some form or another, and a window system in system in some form or > another. Ideally, it also has built in networking. That's an interesting definition. Let's take the quantitative stuff out of that and see what we get... Memory... well, 4 megabytes is nice. I have that much in my Amiga. But it's not necessary. Let's say you need enough memory that you can run the rest of the stuff without swapping. Carnegie-Mellon specs 1 Meg for a workstation, by the way. Pixels... well, a megapixel display is nice. Part of the 3M definition. But do you really need that? Unless you're doing CAD work you really only need enough to fit a couple of "terminal-size" windows on the screen. With ColorFonts you can even use antialiasing and get nice looking text. Disk space... well, enough is enough. Let's say you need twice the disk space that the basic operating system takes up, with a minimum of ten megs of user space. So this depends again on another parameter: how big the O/S is. UNIX in some form of another... I'm tempted to cut this requirement, but you'll hang me for it. So, how small can UNIX be and still be UNIX? Well, you need ALL the binaries. The SCO-Xenix distribution for the IBM-PC, with the manuals, is 23 320K diskettes. That's over 7 megabytes, and makes a good baseline. No windowing, but the Amiga ROMS have all the layer manager code in them. A windowing system that takes advantage of them could be pretty small. Let's be gross, though, and say you need 3 meg of disk space for the WM and utilities. a 20 Meg disk would do, at a minimum. But let's double that and say 40 Meg. Sun's sold workstations with that much disk, anyway. Windowing... The Amiga has windowing. The Mac has windowing (echoes of Jonathan Livingston Seagull: "Just flying? A mosquito can do that much!"). You don't need megabytes of RAM or Disk for windowing. Networking... that's a toughy. But do you really need it for a home workstation? Surely you can come up with a machine that uses plain multisync monitors and runs or under 4 Grand. I suspect that a 2500-type system could do it. A multisync monitor and flckerFixer instead of the Hedley monitor, and a less ambitious UNIX than full SVR2. > Sure, you can run UNIX on an AT clone with probably less memory > and an EGA card, but it wouldn't be a workstation in my book. Not everyone has tastes quite that rich. Try these design specs: 1 meg of memory, 1 million pixels resolution, and 1 MIPS. The monitor to display all those pixels is the hard part, but if you multiply pixels by bitplanes and take advantage of antialiasing the Amiga with a 2620 can do it. It's not *that* much of a cheat. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (04/24/88)
in article <396@brambo.UUCP>, morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) says: > In article <49800@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >>IF IT WAS >>POSSIBLE TO MAKE A DISKFULL UNIX WORKSTATION FOR < $8K TODAY WE WOULD! > > For under $4000 (this is accurate as far as I know) you could run a > 386 clone with full SysV. Thus, for less than the cost of upgrading A '386 clone costs around $4000 for a Unix system, true. But I suspect that what drives the price of the Sun, etc., upward, is GRAPHICS support, and NETWORKING support. Networking's a bit cheaper nowdays than it used to be. But hi-res monitors still are dear. Not to mention that the Sun has faster i/o than the '386 clone machine does (16 bit bus, blah!). Add in $2,000 for a professional graphics display, and you're up to $6,000 -- Sun country. And the Ethernet board won't be cheap, either. But it's an exercise in absurdity. You don't buy a '386 for graphics. People who run Unix on a'386 are generally doing it so that they don't have to use an overloaded Vax-780 with 20 simultaneous users running Emacs and Common Lisp. Quite a different market, compared to the graphics workstation market. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 ihnp4!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 "Is a dream a lie that don't come true, or is it something worse?"
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) (04/24/88)
Peter, the CMU spec is quite a few years old. I think that even Chuck's
estimate is a bit low ball, but workable. This is our rough
requirement for a next generation workstation a SUNY/Stony Brook:
10-20 mips main processor
> 10M SP Whetstones FP performance
8 mBytes memory, must be expandable to 512 mBytes or greater
Medium resolution color screen, eg 1280x1024x8, must be
expandable to x24 and graphics rendering processor
FDDI networking, at least. At least 50 mbps end to end throughput.
Fast internal bus, eg 100 mBps or greater.
Real Unix. We're comfortable with 4.3, or SunOS 4.X. SysV not welcome.
We're looking at SGI, Apollo PRISM, etc. Our low end requirement
is roughly Sun-3/60:
3 mips processor
no min FP requirement, '881/'882 preferred
4 mBytes memory, expandable to at least 16 mBytes
Medium res color screen, eg 1024x1024x8
Ethernet networking
Real Unix.
The CMU requirement is just that: it is what CMU will buy. We have
100+ Suns here, and I'll tell you that a 3/50 is pretty well threshold
of pain in current workstations. In such an environment, the current
Amiga makes an awesome terminal with some compute ability. It does
not make a workable Unix machine. At least for the sort of Unix
we run here.
