craig@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU (Craig Myers) (10/08/90)
We have a pyramid 98xe with 8megs of memory. We are planning to upgrade to OSX 5.0 from 4.0 this month. The local service man warns us that OSX 5.0 will severely degrade the operation of our system. Anyone out there have a 98xe with 5.0? craig myers craig@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
csg@able (Carl S. Gutekunst) (10/10/90)
>We have a pyramid 98xe with 8megs of memory. We are planning to upgrade >to OSX 5.0 from 4.0 this month. The local service man warns us that OSX >5.0 will severely degrade the operation of our system. Sounds like a communication gap with your SE. Speaking as a Pyramid user, I've got three 98x's and two 98xe's running OSx 5.0, and 5.0 was definitely *faster* than OSx 4.4. What your SE may be concerned about is that you don't have enough memory. 5.0 is bigger than 4.4. I *was* having some thrashing problems with my 98xe with only 8MB memory trying to run 64 users, and upgraded to 16MB. No more problems. With a very naked kernel (no virtual disk, no comm products), you might squeak by. I wouldn't bother with OSx 5.0, though; it's still not stable. Go straight to OSx 5.1, which I think has already been shipping for a while. <csg>
csg@able (Carl S. Gutekunst) (10/10/90)
In article <129782@pyramid.pyramid.com> I said: >I wouldn't bother with OSx 5.0, though; it's still not stable. Go straight >to OSx 5.1, which I think has already been shipping for a while. I should qualify this. There is much third-party software that hasn't been tested on OSx 5.1, but is known reliable and stable on OSx 5.0. If you are using a big third-party software packages (like a DBMS, say) you should check with all parties before upgrading. I got some flack from people who thought 5.1 was *less* stable than OSx 5.0d with all PTFs. What can I say? With the machines I use, 5.1 is faster and more stable. Ask your sales critter or systems engineer for an official answer. <csg>