arasmith@mathcs.emory.edu (David Arasmith) (12/25/89)
Please excuse the ignorance in the following paragraphs, but (isn't there
always a 'but') I would like to get some information on running some
brand of UNIX on a 386 machine. I am currently running Sys V on a
68010 unixpc (AT&T) for my home machine. My reasons for floating
over to intel's architecture are:
1) Less expensive hardware and currently supported (the unixpc is
no longer supported and I am loathe to upgrade a dinosaur).
2) Compatibility with the TONS of DOS software, a real benefit for
my family (who are interested in ease rather than flexibility).
My expectations for a machine are 20Mhz 386, 2M RAM, moderate sized hard-disk
(cache??), VGA, etc.
This will be a personal machine, for the most part, since Suns dominate my
work place. My concerns are as follows:
1) Is 2M going to be sufficient RAM to run some flavor of UNIX
with the expectation that it will not be loaded with users?
2) Will the lack of a RAM cache severely cripple me?
3) Are the DOS emulators out there reasonably robust? Also,
are they reasonably cheap?
4) Am I going to be sorely dissappointed after working on Sun's all day?
Please respond via e-mail, since I'm sure very few other's will be interested
in this level of information. Any other information would be appreciated, i.e.
remarks about X windows, NFS, text formatters ([nt]roff, TeX, etc).
Thanks much!
--
David M. Arasmith | arasmith@mathcs.emory.edu Internet
Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!arasmith UUCP
Dept of Math and CS |
Atlanta, GA 30322 | I should be working! Gee....I wonder what's on TV?larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/25/89)
> My expectations for a machine are 20Mhz 386, 2M RAM, moderate sized hard-disk > (cache??), VGA, etc. > > This will be a personal machine, for the most part, since Suns dominate my > work place. My concerns are as follows: > > 1) Is 2M going to be sufficient RAM to run some flavor of UNIX > with the expectation that it will not be loaded with users? 2 megabytes WILL work, but I would suggest getting 4 megabytes. I am running with an AMI motherboard that has 72 sockets for RAM chips - and can handle up to 8 megabytes - which I should be at later this week. If you plan on running Xenix instead of Unix, 2 megabytes should be fine for starters. > 3) Are the DOS emulators out there reasonably robust? Also, > are they reasonably cheap? Around $395 list prices for a limited users release which in most cases will be all that is needed. Running multiple DOS sessions under UNIX can "load" a machine real quick. -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN uucp: root@nstar -or- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!root
soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) (12/25/89)
In article <4792@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>, arasmith@mathcs.emory.edu (David Arasmith) writes: > > This will be a personal machine, for the most part, since Suns dominate my > work place. My concerns are as follows: > > 1) Is 2M going to be sufficient RAM to run some flavor of UNIX > with the expectation that it will not be loaded with users? 2Meg will work :-) for XENIX 386, but for any UNIX (SCO's or ISC) I would _strongly_ recommend a minimum of 4M. Besides, 4Meg using 1Meg parts gives you a nice 32-bit access... If you're gonna wanna use a windowing system, 8Meg would probably be better since you'll be spinning off lots of processes like shells and stuff. > 2) Will the lack of a RAM cache severely cripple me? Not necessarily. I've played with Wyse 3216's with no cacheing under XENIX 386 and found it usable. True, it won't win any prizes, but it wuz usable (but stay away from Wyse products) > 3) Are the DOS emulators out there reasonably robust? Also, > are they reasonably cheap? I hope you're kidding :-) IBM's AIX is the first with the "dos merge" that seems to do a really decent job. What do they know that we don't? > 4) Am I going to be sorely dissappointed after working on Sun's all day? Well, X-windows on a PS/2-80 @ 20MHz doesn't impress me, but it _does_ seem to pull even with a Sun 2/120 I once worked with. Beats me what kind of overhead Motif is gonna impose... > remarks about X windows, NFS, text formatters ([nt]roff, TeX, etc). X-Windows: not bad, but once spoiled by GEM, Amiga's workbench and Macs is kinda weird. Of course, it feels nicer than Windows (even Windows 386) will _ever_ be. BTW, I'm a believer in [nt]roff. I've never gotten enough information to deal with TeX. -- John R. Campbell (soup@penrij.LS.COM) "In /dev/null no one can hear you scream"
thurm@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Thurmaier) (12/27/89)
In article <4792@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> arasmith@mathcs.emory.edu (David Arasmith) writes: > >Please excuse the ignorance in the following paragraphs, but (isn't there >always a 'but') I would like to get some information on running some >brand of UNIX on a 386 machine. > [ stuff deleted ] > My concerns are as follows: > > 1) Is 2M going to be sufficient RAM to run some flavor of UNIX > with the expectation that it will not be loaded with users? 