perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (12/24/83)
[]
Facts to Establish the Topic:
During the first phase of computers entering the homes of "the great
unwashed" the operating system of choice was UCSD-Pascal. During the
height of UCSD Pascal this new upstart came along and, by the end of the
70's, CP/M swept micros. Currently CP/M is on the way out and the new,
trendy OS is MS-DOS (PC-DOS, etc.). And, as MS-DOS peaks, there is a
movement afoot to get Unix up on the micros.
Aside:
I expect that there will be a number of people reading this who will
refuse to accept the above as facts. All I can recommend is that you
go read back issues of computing magazines. BYTE, for all its flaws,
(and amid all its ads), seems to feature the fad OS early in its rise
to stardom. You could try looking there.
Topic:
How many people have noticed the same trend and what, if anything, will
replace Unix. If things move at a similar speed, MS-DOS will peak in 1984-5
and Unix in 1987. The successor to Unix should therefore exist now and
should become recognizable as the heir apparent sometime in the next two
years. Anyone wanna go on record now with predictions? Or wanna go on
record against believing in this trend?
--
Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgutdarrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer) (12/26/83)
Obviously, IBM's VM/CMS is next (because your progression of OS's tend to alternate steps forward and backward) and now that IBM has introduced the XT/370, there are bound to be lots of machines to run it. Ugh (20 years ago the 360 was inovative architecture, now it's looking a little clunky).
ctk@ecsvax.UUCP (12/28/83)
I, too, see this trend ( but do NOT believe that UCSD Pascal was ever trendy to anyone East of Nevada. ) The next Unix is IBM VM/370. The next C is FORTRAN. The XT/370 is the proof. Folks buy speed. When IBM gets the sucker on one chip the only hope for stopping it will be Cray.
perelgut@utcsrgv.UUCP (Stephen Perelgut) (12/30/83)
[]
For those sites that didn't receive the first version of this query:
The most popular operating system seems to change every few years. First
it was UCSD-Pascal, then it was CP/M, then MS-DOS, and the upcoming
pop-OS seems to be Unix. As each OS peaks in popularity, the next OS is
sitting in the wings waiting to take over. The current champ struggles to
adapt to new technology but the up-and-coming OS is better suited and
sweeps the nation. The question is, who's next? What OS will follow Unix
as the pop system? Some suggestions have been Smalltalk, Lisa, or some
as-yet-undeveloped system. Anyone wanna take a stab at it?
--
Stephen Perelgut Computer Systems Research Group University of Toronto
Usenet: {linus, ihnp4, allegra, decvax, floyd}!utcsrgv!perelgutucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (12/31/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-300900:ucbesvax:29700003:000:766 ucbesvax!turner Dec 31 05:22:00 1983 The question "what pop-OS will follow UNIX on micros" is non-sensical to me--UNIX has not properly arrived in the micro market, by a long shot. Current PC's barely meet the hardware requirements of very stripped-down UNIX derivatives. UNIX on floppy drives, with no decent memory management, runs about as fast as molasses on Pluto. (I would be interested in hearing of any contrary experiences.) Now--with a hard disk, memory management, intel 286 or m68000, and no less than 256K, you *can* have a reasonable UNIX. Only when such configurations (or their functional equivalents) become widespread, can we go on to the subject of what might supersede UNIX in the micro OS market. Talking about it now is ridiculous. --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
dna@dsd.UUCP (01/04/84)
Subject: Re: Who's Next? - (nf)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Who's next? Really, who is now? I agree with the argument that
UCSD-Pascal was just another fad (along with Forth). CPM is here
to stay. It has the advantage of simplicity. Everyone knows CPM.
I also agree that UNIX will *NOT* be the next major O.S. for micro's.
In order for something to beat out CPM, it has to have more advantages
than dissadvantages. For the novice user, UNIX just plain stinks. It
us hard to use. It is cryptic. It has horrible error messages. And
lastly is is much too easy to do horrible damage to your files without
even trying (very hard). Further (as has also been mentioned several
times before) it requires excessive amounts of central memory and disc
storage. Lastly, the multi-tasking features of UNIX (at least all the
implementations I have inventigated) are buried so far down into the
KERNEL that user programs can not use them. (yeah, I know you can
pipe things all over the place and spawn processes, but get them
to talk to each other in real time.) Why should anyone WANT to use
UNIX (other than the 'fad' aspect of it).