Listen to Chuck. He is giving you the straight story. Real unix
machines cost bucks.
Rick Spanbauer
SUNY/Stony Brook
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/26/88)
In article <270@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >So I guess my AT&T 3b1 w/ Unix Sys V 3.0 (3.51 now available) w/ 3.5Mb RAM, >67Mb HD, etc etc isn't a unix workstation? No, the 3b1 isn't a workstation. It is more of an AT clone class of machine. Now I am not saying that is bad, however in my previous message I stated that we were talking workstation and what that meant to me. Yes, you can get a 3b1, yes you can get an AT clone, no you can't get a workstation. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
DMasterson@cup.portal.com (04/26/88)
In message <1207@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, root@sbcs.sunysb.edu writes: > Listen to Chuck. He is giving you the straight story. Real unix > machines cost bucks. > True, but you don't have to shoot so HIGH for the HOME Unix market (and, believe me, there could be such a market)! Ever had the feeling that putting Unix on PC/XT class machines was an idea slightly ahead of its time?? > Rick Spanbauer > SUNY/Stony Brook > David Masterson DMasterson@cup.portal.com
darin@laic.UUCP (Darin Johnson) (04/27/88)
(Not really a Flame :-) In article <50356@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > > Ok folks, I may get flamed for this but hey what's life for anyway. > The problem comes when we get down to brass tacks and define what > a "workstation" is. In my lexicon a workstation has 4 megabytes of > memory, 1M pixels (optionally in color), 80Meg+ of disk space, UNIX* ^^^^ > in some form or another, and a window system in system in some form or ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ > another. Ideally, it also has built in networking. Hmmn, I wonder if DEC knows that they aren't selling workstations after all :-) Actually, my definition of a workstation would probably fall pretty close to a Sun 3/75 (0 Meg disk space). Other Sun versions may have more power/etc., but the 3/75 fits my requirements: 1) Sit on my desk (well it got used to be; imagine root not having his own sun :-( 2) The cpu doesn't get bogged down by 'n' other users. 3) I don't have to worry about messing up other users when I steal the CPU/crash-the-machine/etc. 4) I have full access to disks/cpu on the groups MAIN machine. Actually, the Amiga would fit my specs if it were; in my office, had DNET, maybe some more memory (possibly '020). I can run lots of stuff on my Amiga, and then turn to one of the DNET windows and run a cpu intensive job on another machine. Actually, I would class workstations into several categories: - Inexpensive computers to get a particular job done and to get those darn administrators off of the VAX (MAC's IBM's) - Computers to supply windowing/etc. to a larger computer, with easy access to the larger computers files (and vice-versa). (The amiga described above would fall into this class) - Standalone workstations - what you describe above. Generally meant for one user, although that never happens around here :-) (includes specialized publishing only or CAD only types) - Workstations that can be networked/coupled together. For example Suns with NFS, X, etc. or vaxclusters. - ? Distributed computers - if anyone actually gets completely transparent distributed computers, would the individual nodes (with graphics) be considered Workstations? Then again, I may be confusing workstations with WorkStations(R)... -- Darin Johnson (...lll-lcc.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin) (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin) "All aboard the DOOMED express!"
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (04/27/88)
> *Excerpts from: 23-Apr-88 Re: AMIX? Peter da Silva@sugar.UUC (3262)* > Memory... well, 4 megabytes is nice. I have that much in my Amiga. But > it's not necessary. Let's say you need enough memory that you can run the > rest of the stuff without swapping. Carnegie-Mellon specs 1 Meg for a > workstation, by the way. <giggle> The Sun 3/50 I am typing this message on (running Unix and the Andrew software environment) has about 4 MB of memory. The IBM RTs at Carnegie Mellon generally have about 6 MB. Anything less and they would be totally useless. When the Andrew environment at CMU officially moves to X for its window manager, they'll be even more constrained since X is a memory pig, much more than the window manager currently in use (developed at CMU for the Andrew environment). When that happens, I expect the few Sun-2's around here to disappear quickly, since they will no longer be able to keep up with what is demanded of them. Basically, Carnegie Mellon is outright lying when they say 1 MB is sufficient memory for a workstation. In the Computer Science department, which already runs Mach and X on its workstations, 10 and 12 MB are common figures. > Windowing... The Amiga has windowing. The Mac has windowing (echoes of > Jonathan Livingston Seagull: "Just flying? A mosquito can do that much!"). > You don't need megabytes of RAM or Disk for windowing. You do if you want to run X on your workstation. > Networking... that's a toughy. But do you really need it for a home > workstation? I don't think Chuck was defining a "home" workstation...he was defining a workstation. And networking is one of the most useful aspects of a workstation. --M Michael Portuesi / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas "Memories are uncertain friends, when recalled by messages" -- OMD, "Messages"
dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (04/27/88)
In article <391@brambo.UUCP>, morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) writes: > In article <863@gethen.UUCP> farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) writes: > >suggest waiting for C/A's own Unix, since it's already been announced. > >Might cost you more, but I would think there's a better chance that > >it'll work right, and do what you want. > > That's what I was planning to do, but hmm... > > A2000 $1500 > A2620 2500 (CSA=1000, 551+4M 32bit static=1500) > A2420 550 > A2090A 350 > 100M 1100 > U**x 800 > ----- > $6800 U.S. = $9000+ Can. > > Unless someone convinces me that I'm VERY wrong, I somehow can't see > myself getting this! And it makes me sad because I like the Amiga but > also feel it necessary to get U**x. What exactly is your point? Yes, 68020s are expensive. Yes, 100 Megabyte disk drives are expensive. Yes 4M of 32bit static memory is expensive. I don't know what the A2420 is. Probably the cheapest high performance Unix boxes available at present are 80386 clones. The hard disk controller is cheaper (probably $200 or so), the box itself is cheaper (than the 2000+cpu card combo probably $1000 or so). A configuration like you outlined in a clone box would probably be in the at least $5k+ range and it just doesn't come any cheaper. To get much cheaper, you are going to have to go to lower performance and smaller configurations. I would expect to pay more for an Amiga based box as they simply don't have the volume. In any case, I should hope Unix will run in a smaller configuration than this. Hey, on the AT&T 7300s it would run on a 1M, 20M machine with about 5M of disk to spare. Myself, fortunately I already have a 2000 and a 2090 and will only have to stare at the sticker on the 2620 and the Unix and decide if they are worth it to me. David Albrecht
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (04/29/88)
In article <1878@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <50356@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >> The problem comes when we get down to brass tacks and define what >> a "workstation" is. In my lexicon a workstation has 4 megabytes of >> memory, 1M pixels (optionally in color), 80Meg+ of disk space, UNIX* >> in some form or another, and a window system in system in some form or >> another. Ideally, it also has built in networking. >Memory... well, 4 megabytes is nice. I have that much in my Amiga. But >it's not necessary. Let's say you need enough memory that you can run the >rest of the stuff without swapping. Carnegie-Mellon specs 1 Meg for a >workstation, by the way. Well .. to give you an example of memory needs ... from memory, the memory requirement for the Kyoto Common Lisp version of Macsyma is about 4 megabytes. That's before you try to run any programs in it. I'd kinda-sorta like to have a Macsyma available to me but my 3b1 won't let me have a program that big. (Haven't looked into WHY yet, I just know that it won't). A Meg is minimal (3b1's are slooow with only a meg, but then that is probably more due to the disk involved rather than the memory). Regardless of how much memory we spec now, people will want more in the future. >Pixels... well, a megapixel display is nice. Part of the 3M definition. >But do you really need that? Unless you're doing CAD work you really only >need enough to fit a couple of "terminal-size" windows on the screen. With >ColorFonts you can even use antialiasing and get nice looking text. Egads. I suppose I could live with only 2 80x24 windows, but I've really been spoiled by *really*large* screens. As with memory, disk space, processor speed and every thing else, I want as much as the market will bear. It *is* nice that my 3b1 has multiple window available. But they're not available at the same time. The 3b1 screen is too small. >Networking... that's a toughy. But do you really need it for a home >workstation? YES! How else are you supposed to have, with a home machine, multiple things going on over your modem at a time? The coming age is one of even higher speed communication available AT HOME. High enough speed that you couldn't use it very effectively as "just" a terminal connection. You'll have enough bandwidth to make something like SLIP or DNET feasible, allowing you to be doing a terminal session + background file transfers from home. -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- Windowing... The Amiga has windowing. The Mac has windowing (echoes of <---- Jonathan Livingston Seagull: "Just flying? A mosquito can do that much!").
