brian@unix.sri.com (12/08/88)
Call for opinions: We are beginning development of an 8 staff-year Unix application. This application is semi-distributed, using TCP/IP for communications between servers running on different machines connected by ethernet. Our current system is a Sun network, but due to some peculiar requirements (aka US gov't :-) we are looking at AT&T Sys V.4 and Microsoft Xenix 2.0, the latter alleged to be equivalent to Santa Cruz Operations (SCO) Xenix 2.2. I would appreciate reasoned or impassioned responses concerning Xenix; in particular: Is Microsoft Xenix 2.0 actually the same as SCO Xenix 2.2? How does Microsoft Xenix 2.0 differ from current SCO offerings? How compatible is Xenix with AT&T V.3, and by extension V.4? What is the development environment like for Xenix? Is Xenix brain-dead in any/many significant areas? What network support exists in Xenix (NFS, XDR, rsh, etc.)? What performance can I expect from an AT clone with a 20MHz 386, 4M of memory, and a 28ms 40MB hard disk running a 80286 version of Xenix? Compared with a Sun 3/50 or 3/60 with 4M and SCSI? Thanks. -- B< Brian Kahn, Odyssey Research West orawest!brian@unix.sri.com
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (12/10/88)
In article <325@orawest.UUCP> orawest!brian@unix.sri.com writes:
## How does Microsoft Xenix 2.0 differ from current SCO offerings?
The older versions of MicroSoft didn't have virtual consoles. I don't
know about the latest version. There were a LOT of improvements between
2.2 and 2.3 from SCO, and you really should consider that if you can.
##
## How compatible is Xenix with AT&T V.3, and by extension V.4?
There is an extensive discussion of SVID compliance in the front of the
SCO manual. In short, tricky low level system stuff is good,
applications doing normal things is excellent. When you start to play
with systems files, peek in the kernel, etc, Xenix is not identical.
##
## What is the development environment like for Xenix?
This is a matter if religion, I like it. The Xenix C compiler produces
somewhat better code than pcc, and with the warning message level turned
up it checks some portability issues which lint misses (and vice versa).
Xenix has a lot of BSD extensions provided if you like them.
##
## Is Xenix brain-dead in any/many significant areas?
It appears to be reliable and functional. Some things are not done in
quite the same way as stock AT&T UNIX, but they are done.
##
## What network support exists in Xenix (NFS, XDR, rsh, etc.)?
Contact MS on this, I hear that NFS is available.
##
## What performance can I expect from an AT clone with a 20MHz 386,
## 4M of memory, and a 28ms 40MB hard disk running a 80286 version
## of Xenix? Compared with a Sun 3/50 or 3/60 with 4M and SCSI?
A 286 version of Xenix? Forget it and get the Sun. The 386 version is
very competitive, faster for floating point with the math chip, but
running the 286 software will slow you up by a factor of two or more.
The 286 compiler is also somewhat limited, and you spend a lot of time
programming around the limitations of the 16 bit addressing.
I chose Xenix over Sun both at home and at work. I am not at all
neutral, but I have use Xenix, SunOS and Ultrix for three years and I
have a basis for comparison, at least.
--
bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me