lemery@adobe.com (David Lemery) (04/12/91)
A couple of days ago, a consortium of companies (Microsoft, MIPS,
DEC, SCO, and others) announced they would be supporting a new
standard high performance PC/workstation to compete against the
high end Intel-based products.
Operating systems would be either OS/3 or Unix based.
No other information was available in the article.
If you have any information about this new effort, would you
please share it.
thanks
dave
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering!
Ashleigh Brilliantjohn@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) (04/12/91)
In article <13964@adobe.UUCP> lemery@adobe.COM () writes: }A couple of days ago, a consortium of companies (Microsoft, MIPS, }DEC, SCO, and others) announced they would be supporting a new }standard high performance PC/workstation to compete against the }high end Intel-based products. }Operating systems would be either OS/3 or Unix based. }No other information was available in the article. }If you have any information about this new effort, would you }please share it. There is an article in the 8 Apr 91 "Digital Review" on page 1 entitled "Consortium seeks to extinguish Sparc". John -- John Hascall An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger. Project Vincent Iowa State University Computation Center john@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 (515) 294-9551
kdenning@pcserver2.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.184136.10324@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) writes: >In article <13964@adobe.UUCP> lemery@adobe.COM () writes: >}A couple of days ago, a consortium of companies (Microsoft, MIPS, >}DEC, SCO, and others) announced they would be supporting a new >}standard high performance PC/workstation to compete against the >}high end Intel-based products. >}Operating systems would be either OS/3 or Unix based. >}No other information was available in the article. >}If you have any information about this new effort, would you >}please share it. > > There is an article in the 8 Apr 91 "Digital Review" on page 1 >entitled "Consortium seeks to extinguish Sparc". I have reasonably reliable information that SCO Unix will be dead as of December of this year. It's being replaced. The replacement? OSF/1! I have always hated SCO's 3.2 implementation. OSF/1, on the other hand, looks like a dream to me. A darn good dream. While I have had my share of complaints with SCO in the last couple of years, this could be the piece that redeems them -- at least in my eyes -- especially if they (1) sell it at a reasonable price, (2) don't cripple the thing, and (3) get that flipping "Secureware" nonsense out of the kernel or at least make it an option. This, coupled with hardware based on the MIPS R3000 and R4000 chips could make a serious dent in the Sun installed base. If these firms back it up with world-class support, they have a heck of a shot at being successful here. The hardware level part (R3000 chipsets) are already fantastic -- look at the performance available from a MIPS Magnum, for example -- on a price-performance level it's a darn nice system. Add to that OSF/1's functionality and a great support organization (which is dedicated to a great product rather than seeing how much money they can make) and you've got the potential to do some real damage to the Sun empire. NONE of this is official -- and none of it is from the horse's mouth. Take it with whatever size grains of salt you wish. -- Karl Denninger - AC Nielsen, Bannockburn IL (708) 317-3285 kdenning@nis.naitc.com "The most dangerous command on any computer is the carriage return." Disclaimer: The opinions here are solely mine and may or may not reflect those of the company.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr12.151301.27159@pcserver2.naitc.com> kdenning@pcserver2.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) writes: | I have reasonably reliable information that SCO Unix will be dead as of | December of this year. It's being replaced. | | The replacement? OSF/1! Do you remember the customer reaction when SCO tried to jump everyone from Xenix to UNIX? If they repeat the process, particularly without even the flimsy excuse of going from a custom product to a standard product, I suspect they will make a great market opportunity for a competitor. It's one thing to say "we want to offer a more standard product, bigger, slower, less reliable, and more profitable, but standard," and another to say "we're dropping enhancements for what we sold you last year and converting to something with a cheaper license, even though it's non-standard." My humble opinion is that hackers and techies make up a fairly small portion of their market, and business people are not going to see a cost advantage to a "message passing" kernel. A version of X which is not three years out of date they could see, but the competition is selling V.3 and V.4, and people are doing useful work on them. | I have always hated SCO's 3.2 implementation. OSF/1, on the other hand, | looks like a dream to me. A darn good dream. What I said about techies. My personal machine is still on Xenix, shortly to go to V.4. My play system has had a number of things on it, including a beta BSD and a beta MACH. For getting work done I want stability and conformance. With V.4 I get it, and symbolic links, too. | This, coupled with hardware based on the MIPS R3000 and R4000 chips could | make a serious dent in the Sun installed base. If these firms back it up | with world-class support, they have a heck of a shot at being successful | here. With world class support you can make money selling almost anything. I wonder if someone will ever try doing that in the UNIX marketplace. | The hardware level part (R3000 chipsets) are already fantastic -- | look at the performance available from a MIPS Magnum, for example -- on a | price-performance level it's a darn nice system. Performance I like, but the price is the problem. A 486-33 with 8MB and 320MB disk, 1024x768x256 display, V.4 with X and compilers, will still come in under $5k. Maybe this new ACE environment will get a faster CPU down to this price level, but I don't see it. And new Intel chips are going to keep getting faster. | Add to that OSF/1's | functionality and a great support organization (which is dedicated to a | great product rather than seeing how much money they can make) and you've | got the potential to do some real damage to the Sun empire. If you think OSF doesn't have an axe to grind, I'm not going to debate it here, but I disagree. | NONE of this is official -- and none of it is from the horse's mouth. Take | it with whatever size grains of salt you wish. Rumors of a Mach kernel from SCO are everywhere, and they are officially in the ACE project. I don't think they'll drop V.3 yet though. I guess I'll agree with your basic thoughts and disagree with the timetable and details. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "Most of the VAX instructions are in microcode, but halt and no-op are in hardware for efficiency"