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/30/88)
It seems it's the windowing that's causing the problems, eh? In article ... mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) writes: > *Excerpts from: 23-Apr-88 Re: AMIX? Peter da Silva@sugar.UUC (3262)* > > Memory... well, 4 megabytes is nice. I have that much in my Amiga. But > > it's not necessary. Let's say you need enough memory that you can run the > > rest of the stuff without swapping. Carnegie-Mellon specs 1 Meg for a > > workstation, by the way. > <giggle> > [X takes more RAM than] the window manager currently in use... > Basically, Carnegie Mellon is outright lying when they say 1 > MB is sufficient memory for a workstation. I guess CMU's wimped out as well. From what I've hear of Andrew (at Usenix) it's massive overkill. It's interesting that it seems to do way more than X, yet X is larger. > > Windowing... The Amiga has windowing. The Mac has windowing (echoes of > > Jonathan Livingston Seagull: "Just flying? A mosquito can do that much!"). > > You don't need megabytes of RAM or Disk for windowing. > You do if you want to run X on your workstation. Why do I want to run X on my workstation? It's a huge monster that doesn't seem to do any more than Intuition. All I need to do is provide the X toolkit calls, right? That's the whole point of a portable standard, no? Personally, I'd rather run NeWS. But if you can emulate X under NeWS I'm sure Bill Hawes could hack up an X compatibility package in AREXX in a week or so. :-> > > Networking... that's a toughy. But do you really need it for a home > > workstation? > I don't think Chuck was defining a "home" workstation...he was defining a > workstation. OK. We have a bunch of intel 310 and 320 boxes on an ethernet with a pretty transparent common file system, and it doesn't seem to take that much in the way of resources. An 80286 is in no way shape nor form a workstation class CPU, but it seems to run Xenix and OpenNet just fine. And there is Ether for Amy, too. > And networking is one of the most useful aspects of a workstation. Funny, the first half dozen workstations I ever had an opportunity to play around with didn't have any networking. What they had was a big bitmapped screen, UNIX, and windows. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
sjm@well.UUCP (Stephen Moehle) (04/30/88)
So far I don't think I have seen anyone say what AMIX is. So.... I know
AMIX is some kind of UNIX look-a-like, but what is it really?
Stephe
{ucbvax,pacbell,hplabs}!well!sjm or well!sjm@lll-winken.arpa
"You heard the weirdo man. What is truth?"peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (04/30/88)
In article ... david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes: > Regardless of how much memory we spec now, people will want more > in the future. I didn't say "let's only have a meg", I said "let's not require people to spend more than the price of a Yugo for a personal computer", which translates to "we have to be able to get along with a meg" (yow. Boy was I happy when the school upgraded to 48K on the computer club's Apple II). > Egads. I suppose I could live with only 2 80x24 windows, but I've really > been spoiled by *really*large* screens. As with memory, disk space, processor > speed and every thing else, I want as much as the market will bear. The market won't bear super expensive monitors. Once again, let's not spend more than the price of a small car on a personal computer. > YES! How else are you supposed to have, with a home machine, multiple > things going on over your modem at a time? That's a software problem. I'm talking about "why would you need ethernet in the home"? <-- Windowing... The Amiga has windowing. The Mac has windowing (echoes of <-- Jonathan Livingston Seagull: "Just flying? A mosquito can do that much!"). Yow. I've been promoted to someone's .signature. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
dragon@trwspf.TRW.COM (Roger Vossler) (04/30/88)
In article <4798@cup.portal.com> DMasterson@cup.portal.com writes:
*True, but you don't have to shoot so HIGH for the HOME Unix market (and,
*believe me, there could be such a market)! Ever had the feeling that putting
*Unix on PC/XT class machines was an idea slightly ahead of its time??
*
*David Masterson
*DMasterson@cup.portal.com
Hi Gang,
Seems to me that a good shell and the usual collection of U**X
utilities on top of a good multitasking kernel gives one MOST of
"real unix" without all of the expense (resource, price, etc) and
hassle. Since this already exists for the Amiga, thanks to some very
talented people in both the commercial world and the public domain,
why do we need "real unix"? If one wants to go that far, buy a Sun
and have the real thing. Or have I missed something somewhere?
--
-- Roger Vossler
TRW, Bldg O2-1395, One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
BIX: rvossler UseNet: dragon@trwspf.trw.com
ATT: 213.535.2804 ....!trwrb!trwspf!dragonpeter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/02/88)
In article <740@trwspf.TRW.COM>, dragon@trwspf.TRW.COM (Roger Vossler) writes: > Hi Gang, > Seems to me that a good shell and the usual collection of U**X > utilities on top of a good multitasking kernel gives one MOST of > "real unix" without all of the expense (resource, price, etc) and > hassle. Sorry, but it doesn't. For an individual running in a non-super account UNIX is an inherently safe environment. There is very little you can do to the system as a whole, and if you set up a number of accounts for yourself for different tasks you can even set up firewalls at the file level. On the other hand, AmigaDOS is an inherently unsafe environment. I think it's exteremely unlikely that something like the Amiga, Mac, or PC viruses could have been implemented on UNIX. Viruses are possible, yes (do you decode your shar files by hand???), but unless you run one in super you can't hurt that much... because in UNIX you can't get to anything except via the operating system. On the Amiga (or ANY other PC) on the other hand there is no protection. There is no way to keep viruses or just clumsy users from deleting dh0: (or c:). Another point is that UNIX is well-documented. Try to figure out just what Execute() on mi Amiga does from the manual. > why do we need "real unix"? If one wants to go that far, buy a Sun > and have the real thing. Or have I missed something somewhere? And the other point is that individuals shouldn't have to pay the price of a small car for a decent UNIX system. Don't get me wrong. AmigaDOS has strengths UNIX lacks. But it's not, and never will be, UNIX. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (05/03/88)