No, I don't believe that UNIX(tm) is the next popular O.S. for
micros. If it weren't for the public abhoration for anything INTEL
does until some outside vendor changes the name and sells it, I would
say RMX-86 would stand a good chance. It has reasonable multi-tasking
facilities and a semi-acceptable command interpreter. This does bring
to light the two-sided nature of the next 'popular' O.S. First of all
it will have to support multi-users/multi-tasks. Secondly it will have
to *LOOK* like CPM/MSDOS/... Now for all you UNIX(tm) fans out there,
don't fret. It will also have to support a UNIX(tm) shell. What is
this fantastic system going to be? It beats the heck out of me.
Everyone I have talked to is either playing 'catch up' or is trying
to band-aid currently existing systems to do more and more. Little
effort has been given to taking one of the multi-tasking packages and
build reasonable support utilities over it. (You pick it, VRTX or
MTOS are supported on several machines including the 68k and '86).
The only integrated package for a micro that I know that does all this
is RMX-86, and it is an INTEL product. It also only runs on an 8086
and (here goes again) is written in PLM-86. So what is the answer?
Don't ask me, I only have the questions.
Mike Spann
== Relay from packet radio net ==ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (01/05/84)
Stephan Perelgut writes: > The most popular operating system seems to change every few years. First > it was UCSD-Pascal, then it was CP/M, then MS-DOS, and the upcoming > pop-OS seems to be Unix. Bad news, Steve: there are big computers out there, too. And most users of computers are securely caught in the Big Blue Cage. Enough of those Blue users have (unbelievable as it may seem) been convinced that they actually *like* it that the winner of the most popular OS has got to be OS/370, VM/370 or MVS. Where is Seargant Pepper when we need him? -- Michael Ward {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno} !hao!sa%ward
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (01/06/84)
I also agree that UNIX will *NOT* be the next major O.S. for micro's.
In order for something to beat out CPM, it has to have more advantages
than dissadvantages.
By this, do you mean "UNIX can't be worse than CPM in the following
cases?" If so...
For the novice user, UNIX just plain stinks. It us hard to use.
What specifically is hard to use about it? Most OSs can be considered "hard
to use", especially by a total novice.
It is cryptic.
Yes, it uses the horrible cryptic syntax
cp filea fileb
to copy "filea" to "fileb", instead of the very logical and obvious
PIP fileb=filea
that CP/M uses.
It has horrible error messages.
Unlike the clear and understandable "BDOS ERROR ON A:".
And lastly is is much too easy to do horrible damage to your
files without even trying (very hard).
Are you referring to the non-crashproofness of the file system, which has
been fixed in several versions, or to the ability to accidentally do
an "rm *" and delete all your files?
Further (as has also been mentioned several times before)
it requires excessive amounts of central memory and disc
storage.
Yes, for a small floppy-based single-user, single-tasking system, where the
user doesn't need all the hundreds of commands UNIX comes with, it could
be considered excessive. However, UNIX is a minicomputer operating system
and makes the same demands for system resources as other such operating
systems do.
Lastly, the multi-tasking features of UNIX (at least all the
implementations I have inventigated) are buried so far down into the
KERNEL that user programs can not use them. (yeah, I know you can
pipe things all over the place and spawn processes, but get them
to talk to each other in real time.)
This is a deficiency of UNIX, but both System V and 4.2BSD have faster
interprocess message mechanisms, and System V has and 4.3BSD will (with any
luck) have a shared memory facility (S5 already has semaphores to synchronize
usage of shared memory).
Why should anyone WANT to use UNIX (other than the 'fad' aspect of it).
Because it has a lot of *useful* power?
Because a lot of code written for it can be ported to many different computers?
No, I don't believe that UNIX(tm) is the next popular O.S. for
micros.
The market seems to show signs of disagreeing...