2M will be fine for XENIX, UNIX should have 3 or 4. I tried UNIX with 1.6M and it spent most of its time moving things between swap and ram. Of course, as with hot tubs... the more the better. > > 2) Will the lack of a RAM cache severely cripple me? EVERY UNIX/XENIX implimentation I have ever seen has a RAM cache of the filesystem. SCO's products (by default) determine the size of the cache at boot time by using approximately 1/8 of the available RAM (up to a point). SCO's products also let you create a RAM DISK if you want. This would be especially nice for doing compiles and edits: create a RAM DISK (say 2 meg) and mount it on /tmp .... zing.... Of course, you need to have 2 meg of RAM to spare (trade offs, trade offs). > > 3) Are the DOS emulators out there reasonably robust? Also, > are they reasonably cheap? > I've use VP/iX. It's OK. Just remember, it's not meant to be a multi-user UNIX/XENIX solution. And one other problem, programs that run faster as the machine gets faster... run way tooooo fast under vpix w/ one user on say a 20-25 MHz 386. I tried to play battlezone. I died w/ in 30 seconds... BUMMER TED! > > 4) Am I going to be sorely dissappointed after working on Sun's all day? > I don't know, I've plaid w/ Suns and 25 MHz 386s. Speed is a relative thing, or so says Albert. >Please respond via e-mail, since I'm sure very few other's will be interested >in this level of information. I usually do reply by e-mail, but I think I have some useful info here, especially on the next note, and that's what the net is for... flames to /dev/null. > Any other information would be appreciated, i.e. >remarks about X windows, NFS, text formatters ([nt]roff, TeX, etc). > I have LOTS of SCO's products and would be glad to run them down: 1.) Office Portfolio - Manager A pretty good product. I use it to do ALL of my scheduling. My sales person and I keep our courses on line, along w/ who is teaching it. Then we print monthly calendars 3 months in advance and hang those on the wall for "quick reference". For some reason, the human mind and eye still work better together at recognizing patters than computers do :-). 2.) Office Portfolio - Lyrix 6.0 Well, some people like it, some don't. I've probably written over 2500 pages of documentation (including two courses) using this product. It's not the easiest, or the best BUT: a.) It's supported by SCO and b.) it's a member of the Office Portfolio family (see below for why that's good) 3.) Office Portfolio - Professional 2 I like this product... As much as any Comp Sci person can like a spread- sheet that is. I use it to do semi and anual budgeting, cash flow pro- jections, and creating the graphs that show me what's going on (see discussion of brain and eye above). 4.) Office Portfolio - Integra I was told that if you can't say anything good about something, don't say anything at all. So, .... ** A Note on Office Portfolio Packages: Because they are members of a family, they are able to share data through a "clipboard". This makes things like taking data out of accounting and putting it into professional very easy. 5.) FoxBASE: I have / used three versions of this product. STAY AWAY FROM 1.04. It works but it is a DOG! Version 2.1.0 is MUCH QUICKER but has some bugs. 2.1.1 fixes most of those bugs. I'm in the process of writing my own in-house telemarketing software using 2.1.1. The stuff I has is O.K, but it only works w/ 1.04 and is a little buggy. Versions 2.1.x are members of the Office Portfolio (OP) family. 6.) Xsight for XENIX: This is a pretty good product, especially for a first release. However, it does have some performance problems on my 386/20 w/ 4M of RAM. BUT, I USE IT ALL THE TIME. The colors are nice and when they rev the xenix version, one will probably be able to use all 64/256 colors instead of only 16. 7.) SCO UNIX is fine too, just make sure you have a 25MHz machine w/ AT LEAST 4M of ram (I am using an Everex Step/25 w/ 4M to type this and in general am VERY happy w/ performance). I will be putting Open Desktop on in a week or two. If you have any questions (that goes for all net-landers) Please feel free to drop me a line (phone/e-mail/s-mail). >Thanks much! >-- >David M. Arasmith | arasmith@mathcs.emory.edu Internet >Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!arasmith UUCP >Dept of Math and CS | >Atlanta, GA 30322 | I should be working! Gee....I wonder what's on TV? You're Welcom very much... -- Matthew J. Thurmaier ...decvax!garp!harvard!uwvax!thurm The Computer Classroom matt@shorty.cs.wisc.edu 6701 Seybold Road, Ste. 122 (608) 271-2171 Madison, WI 53719 -- The problem w/ Republicans? THEY LACK WISDOM!
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/28/89)
> 6.) Xsight for XENIX: > This is a pretty good product, especially for a first release. However, > it does have some performance problems on my 386/20 w/ 4M of RAM. BUT, > I USE IT ALL THE TIME. The colors are nice and when they rev the xenix > version, one will probably be able to use all 64/256 colors instead of > only 16. Please tell me more about Xsight? Does is offer any of the features of X 11.3? -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN uucp: root@nstar -or- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!root
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (01/01/90)
In article <67@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes: >> 3) Are the DOS emulators out there reasonably robust? Also, >> are they reasonably cheap? > > I hope you're kidding :-) IBM's AIX is the first with the > "dos merge" that seems to do a really decent job. What do > they know that we don't? IBM's "DOS Merge" is more or less just a repackaging of Locus's "Merge 386", back a couple of rev levels. I'd expect that SCO's Locus offering should be as good, if not better. >> 4) Am I going to be sorely dissappointed after working on Sun's all day? > > Well, X-windows on a PS/2-80 @ 20MHz doesn't impress me, but it > _does_ seem to pull even with a Sun 2/120 I once worked with. Beats > me what kind of overhead Motif is gonna impose... Weird. A lot of this depends on the server and the display card you're running on, after taking into account obvious issues like adequate physical memory and the presence of a math co-processor. I routinely run X11 under AIX PS/2 on an 8514A card, both in monochrome (8507) and in color (8514). Its performance on a 20mhz PS/2 is fully competitive with any Sun 3/60 or an RT Mod 125. It didn't even occur to me to think that there was an intrinsic performance problem. BTW, Motif is a bit of a memory hog; you'll probably want to add on a few meg more. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu