seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (04/11/90)
This doesn't really belong here. Followup's to comp.os.misc. Also note that '>> ' (note space) is also wallwey, not Tim. In article <19338@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: >In article <22946@watdragon.waterloo.edu> tbray@watsol.waterloo.edu (Tim Bray) writes: >>Well, one data point; I use a vanilla 8 Mb 25Mhz 386 clone running 386/ix and > >Note you have 8MB and the person I know has only 4MB. This may, and >probably is, the main difference between the system performances. (That is >why I included his memory size in the original article!) Yes. However, the main reason for X being so slow with 4 Mb is because of limited memory storage, and multiple copies of the same stuff. Shared libraries should help immensely, despite the inheirent disadvantage, speed-wise, that SysV's shared library mechanism poses. >> OS/2's Presentation Manager is much faster!... >> you can run OS/2 (witch I think is better than UNIX for the average user ... >> With OS/2, the environment power for programs parallels that of UNIX, >> with design tools for C that make their UNIX equivalents of Vi, CC, LINT and >> DBX, look like they are from the dark ages!... That's really funny. (Note my company, first of all.) I'm going to make some points below, but wanted to point out that statement first. >>development environments, these remarks reveal only ignorance. > >Have you seen Microsoft C 5.1 or the Newer version 6.0 or even the new >32-bit version later this year-They where "ANSI-C" compatible even before >the ANSI group completely announced their final version! Uhm, uSoft C 5.1 or 6.0 is *not* ANSI compliant, although some of us are working extremely hard to make it as much so as possible. In either 5.1 or 6.0, under DOS, try something like: extern int sprintf (const char *, const char *fmt, ...); Legal ANSI-C, yet uSoft C gets a syntax error. *Anyway*, that's not the point, but you really should have your facts straight. >I have >experience with Microsoft C 5.1 and the error messages that I get from >it are much better (my opinion) and informative than lints. So this makes OS/2 better than Unix? Despite the fact that SCO UNIX (tm, tm) uses uSoft C (5.1++, in 3.2)? Despite the fact that the filesystem is faster under Unix than DOS (or OS/2)? >As for editors, well this is a moot point. You can have >just about any type of editor you want under OS/2! ---PM based, interactive >with the compiler, vi, emacs, any of a dozen programmer editors, a >couple of religious(hope I don't offend) program editors like Brief and >M, with many of the above taking advangtage of the mouse and the enhanced >keyboards on the PC. I'll believe emacs (*true* emacs: lisp interpreter and everything) when I see it. Under OS/2, you are *still* limited to 64k segments. Brief (or a clone, actually) is available under *nix. vi originated under *nix. (Note, btw, that emacs and vi can both use the mouse, to some advantage, under sco *nix; I'm sure other people can do something up on other unices just as well.) Emacs Compilation-mode works very well, as far as I'm concerned, although I will admit that QuickC is faster than most C compilers I've seen on *86-base *nix (however, /bin/cc on an Amdahl is faster, by at least one order of magnitude, than even QuickC, and can handle large programs). So, tell me: how do you call up your home machine from work to check your mail? When your housemate is busy running Lotus under DOS, how do you play with your wonder Logitech debugger? What?! You mean you *can't*?! What an inferior OS... -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "It's a pity the universe doesn't use [a] segmented seanf@sco.COM | architecture with a protected mode." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Rich Cook, _Wizard's Bane_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
880506s@aucs.uucp (James R. Skinner) (04/13/90)
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > Under OS/2, you are *still* limited to 64k segments. Sorry to burst your bubble, but OS/2 2.0 is *NOT* limited to 64k segments. True OS/2 1.x was segment oriented but that is the past. The future 32bit OS is here with virtual 8806, 16bit API, and 32bit API multitasking. You MUST have at least a 368 to run it though so if your using OS/2 on a 286 you will still be limited to 64k segments. OS/2 is the future for usrer oriented systems but unix will probably remain as the programmers operating system. We'll See... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~James R. Skinner VOICE: (902)-542-3378 FAX : (902)-678-6990BITNET : 880506S@Acadia MAIL : COMP 451 RR#2 INTERNET: 880506S@AcadiaU.CA Wolfville, NS UUCP : {uunet|watmath|utia}!cs.dal.ca!acus!880506S B0P 1X0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
golding@saturn.ucsc.edu (Richard A. Golding) (04/14/90)
