dw (05/05/83)
I had the oportunity to *play* with a pre-release version of the
new Hewlett Packard 9000 Unix system the other day, and thought other
folks might be interested in what I saw.
The 9000 is availiable in several configurations ranging from a single
user/single cpu version to a multi-user/3 cpu model. The system I
saw was a minimum configuration, consisting of a single cpu, 1.5 Meg
of memory, and an integrated crt. (Oh yeah, it runs off a custom
32 bit micro.).
My general impression of the machine was favorable. It seemed to run
quite fast, considering that it does not posess hardware floating point.
I found that it's execution speed was comparable to that of
a 11/780 with a couple of users running vi. It will be interesting to
see how the multi-cpu version runs.
In terms of the Unix implementation, it is suppose to be derived from
v7, with some of the Berkeley utilities (and maybe some System 3, I'm
not sure). This version seemed to have most of the utilities that I
remembered to look for, including vi, lint, more, uucp, news, etc.
Adb was missing, and I don't know if they plan to include it in the
release version. Otherwise, I saw everything that I wanted.
My only gripe with the system is that HP has joined the group of Unix
suppliers which has decided to *improve* the user interface by making
it consistant, at the expense of compatability with other versions.
For example, if you want ps with a long listing you can't type
"ps l", you HAVE to type "ps -l". They have also changed some of the
flags to ps. I personally find this to be VERY annoying.
In all, I was pretty impressed with the system, and would recommend that
people who are in the market for a 32 bit Unix system take a look at it.
Don Wegeng
Xerox Corp.
Rochester, NY
(716) 422-3347
{icalqa, pur-ee, rocksvax, sequel}!rocks34!dw
{allegra, seismo}!rochester!rocksvax!rocks34!dwneil (05/07/83)
#R:rocks34:-17200:hplabs:12700002:000:2144
hplabs!neil May 7 01:03:00 1983
I saw some comments about the HP9000 Unix workstation, and wanted
to correct some factual errors. Please note that while I work
for HP, this is not "offical" informations (i.e. I do not work
for that divisions marketing department...).
The letter was in net.unix-wizards from rocks34!dw, Don Wegeng,
Xerox Corp., Rochester, NY, (716) 422-3347
In terms of the Unix implementation, it is suppose to be derived from
v7, with some of the Berkeley utilities (and maybe some System 3, I'm
not sure). This version seemed to have most of the utilities that I
remembered to look for, including vi, lint, more, uucp, news, etc.
Adb was missing, and I don't know if they plan to include it in the
release version. Otherwise, I saw everything that I wanted.
The system was derived from system III, with some utilities ported
from Berkeley, plus several HP-local applications and utilities.
My only gripe with the system is that HP has joined the group of Unix
suppliers which has decided to *improve* the user interface by making
it consistant, at the expense of compatability with other versions.
For example, if you want ps with a long listing you can't type
"ps l", you HAVE to type "ps -l". They have also changed some of the
flags to ps. I personally find this to be VERY annoying.
An interesting comment. The 9000's unix is not a port. Instead it
is a layering of the Unix system interface on top of an already
existing real time kernel. There is no /dev/kmem, and PS was rewritten
from scratch. The flags were changed because PS is very dependent
on the underlying implementation. The "ps -l" is NOT a bug -- read
the system III manual (it annoys the hell out of me too, but...).
All in all the 9000 is impresively compatible with Bell system III
for a) a layered system and b) a different machine architecture.
Despite a hackers mentality of "improving" everything, the rules
were "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." We put in about five man
years in testing the kernel for "Unix-hood", and management gave
much importance to compatibility.
Neil Katin
ucbvax!hplabs!neiltjt (05/08/83)
With regards to the changes in the ps command (e.g. `ps -l' must be used instead of `ps l') it sounds as if they just took the System III ps. I think the command syntax in this case is an improvement, although the change may be painful. However, V7 was a very painful improvement on V7, as was 4BSD over V7, and as 4.2BSD promises to be. Such is the price of progress.