I think the popular claims that "UNIX is user-hostile" or that "UNIX is
fragile" or that "UNIX doesn't support commercial applications well" should
be subject to VERY critical review. For one thing, it's not clear that its
command language is that much "worse" than other similar systems; face it,
almost every command language out there has a lot of aspects which will not
be obvious to people not acquainted with computers. And when it is said
that "UNIX" lacks robustness, or good facilities to allow cooperating processes
to interact, or whatever, one should make sure one specifies which version of
UNIX one is talking about; later versions of "standard" UNIX have cleared
a lot of these problems up, and several vendors have corrected them in their
versions of UNIX.
Guy Harris
{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guybrucec@orca.UUCP (Bruce Cohen) (01/06/84)
-------------------------- Mike Spann says: >> >> No, I don't believe that UNIX(tm) is the next popular O.S. for >> micros. If it weren't for the public abhoration for anything INTEL >> does until some outside vendor changes the name and sells it, I would >> say RMX-86 would stand a good chance. It has reasonable multi-tasking >> facilities and a semi-acceptable command interpreter. It does my heart good to hear someone outside of Intel (besides me) say that. While I don't agree that the command interpreter is acceptable, most everything else about the system is quite good, from the cleanness of the code to the performance. The file system is *better* than the Unix file system in a large number of ways including dynamically configurable device drivers, several different flavors of file system (physical, flat numbered, and hierarchical named) available on a per-device basis, and a cleaner device driver interface. Bob Beck, take a bow. I have written system code and user code for both RMX-86 and RMX-88, its little brother, and I find that the ability to use many small tasks to do a job, rather than a few monolithic processes as in Unoid systems, is a big win. The inter-task communication is quite straightforward to use, and moreover performs well. The fact that the kernel is actually a small piece of the OS means that the I/O system could be built using multiple task and inter-task communication. This allowed me to design, write, and debug a terminal/tty driver for RMX-88 in 8 weeks, and port it to RMX-86 in one week, without ever having written a device driver before. It exceeded the performance goals without any tuning at all. >> Little >> effort has been given to taking one of the multi-tasking packages and >> build reasonable support utilities over it. (You pick it, VRTX or >> MTOS are supported on several machines including the 68k and '86). >> The only integrated package for a micro that I know that does all this >> is RMX-86, and it is an INTEL product. It also only runs on an 8086 >> and (here goes again) is written in PLM-86. So true, *SIGH*. And a source code license for RMX costs ~$50k, and you'd still spend 3-5 man-years porting the parts that are in PLM to another HLL like C (unfortunately a lot of the kernel is in ASM-86). So it's not a garage shop project. If it were, I could get a team to do it tomorrow. Worse still would be duplicating the work. Even considering that a lot of the time and money went into false starts and internal boondoggles (I was there, so I can speak with some authority on the subject), the development of RMX-86 cost many millions of dollars, and tens of man-years. Even done right from the start, it's not the sort of product you would want for the initial project of a startup company, with the capitalists breathing down your neck for return on investment. Still, it would be possible for some enterprising souls to get a product out for the IBM PC class machines and get some revenue while generalizing the system for porting to the 68K, 16K, and whatall. Anyone out there who wants to discuss that as project, (as a profit-making venture, of course) send me mail. Bruce Cohen UUCP: ...!teklabs!tekecs!brucec CSNET: tekecs!brucec@tektronix ARPA: tekecs!brucec.tektronix@rand-relay
andree@uokvax.UUCP (01/09/84)