In article <5613@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: > >In article <19338@boulder.Colorado.EDU> wallwey@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WALLWEY DEAN WILLIAM) writes: >>In article <22946@watdragon.waterloo.edu> tbray@watsol.waterloo.edu (Tim Bray) writes: >.... the main reason for X being so slow with 4 Mb is because of >limited memory storage, and multiple copies of the same stuff. Shared >libraries should help immensely, despite the inheirent disadvantage, >speed-wise, that SysV's shared library mechanism poses. > >>> OS/2's Presentation Manager is much faster!... >>> you can run OS/2 (witch I think is better than UNIX for the average user ... >>> With OS/2, the environment power for programs parallels that of UNIX, >>> with design tools for C that make their UNIX equivalents of Vi, CC, LINT and >>> DBX, look like they are from the dark ages!... After having worked on both the internals of PM and OS/2, and X11 and some Unices, I find it really curious that people have the impression of speed from OS/2. In most cases, *when you use comparable hardware, applications, and operating system versions*, Unix and X are at least as fast as PM/OS/2 (and usually faster). One of the faults with the PM vs. X comparison is that most people are comparing the generic MIT sample server with the much-hacked (and fairly non-portable) Microsoft PM. When you compare an X server which makes use of the facilities available under, say, SCO Unix (e.g. shared memory, shared libraries, and so on) I've found that speed is often better under X. It's worth noting that X has significantly less overhead for a great many operations; for example, one need not pay the penalty for potentially retained graphics segments as one must in PM. >>As for editors, well this is a moot point. You can have >>just about any type of editor you want under OS/2! ... > >I'll believe emacs (*true* emacs: lisp interpreter and everything) when I >see it. Under OS/2, you are *still* limited to 64k segments. > ... >So, tell me: how do you call up your home machine from work to check your >mail? When your housemate is busy running Lotus under DOS, how do you play >with your wonder Logitech debugger? What?! You mean you *can't*?! What an >inferior OS... The fact of the matter is that in the end OS/2 is a single-user, single-machine operating system. There are no real plans afoot at Microsoft to make it otherwise (the claims of the Objects group notwithstanding.) Unix was, from the start, designed to be a multiuser operating system, and it has been evolved into systems which are more-or-less distributed. Unix has become a "portable" system; if one follows a guide like XPG2 then there's reasonable assurance that a program will work on a wide variety of machines. On the other hand, OS/2 was designed specifically around the 80286 memory model (and though OS/2 2.0 will allow for linear address models it still carries around the baggage to handle 286-style applications). *Any* application written for OS/2 is therefore unportable, unless it uses, say, a Posix-compatible library, and then we've essentially guested Unix under OS/2, so what's the point of having OS/2? Another point that isn't often addressed in the OS/2-vs.-Unix debate is system correctness. Ever seen the bug lists for OS/2? Or the QA setup? As much as I rag on SCO all the time I'll take the SCO QA department over the mess at Microsoft. Lastly: OS/2 is a proprietary system. This has lead to some really odd ideosyncrasies in its design (e.g. the event distribution model in PM.) Unix has been reviewed and rewritten and complained about by a lot of people over a number of years, and its design is not so much dependent on the design whims of one or a few people. Here's a challenge for an OS/2 system: build an MIS system with a farm of highly-reliable disks, a pool of processors available for compute- and disk-intensive batch jobs (e.g. end-of-month processing), a set of shared printers with print job routing, and a number of workstations which can access the database on the disk farm. Provide a security system so that access to sensitive data is controlled. For some data, the data must be reasonably secure even during transmission over the network. (This is a thumbnail sketch of a common, *very* simple corporate or local government DP system.) The support for a great many of the tasks involved with building such a system are already provided with a Unix system. You have to do almost all of it yourself under OS/2. Of course you *can* build such a system, but it'll take a lot longer and be an order of magnitude harder to maintain. -richard p.s. Hi Sean! General notes: yes, I used to work for Microsoft. No, I don't like OS/2. As far as my real position on Unix goes I think it's getting creaky with age but I can't think of a better system for immediate commercial use. And yes, I do work on Unix (SunOS, SCO, BSD) now, mostly for X11 work. -- ----------- Richard A. Golding, Crucible (work) and UC Santa Cruz CIS Board (grad student) Internet: golding@cis.ucsc.edu Work: {uunet|ucscc}!cruc!golding Post: Baskin Centre for CE & IS, Appl. Sci. Bldg., UC, Santa Cruz CA 95064
feustel@well.sf.ca.us (David Alan Feustel) (04/15/90)
OS/2 is a single user machine; that's why I use it. I WOULD use unix
if I needed a multiuser machine, but I don't. At home nobody else
uses my machine. Besides, I have almost all of the unix utilities
running on both 16 and 32 bit versions of OS/2.
--
Phone: (home) 219-482-9631
E-mail: feustel@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax,apple,hplabs,pacbell}!well!feustel
USMAIL: Dave Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805