In article <1917@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: | In article <740@trwspf.TRW.COM>, dragon@trwspf.TRW.COM (Roger Vossler) writes: | > why do we need "real unix"? If one wants to go that far, buy a Sun | > and have the real thing. Or have I missed something somewhere? | And the other point is that individuals shouldn't have to pay the price of a | small car for a decent UNIX system. You don't. Buy a fire sale 7300 or 3b1. :-) Actually, buy a used system from somebody who bought fire-sale priced equipment. -- Just say "Noh". -- Association for the Advancement of Japanese Theatre. Girls play with toys -- Real Women skate. -- Powell & Peralta ad "The truth of an opinion is part of its utility." -- John Stuart Mill J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/04/88)
In article <607@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > In article <1917@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > | And the other point is that individuals shouldn't have to pay the price of a > | small car for a decent UNIX system. > You don't. Buy a fire sale 7300 or 3b1. :-) Actually, buy a used system > from somebody who bought fire-sale priced equipment. The 3b1 is a perfectly decent machine, unfortunately it's also not being manufactured. UNIX and Windows seperately are available for well under 2 grand for a base system... but due to relentless upsizing in workstations you still can't get them together for under 10 grand. You should be able to get a Sun-1 class machine for 2 grand today, but nobody's making them. If the Sun-1 was acceptable in 1984, why shouldn't it be acceptable in 1988? The sort of PC most people are using is still decades behind it. Hell, the sort of machine most PC owners are stuck with is still decades behind a PDP-11 running 5th Edition. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (05/05/88)
In article <1922@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > If the Sun-1 was acceptable in 1984, why shouldn't it be acceptable in 1988? > The sort of PC most people are using is still decades behind it. > Hell, the sort of machine most PC owners are stuck with is still decades > behind a PDP-11 running 5th Edition. In the past 6-12mos, I think I've seen a couple of PDP-8's and 11's up for sale, Real Cheap. Think we could bring back the dead? Curiosity: Just how does a PDP-8 or PDP-11 being used by one person rank up side an XT or an AT? [The author has only seen pictures of PDP-11's, and has never touched either. :-) ] LOOK! I didn't include peter's .signature!!! -- Just say "Noh". -- Association for the Advancement of Japanese Theatre. Girls play with toys -- Real Women skate. -- Powell & Peralta ad "The truth of an opinion is part of its utility." -- John Stuart Mill J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) (05/05/88)
In article <1207@sbcs.sunysb.edu> root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) writes: > > The CMU requirement is just that: it is what CMU will buy. We have > 100+ Suns here, and I'll tell you that a 3/50 is pretty well threshold > of pain in current workstations. In such an environment, the current ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Amiga makes an awesome terminal with some compute ability. It does > not make a workable Unix machine. At least for the sort of Unix > we run here. > I humbly suggest Sir that you are spoiled. I'd K.I.L.L for a 2/120 at home. Sure, starting applications takes some time (dbxtool takes longer than *some time* ;^> ) but it's still real live UNIX with umteen bazzilion utilities. For a programmer it's almost a nothing else to buy system. Add in TEX, a few GNU items, X (if you please), VC, and it's almost a nothing else to buy system for a *user* (whatever THAT is!). > Listen to Chuck. He is giving you the straight story. Real unix > machines cost bucks. > > Rick Spanbauer > SUNY/Stony Brook > Don't *always* listen to Chuck. Sun charges what it does not only to cover thier considerabe technology and research, but to keep workstations out of the "consumer" realm. Further it appears that Sun would give away CPU's as long as you buy a disk sub-system from them. Check out the price sheet some time. The disk prices are horrible when you look at the cost of an SCSI bare drive and a SCSI->ST506 adaptor. ESDI I'm not so sure of. Imagine my surprise to find out I could get a 3/50 4meg CPU for *less* than the minimum 142meg shoebox with WangTek tape drive! And here in my part of Kodak we have more Suns than people to operate them, so I know of what I speak(we use Suns (not Sun-4) in our product)! Now maybe things have changed....but I doubt it. Look CBM. I don't expect a 16.67 no-wait-state 1megapixel by 8bit machine running 4.3 + X11 with a 140mb disk for under $2000. But how about a 14.32mz 020 with a 764x512x5 (or 6) with a 50meg ST506 disk and VM kickstart for ~$2500-$3000? Don't go after Sun and ilk. Let them tantilize us at work, while we laugh and enjoy KS at home. Oh how I'd have paid that extra 100-150 bucks for at least process protection on my A-1000 (vintage 10/85)! Listen up CBM! -- Jeff Gortatowsky .....allegra!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a simple and complete disclaimer?
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (05/05/88)
in article <1917@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) says: > Another point is that UNIX is well-documented. Try to figure out just what > Execute() on mi Amiga does from the manual. WHAT??? What have you been smoking???? I have here a complete set of Sys V.2 manuals (the 5-volume set), plus the old two-volume V7 manual (from ancient days). And, I also have here, the complete 5-volume Amiga manual set, plus a 2-volume 3rd-party reference manual. And, of course, the autodocs, the equivalent of the Unix man pages. As far as readability, usability, etc., go, I find them to be about the same. Somewhat cryptic, needing a lot of work to dig out gems from, but, eventually, you can find anything you need. In fact, the Exec and Intuition documentation probably is above average, compared to the "average" computer manual, in that some attempt is made at trying to explain the basic structure of the system (sure, they don't succeed... but at least it's not just a bunch of "man" pages printed out and bound together, like the Unix manuals). The exception is, of course, the Dos documentation. Which stinks, Period. About what you would expect. Throw it in da trash (BPTR's... BLETCH!). Methinks that the only reason someone might think Unix is better documented, is if that person is a Unix guru who reads system source code with his breakfast. That much, at least, you cannot do with AmigaDos (sigh). Source code may be, indeed, the ultimate documentation (I know that I would never have been able to figure out "termcap" from the documentation...). But most of us would be happy to have decent documentation, and leave source code to the masochists (it's HARD to decipher other people's sources, in case you haven't noticed -- especially when it's all uncommented, like the Unix system sources). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 ihnp4!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 "Is a dream a lie that don't come true, or is it something worse?"
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/05/88)
In article <611@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > In the past 6-12mos, I think I've seen a couple of PDP-8's and 11's up for > sale, Real Cheap. Think we could bring back the dead? If you can get a PDP-11 for cheap, you should probably do it. There'll be better support for it than your 3b1 :->. Just how cheap is real cheap? Seriously, there's a guy in town using a PDP-11 running RSX as a BBS. If you're interested in having a look, send me mail. > Curiosity: Just how does a PDP-8 or PDP-11 being used by one person > rank up side an XT or an AT? A PDP-8 is pretty useless, but an '11 is not a bad little machine. Better than AT+DOS. Probably not as cool as AT+UNIX. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) (05/05/88)
In article <926@elmgate.UUCP>, jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) writes: > In article <1207@sbcs.sunysb.edu> root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) writes: > > I humbly suggest Sir that you are spoiled. I'd K.I.L.L for a 2/120 at home. Jeff, I think you would want to K.I.L.L. the 2/120 once you had X windows, 3.5 SunOS, dbxtool, a shell or two, etc all running at once. On the 2/XXX series we have here (even with 3 mBytes) the system is almost unusably slow once you a just a few Suntools windows, etc going. > Don't *always* listen to Chuck. Sun charges what it does not only to cover > their considerabe technology and research, but to keep workstations out > of the "consumer" realm. Further it appears that Sun would give away Oh oh. This sounds like the start of another Sun "the evil empire" thing. Commdore doesn't spend money doing "considerabe technology and research" :-) ? Ahem. > CPU's as long as you buy a disk sub-system from them. Check out the price > sheet some time. The disk prices are horrible when you look at the cost > of an SCSI bare drive and a SCSI->ST506 adaptor. ESDI I'm not so sure of. I have a home 3/50. It cost me $5K. The drive I use is a CDC Wren 155 mByte; cost $1700. For both I paid list price, though I've seen used 3/50's for $2500 or so. Anways, compare what you get for $7.1K (adding $150 for Unix+$250 for manuals): disk not applicable 1152x900 BW non interlaced monitor 15 mHz 68020 4 mBytes 32 bit ram, parity checked Ethernet/cheapernet controller DMA SCSI controller fast MMU 2 serial ports *real* Unix (think I'll trademark that) --- $5.2K Commodore, will field something that looks like this: disk not applicable 1008x800 BW non interlaced monitor ~$750 14.318 mHz 68020 $1500 1 mByte 32 bit ram DMA ST506/SCSI controller $350 68851 MMU (1 wait state) B2000/1 serial port, 1 parallel port ~$1500 SysV Unix (yuck) $800 ------ $4900 Of course, to get apples to apples you would have to add another 3 mBytes 32 bit ram, and Ethernet controller to the B2000 or a floppy drive, sound, parallel port, blitter, etc to the Sun. Neither Sun or Commodore manufacture disk drives, so they both pay the same amount of $$ for a drive. No sense in comparing those. Anyways, I am not bashing Commodore's efforts to produce and sell Unix workstations. It just seems to me that they have a long road ahead of them before they can off goliaths like Sun, Apollo, etc on their own turf. > -- > Jeff Gortatowsky .....allegra!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg > Eastman Kodak Company Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (05/06/88)
In article <3991@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > in article <1917@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) says: > > Another point is that UNIX is well-documented. Try to figure out just what > > Execute() on mi Amiga does from the manual. > WHAT??? What have you been smoking???? Water. I never smoke anything stronger than water. > As far as readability, usability, etc., go, I find them to be about the same. Here's where the UNIX manuals and include files have the Amiga's beat all hollow: Types. In the AmigaDOS manuals mainly, but even in the RKMs, you can't easily figure out what the types of everything are. You have to use the examples or the include files... but even there's there's WAY too much stuff overloaded on poor old APTR, ULONG, and USHORT. But better manuals are promised. > Methinks that the only reason someone might think Unix is better documented, > is if that person is a Unix guru who reads system source code with his > breakfast. That much, at least, you cannot do with AmigaDos (sigh). I wish. The only think I can recall having to be told about in the UNIX manuals is the damn overloading of the c_cc feilds in termio. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.
jesup@pawl15.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (05/07/88)
In article <1250@sbcs.sunysb.edu> root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) writes: > disk not applicable > 1152x900 BW non interlaced monitor > 15 mHz 68020 > 4 mBytes 32 bit ram, parity checked parity = 1/8 greater chance of failure :-) > Ethernet/cheapernet controller > DMA SCSI controller > fast MMU > 2 serial ports > *real* Unix (think I'll trademark that) > --- > $5.2K > Commodore, will field something that looks like this: > > disk not applicable > 1008x800 BW non interlaced monitor ~$750 grey-scale (7 levels), not BW. > 14.318 mHz 68020 $1500 > 1 mByte 32 bit ram 4 sorry, the A2500UX mentioned in Hannover was 4 Meg. > DMA ST506/SCSI controller $350 > 68851 MMU (1 wait state) > B2000/1 serial port, 1 parallel port ~$1500 Extra serial ports will soon be available, as is ram expansion, video boards, etc, etc. The 2000 is an expandable system, unlike the 3/50. Can a 3/50 have more than the standard 4 Meg memory? > SysV Unix (yuck) $800 The European Unix market wants Sys V, not BSD. Also, where did the $800 come from (not that I have any knowlege one way or the other.) Also, you get free color video (Sun color workstations are NOT cheap.) > ------ > $4900 > Rick Spanbauer > SUNY/Stony Brook Don't get me wrong, I like Suns (I've had them on my desk, and soon will again.) Even a Sun 100U (Sun-1) isn't bad to have, though I HATE that silly vt100 keyboard. Of course, having 6 or 7 meg memory doesn't hurt. :-) I think the more appropriate comparison would be to the lowest- level Sun-3 with a backplane for expansion, not the (normally) diskless, unexpandable workstation (plus I thought they were replacing the 3/50 with the 3/60). // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup (-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-)
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) (05/08/88)
In article <862@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU>, jesup@pawl15.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) writes: > In article <1250@sbcs.sunysb.edu> root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) writes: > parity = 1/8 greater chance of failure :-) Or looking at it another way, knowing that you do indeed have a problem. > grey-scale (7 levels), not BW. When I say "BW", I mean !color. Greyscale is nice to have but it isn't a requirement for my "Unix seat". > Extra serial ports will soon be available, as is ram > expansion, video boards, etc, etc. The 2000 is an > expandable system, unlike the 3/50. Can a 3/50 have more > than the standard 4 Meg memory? No, but a 3/60 can take up to (I think) 24 meg of SIMM memory. I seem to remember that the BW version of 3/60 is around $8K or so. The 3/60 also has a kludged (ala A1000) expansion connector called the "P4". > > The European Unix market wants Sys V, not BSD. Also, where > did the $800 come from (not that I have any knowlege one > way or the other.) > The $800 is a guess based on what other small machine vendors are charging for their "full" SysV ports (with C compiler, etc). Adjust the number as low as you want, then proceed to add cost for third party software to patch missing SysV features, eg mature Window software, networking, FTN, Pascal, etc, etc.. > I think the more appropriate comparison would be to the lowest- > level Sun-3 with a backplane for expansion, not the (normally) diskless, > unexpandable workstation (plus I thought they were replacing the 3/50 with > the 3/60). No, I was comparing costs of a Unix seat: Amiga -vs- Sun. My point is that by the time you're done building an Amiga into a reasonable Unix seat, you've spent about the same bucks as you would have on a Sun. A true apples to apples comparison Sun vs Amiga is probably not possible, as the Sun machines bring higher expansion bus throughput, more mature Unix, larger amounts of memory, higher& deeper color, etc vs the Amiga's sound capabilities, blitter, cheaper expansion peripherals, etc. This is why I constrained my comments to a generic Unix seat. Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (05/08/88)
in article <1933@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) says: > In article <3991@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: >> > Another point is that UNIX is well-documented. Try to figure out just what >> > Execute() on mi Amiga does from the manual. Hmm. That's a DOS function. DOS is amazingly ill-documented... >> As far as readability, usability, etc., go, I find them to be about the same. > > Here's where the UNIX manuals and include files have the Amiga's beat all > hollow: > > Types. > > In the AmigaDOS manuals mainly, but even in the RKMs, you can't easily figure > out what the types of everything are. You have to use the examples or the > include files... but even there's there's WAY too much stuff overloaded on > poor old APTR, ULONG, and USHORT. But better manuals are promised. The documentation is far from clear (it took me a few days to figure out what a ViewPort was, for example), but a lot of it is because AmigaDOS is a much more complex operating system than Unix (SCREECH! BRAKES! What's that kid saying?!). Actually, the difference is more conceptual in basis. Unix originally was designed to be a very high-level operating system with a minimum of system calls. Most Unix internals have their detail well hidden (the notable exception is the #$%"$&% TTY driver, sgtty's and sgttyb's and termios and all that garbage that confuses people who program both AT&T & BSD). On the Amiga, all that detail is right out in the open. Perhaps because the final details of the machine probably weren't known until 2 days before shipping :-). But in the meantime, we get to deal with window structures, views, layers, ports, nodes, messages, and all that other good stuff, often with several levels of indirection thrice removed, and it gets confusing. AmigaDOS (not DOS, but the rest of the thing) is amazingly flexible because of all that detail out in the open, but the drawback is that the documentation is a nightmare, and poor Amiga novices like me have a horrible time bootstrapping to their new machine. For example, I'm still having problems trying to get text out to the ten little windows that I just opened up :-). -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 ihnp4!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 "Is a dream a lie that don't come true, or is it something worse?"
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (05/10/88)
In article <862@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> (Randell E. Jesup) writes: > I think the more appropriate comparison would be to the lowest- >level Sun-3 with a backplane for expansion, not the (normally) diskless, >unexpandable workstation (plus I thought they were replacing the 3/50 with >the 3/60). Well Randell, as soon as you can point to an Amiga with a VME bus I will compare it :-). Lets stop this shall we? Amigas aren't Suns and Suns aren't Amigas, I have one of each on my desk and find each does some things better than the other. I wouldn't recommend an Amiga to run UNIX and I wouldn't recommend a 3/{5|6}0 to do animations. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
doug-merritt@cup.portal.com (05/12/88)
In regard to "$800" for Unix...ATT is now advertising *full* Unix
(e.g. no extra charge for C compiler) for $145 for the 80386. I just
saw an ad. Pretty smart of them...this could help keep half-OS from
contaminating too many systems (easy to think of it as a virus, no?)
Doug
---
Doug Merritt ucbvax!sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt
or ucbvax!eris!doug (doug@eris.berkeley.edu)
or ucbvax!unisoft!certes!dougroot@sbcs.sunysb.edu (SBCS Systems Staff) (05/13/88)
In article <5323@cup.portal.com>, doug-merritt@cup.portal.com writes: > In regard to "$800" for Unix...ATT is now advertising *full* Unix I was thinking of Microport SysV - it sells for $680 or so for a full system. I would guess that ATT can sell for that price since they probably don't support it, and they surely don't have to pay royalities :-). > --- > Doug Merritt ucbvax!sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook
doug-merritt@cup.portal.com (05/17/88)
[ I got some mail about this, so I figured it deserved a followup:] I said: > In regard to "$800" for Unix...ATT is now advertising *full* Unix Rick Spanbauer said: >I was thinking of Microport SysV - it sells for $680 or >so for a full system. I would guess that ATT can sell >for that price since they probably don't support it, >and they surely don't have to pay royalities :-). I made a mistake, it's not AT&T that's selling 386 Unix, it's Bell Technologies. The price is $145 for a 2 user license or $275 for an unlimited user license. The system is the Interactive Systems port of Unix System V release 3, certified by AT&T. Includes "all development tools, C Compiler, link kit, vi and all other Unix utilities, files and programs, including Remote File System, Streams, and TLI". Apparently the programmer's manuals and other volumes are separate. This is from their ad on pg 107 of the May 1988 Unix Review. Interactive Systems themselves have an ad in the same issue for 386/ix, which sounds like the same port. No price; ad on pg 7. Contact Bell Technologies at 800-FOR-UNIX (in CA 415-659-9097). 330 Warren Ave. Fremont CA 94539 I have no affiliation etc. Just helping to eradicate the heartbreak of Half-OS in our lifetimes. :-) Doug Merritt ucbvax!sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt or ucbvax!eris!doug (doug@eris.berkeley.edu) or ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug