ABN.ISCAMS@usc-isid.arpa (12/09/85)
So, Bunkey... You're really looking forward to the new "US Army Standard" micros and multi-users mandated by TRADOC (those lovable IS wizards)... (One of the wizards at Columbia talking about systems they've installed Kermit on...} Intel 310's ! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT BUYING THESE TURKEYS!!!! ! The 310's run MS-DOS BADLY (We had to write drivers for the serial port and winchester that Intel put in!!) ! Intel also foists IRMX-86 on you (Everyone needs an archaric multi-user Operating System on a machine that one person uses?) ! Kermit is having a hard time here only because the ! port drivers still are bug-infested. We tend to ! transfer to an IBM-PC and take the MS-DOS floppy ! and read that instead. Intel 380's ! BIGGER Multi-User TURKEYS!! ! Intel hasn't managed to port MS-DOS to these yet!!!! ****** and I won't even bring up the prices .. too hard on my fillings when I gnash my teeth at what a hit our faithful taxpayers are taking... Good luck, you Army guys trying to procure more bits for the buck... David Kirschbaum Toad Hall ABN.ISCAMS@USC-ISID
WANCHO@simtel20.arpa (Frank J. Wancho) (12/10/85)
Dave, As I understand it, the entire U.S. Army is not required to buy these machines. However, we are, if it, or the WYSE-PC or the WANG-PC happen to met basic requirements, and it's not waiver-proof either, provided certain criteria are met. Furthermore, we buy the INTEL-310s with the 80286 to run XENIX, NOT MS-DOS or IRMX-86. Many of us hope to upgrade to XENIX V and the 80386 when those options become available. If we want to run MS-DOS, we buy the WYSE-PC off the contract. (There is a rumor that the WYSE-PC might be substituted with a ZENITH-158...) The comments in the original article *may* be valid as posted. But, they don't apply to our configurations of that product, and neither do your footnotes. Sorry. It should be noted that the Army recently threw in with the Air Force and Navy for the next major procurement action... --Frank
ron@cylixd.UUCP (Ronald Boyd) (12/10/85)
In article <421@brl-tgr.ARPA> ABN.ISCAMS@usc-isid.arpa writes: > Intel 310's ! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT BUYING THESE TURKEYS!!!! A couple of years ago, we evaluated the available market of micro-computers and the Intel 310 came out near the top of our list. > ! The 310's run MS-DOS BADLY MS-DOS appears to port badly to any system that is not based upon the IBM PC bus and address structure. The Intel 310 is a Multibus based system. > ! Intel also foists IRMX-86 on you (Everyone needs an > archaric multi-user Operating System on a > machine that one person uses?) iRMX is a single user, multi-tasking system and is sold as a *real-time* operating system. It is continuously being upgraded.iRMX is not intended as a development system, but that does not mean that it is not a good development environment. > ! Kermit is having a hard time here only because the > ! port drivers still are bug-infested. We tend to > ! transfer to an IBM-PC and take the MS-DOS floppy > ! and read that instead. As a test, we took the iRMX supplied system with Intel developed drivers, and pushed a serial line at 128Kbps with our monitor detecting no bit errors. I wonder what is wrong with your driver. > Intel 380's ! BIGGER Multi-User TURKEYS!! > ! Intel hasn't managed to port MS-DOS to these yet!!!! The Intel customer base generally has no desire for MS-DOS and as I said it seems to port badly. The only difference between the Intel 380 and the Intel 310 is that the 380 system has more disk space. >and I won't even bring up the prices .. Because of contract requirements, I can't quote the prices we were offered, but Intel was priced almost 20% less than their nearest competing bidder. -- -------------------------------------------- Ronald Boyd ({gatech,mcnc}!akgub!cylixd!ron) The above opinions do not represent anyone's but my own.
tom@stc.UUCP (12/11/85)
In article <421@brl-tgr.ARPA> ABN.ISCAMS@usc-isid.arpa writes: > Intel 310's ! DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT BUYING THESE TURKEYS!!!! > ! Intel also foists IRMX-86 on you (Everyone needs an > archaric multi-user Operating System on a > machine that one person uses?) > Intel 380's ! BIGGER Multi-User TURKEYS!! > ! Intel hasn't managed to port MS-DOS to these yet!!!! Taking these points alone you have missed a few crucial issues: - iRMX86 is intended for use as an embedded operating system for real time applications. This it is good at. Multi user only arises as an option because of the job structure of RMX. Indeed, because of its event driven nature, RMX86 is not a good choice for a multi user system. - If MS-DOS runs on a 310 then I can't see why it shouldn't run on a 330/380. They are essentially the same. Personally I have no experience of MS-DOS on either machine. Anyway, enjoy your Christmas turkey and have a nice day. -- (Roots Rockers)
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (12/13/85)
In article <564@cylixd.UUCP> ron@cylixd.UUCP (Ronald Boyd) writes: >In article <421@brl-tgr.ARPA> ABN.ISCAMS@usc-isid.arpa writes: > >> ! Intel also foists IRMX-86 on you (Everyone needs an >> archaric multi-user Operating System on a >> machine that one person uses?) >iRMX is a single user, multi-tasking system and is >sold as a *real-time* operating system. It is continuously being >upgraded.iRMX is not intended as a development system, but that does not >mean that it is not a good development environment. "Intel's iRMX 86 Operating System is a real-time, multi-tasking, multiuser, multiprogramming operating system designed to support high performance, time-critical applications..." "In addition, the iRMX operating system provides OEMs with complete development capabilities. It has systems debuggers, crash analyzers, screen editors, utilities, and an Interactive Configuration Utility (ICU) - everything the development engineer needs to design and configure efficiently." Both of these quotations come from the Intel OEM Systems Handbook. I agree that it does not make for a good development system, but Intel apparently doesn't. >> ! Kermit is having a hard time here only because the >As a test, we took the iRMX supplied system with Intel developed >drivers, and pushed a serial line at 128Kbps with our monitor >detecting no bit errors. I wonder what is wrong with your driver. I'm not sure it really involves the drivers, but I had an interesting problem with RMX. I was designing what amounted to a real-time data storage and retrieval system for a robot. Due to the nature of the robot software I had to respond to a query from the robot in slightly lees than 20 ms. In some modes of operation, the robot would query the system every 20 ms. Eventually, everything worked fine with one exception: Opening a file on disk took about 100 ms. This alone caused me no problem. The problem: During that interval interrupts were disabled; I couldn't respond to my communication query. Intel's repsone was that I shouldn't be opening and closing files like that - opening and closing files is not a real-time operation. So, try doing a few things at once, including pushing a serial line to 128 kps. >> Intel 380's ! BIGGER Multi-User TURKEYS!! >> ! Intel hasn't managed to port MS-DOS to these yet!!!! >The Intel customer base generally has no desire for MS-DOS and as I >said it seems to port badly. You mean there are more people out there developing for non-IBM PC systems than PC-type systems. That would really surprise me. >The above opinions do not represent anyone's but my own. Ditto.