wallace@iitmax.iit.edu (Wallace) (04/20/91)
In article <1991Apr12.151301.27159@pcserver2.naitc.com> kdenning@pcserver2.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <1991Apr11.184136.10324@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) writes: >>In article <13964@adobe.UUCP> lemery@adobe.COM () writes: >>}A couple of days ago, a consortium of companies (Microsoft, MIPS, >>}DEC, SCO, and others) announced they would be supporting a new >>}standard high performance PC/workstation to compete against the >I have reasonably reliable information that SCO Unix will be dead as of >December of this year. It's being replaced. > >The replacement? OSF/1! > >I have always hated SCO's 3.2 implementation. OSF/1, on the other hand, >looks like a dream to me. A darn good dream. Karl! You can't be serious. You want another alpha piece of software, full of bugs and incompatiable with all you have! Maybe in a few years OSF will be OK. Cheers Ralph -- ============================================================================= I am not in search of excellence, I am in search of perfection. Dr. Ralph W. Wallace USPS: Illinois Institute of Technology TEL#: (798 682-6030 Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: wallace@iitmax.IIT.EDU 210 E. Loop Road BITNET: CSWALLACE@IITVAX Wheaton, Illinois 60187
kdenning@pcserver2.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr19.235445.1831@iitmax.iit.edu> wallace@iitmax.iit.edu (Wallace) writes: >In article <1991Apr12.151301.27159@pcserver2.naitc.com> kdenning@pcserver2.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) writes: >>In article <1991Apr11.184136.10324@news.iastate.edu> john@iastate.edu (Hascall John Paul) writes: >>>In article <13964@adobe.UUCP> lemery@adobe.COM () writes: >>>}A couple of days ago, a consortium of companies (Microsoft, MIPS, >>>}DEC, SCO, and others) announced they would be supporting a new >>>}standard high performance PC/workstation to compete against the >>I have reasonably reliable information that SCO Unix will be dead as of >>December of this year. It's being replaced. >> >>The replacement? OSF/1! >> >>I have always hated SCO's 3.2 implementation. OSF/1, on the other hand, >>looks like a dream to me. A darn good dream. >Karl! You can't be serious. You want another alpha piece of >software, full of bugs and incompatiable with all you have! >Maybe in a few years OSF will be OK. At least it will be a common set of bugs. Right now I have to contend with bugs in Sun, MIPS, IBM (RS/6000 and PS/2 AIX) and ISC (80386). There is no common set of anything. Each supports things in a different way, with lots of differences in implementation and sets of problems. Sun, for example, seems to be unable to produce a working rpc.lockd. MIPS just did the same basic thing with Risc/OS 4.52; 4.51's rpc.lockd worked fine - until we upgraded the Suns to 4.1.1. IBM can't make it work at all with the current AIX release on the RS/6000. I won't even talk about the problems with ISC's network implementations (sockets dying, etc). The other item to remember is that OSF/1 source code can be purchased for less than the cost of a small bank. It will be applicable across platforms as well (at least to a large extent); something I don't have today with the many versions of "Unix" out there. Today, I have to buy an AT&T license, a SunOS license, a RISC/OS license, and an AIX source license -- IF I can get all those companies to sell my one at any price! Sure, OSF/1 may be "betaware" when it's released, but I will be able to fix the bugs myself -- something I can't do today with the multi-vendor/multi-implementation nightmare that we have right now. I believe the commonality is a good thing for all involved. -- Karl Denninger - AC Nielsen, Bannockburn IL (708) 317-3285 kdenning@nis.naitc.com "The most dangerous command on any computer is the carriage return." Disclaimer: The opinions here are solely mine and may or may not reflect those of the company.
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr21.141051.19376@pcserver2.naitc.com> kdenning@pcserver2.naitc.com (Karl Denninger) writes: >Sure, OSF/1 may be "betaware" when it's released, but I will be able >to fix the bugs myself -- something I can't do today with the >multi-vendor/multi-implementation nightmare that we have right now. This is not quite true. First of all, OSF/1 still has AT&T source code in it; as a result, you need a SysVr3.1 (I think) source code license before you can get source code. OSF/2, if/when it comes out, will still not be cheap: I suspect the source licensing will be on the order of several tens of thousands of dollars. And, of course, you're assuming that SCO will make any changes they make available at a resonable cost. This also is not necessarily a true assumption. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella) (04/24/91)
>Right now I have to contend with bugs in Sun, MIPS, IBM (RS/6000 and PS/2 >AIX) and ISC (80386). There is no common set of anything. Each supports >things in a different way, with lots of differences in implementation and >sets of problems. > >Sun, for example, seems to be unable to produce a working rpc.lockd. MIPS >just did the same basic thing with Risc/OS 4.52; 4.51's rpc.lockd worked >fine - until we upgraded the Suns to 4.1.1. IBM can't make it work at all >with the current AIX release on the RS/6000. None of this will be any different with OSF/1. You may be able to purchase source from the Foundation, but each vendor will have added their own proprietary features, and proprietary bugs. The commonality will be a lot less than what you have been led to believe. -------------- Marc Sabatella (marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com) Disclaimers: 2 + 2 = 3, for suitably small values of 2 Bill and Dave may not always agree with me