#R:utcsrgv:-299400:uokvax:3400031:000:1324 uokvax!andree Jan 7 18:44:00 1984 Here are answers to some of Mike Spann's questions (denoted by >>>>): >>>>I also agree that UNIX will *NOT* be the next major O.S. for micro's. >>>>In order for something to beat out CPM, it has to have more advantages >>>>than dissadvantages. For the novice user, UNIX just plain stinks. It >>>>is hard to use. It is cryptic. It has horrible error messages. And >>>>lastly is is much too easy to do horrible damage to your files without >>>>even trying (very hard). None of the above stopped CP/M from being popular. Why should they stop Unix? >>>>yeah, I know you can pipe things all over the place and spawn >>>>processes, but get them to talk to each other in real time Try getting Unix to do ANYTHING in real time!!! >>>>First of all it will have to support multi-users/multi-tasks. >>>>Secondly it will have to *LOOK* like CPM/MSDOS/... Now for all >>>>you UNIX(tm) fans out there, don't fret. It will also have to >>>>support a UNIX(tm) shell. You know what that sounds like? Unix, with one of the many, MANY CP/M emulators. I think you discount how much importance people place on conforming to standards, etc. Everybody and their brother is working on Unix for their micro (mostly 68000's and 16032's, but some 8086 boxes). I wish you were right, but am afraid that we are stuck with Unix... <mike
ags@pucc-k (Seaman) (01/09/84)
> Bad news, Steve: there are big computers out there, too. And most users > of computers are securely caught in the Big Blue Cage. Enough of those > Blue users have (unbelievable as it may seem) been convinced that they > actually *like* it that the winner of the most popular OS has got to be > OS/370, VM/370 or MVS. Where is Seargant Pepper when we need him? > -- > Michael Ward In this news group, it should go without saying that "Most Popular OS" means "Most Popular Microcomputer OS". PC-DOS qualifies for the discussion. OS/370 (barely) qualifies, but can hardly be called the most popular. VM/370 and MVS are irrelevant (as of the last I heard). -- Dave Seaman ..!pur-ee!pucc-k:ags
kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (01/09/84)
UNIX(TM AT&T) user-hostile?
Well...maybe it is the version of UNIX you use that is user hostile.
Take XENIX(TM Microsoft). It is (somewhat) more user-hostile than you might
expect because Microsoft had to cram about 30Mbyte of UNIX into 5Mbyte of
disk space so it would fit on small winchesters. Sure the commands got some
useful options stripped out. Sure error message strings became more terse.
Sure all the commands aren't there. That's not UNIX, its XENIX. I use 4.1
BSD UNIX and I just don't see that it is too terse. Sure there are some
things about (any) UNIX that could be better. I wish I could undelete a
UNIX file the way I can on TOPS-20, I like the TOPS-20 command completion
operators and help. Every operating system has unique nice features.
If UNIX takes too much filespace on your system, it is not UNIX's fault.
Get another disk. If UNIX runs too slow, it is not UNIX's fault. Get a
faster CPU and be grateful you don't have to support the overhead of an IBM
operating system. UNIX does require a minimum level of resources that is
greater than what CP/M(TM DRI) uses, but what do you expect. You want to
plug an operating system with an 80K kernel into your Z80 and have it be
just as fast as your CP/M's 4K 'kernel'? Gimme a break!
I think UNIX will be the next popular operating system. The kernel (which
contains no error messages you should ever see) is sound and really quite
efficient. The commands can be repaired and will be when the market demands
it. UNIX is the kernel and the shell. The commands are not 'really' even
part of UNIX. We alrealy can almost afford the kind of computer that can
run UNIX. In a year or two we will. Get ready for UNIX. You'll hate CP/M
when you have a real computer.
--
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurtjmb@druny.UUCP (01/10/84)
You'll have to count VM/370 as a minicomputer OS - IBM's XT/370 runs a 4-meg version of VM, with virtual memory and everything. It's conceivable that MVS (or some version thereof) will one day run in this computer too. Of course you may not want a 370 system sitting on your desk... J. M. Barton AT&T Information Systems Laboratories ...!druny!jmb
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/11/84)
Correction: the XT/370 runs a *subset* of VM, guaranteed to run CMS
and CMS applications but nothing else. Read the announcements more
carefully!
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryjmb@druny.UUCP (01/13/84)
The question is not how complete a set of VM the machine runs, but that is runs VM at all*. Your normal desktop computer doesn't run a full UNIX system either... yet. This discussion was about the next great OS on minicomputers. If a VM subset runs now on XT/370, you can bet there will be a hardware/software solution soon that runs a more complete set. J. M. Barton AT&T Information Systems Laboratories druny!jmb * 'The amazing thing about a dancing bear is not how well it dances, but that it dances at all.'
ward@hao.UUCP (01/25/84)
I don't see how we can assume that one is only dealing
with micros in newsgroups net.misc and net.unix.
--
Michael Ward
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!sa%ward