pete@i-core.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) (10/04/89)
I know this sounds horrid, however, it is important to me. I currently run a public BBS on an IBM AT. The BBS support for IBM's are swell (its an Amiga BBS actually :-)) and haven't really been matched by any other brand. However, if I was able to sell my system, it would be a big step towards buying a NeXT. I would still want to run my same BBS and essentially, that would be Pee Cee emulation on the NeXT. I have seen pictures of it being done on the Sparcstation and I'd imagine that the NeXT could do an IBM AT imitation quite well. The question is, is anyone going to do it? I had the cube and 1.0 demo'd to me today and was very impressed. Its a wonderful system, albeit expensive (especially for a college student). I love the mail system and the integration of it all along with the UNIX compatibility. I asked the NeXT guy if they were planning to do MeSsy DOS emulation and he sort of shrugged it off as a stupid question. He stated that the Mac doesn't need it (yet it HAS it), so the NeXT doesn't need it either. It would be incredibly convenient for me to tuck my BBS in a corner of the NeXT rather than tuck my IBM in the corner of my room :-). -- (^\__/^) pete@i-core.uucp uunet!iconsys!caeco!i-core / . . \ <=== BEWARE! The Snugglesoft Bear! \ ~ / <=== Spawn of Satan and the downfall of Western Civilization! ( )( ) Pete Ashdown - Slack Monger Extraordinare - Amiga Evangelist
chari@nueces.cactus.org (Chris Whatley) (10/05/89)
pete@i-core.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) writes: >I know this sounds horrid, however, it is important to me. I currently >run a public BBS on an IBM AT. The BBS support for IBM's are swell >(its an Amiga BBS actually :-)) and haven't really been matched by any >other brand. However, if I was able to sell my system, it would be a >big step towards buying a NeXT. I would still want to run my same BBS >and essentially, that would be Pee Cee emulation on the NeXT. I have >It would be incredibly convenient for me to tuck my BBS in a corner of >the NeXT rather than tuck my IBM in the corner of my room :-). Well. The best I can suggest is making xbbs, UnXbbs or sbbs under unix. I'm just not sure that you would want an Intel emulator eating up your RAM, CPU and temper. I know that the emulations I have seen are incredibly costly. Frankly, NeXTs current hardware could not support the luscious overhead of the WindowServer AND a fast DOS emulation with any kind of pleasurable response for you on the console. Hell, Sun can't even get good performance out of their DOS emulator on an Intel machine! Chris >-- >(^\__/^) pete@i-core.uucp uunet!iconsys!caeco!i-core >/ . . \ <=== BEWARE! The Snugglesoft Bear! >\ ~ / <=== Spawn of Satan and the downfall of Western Civilization! > ( )( ) Pete Ashdown - Slack Monger Extraordinare - Amiga Evangelist -- Chris Whatley chari@nueces.cactus.org P.O. Box 50254 !nueces!chari@cs.utexas.edu Austin, TX 78763 chari@walt.cc.utexas.edu 512/499-0475
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (10/05/89)
/ comp.sys.next / pete@i-core.UUCP (Pete Ashdown) / Oct 3, 1989 / > I currently run a public BBS on an IBM AT. [...] > However, if I was able to sell my system, it would be a > big step towards buying a NeXT. I would still want to run my same BBS > and essentially, that would be Pee Cee emulation on the NeXT. I have > seen pictures of it being done on the Sparcstation and I'd imagine that > the NeXT could do an IBM AT imitation quite well. The question is, is > anyone going to do it? A Sparcstation has a considerably faster CPU than the NeXT (especially in low context switching situations, such as running just one process, such as an emulator), and still the PC emulator you get on it is on the slow side. Same goes for the Sun-386i, and that even uses the '86 mode (whatever it's called) of the chip, instead of emulating it in software. You'll probably get as good or better performance out of a $750 XT clone. And if somebody does make an emulator for the NeXT, it will probably cost more than an XT clone anyway. > It would be incredibly convenient for me to tuck my BBS in a corner of > the NeXT rather than tuck my IBM in the corner of my room :-). But not nearly as cost-effective. I'd consider selling the AT and buying an XT clone in addition to the NeXT. Assuming, of course, that you get enough margin between the cost of the AT and the XT clone to make that trade worthwhile. Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
cs141043@brunix (Ronald Antony) (10/05/89)
There was talk about this. If you think, as I do, a PC emulation would make a lot of sense, especially if you have some special applications e.g. with a non-standard data format, or whatever... then you would really like to have this little window (or icon :-) ). If enough people would call insignia inc. I guess they will do it. After all, most of the code should be the same as for the mac, except for the interface, graphics and all this. I don't know their address, but look for it in any Mac magazine. Ronald
dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) (10/05/89)
So, how 'bout a "PC on a card" and a fancy windowing front-end to it? Wouldn't that be better? Most people /do/ still have three card slots free, don't they?
langz@asylum.SF.CA.US (Lang Zerner) (10/06/89)
In article <130025@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes: >A Sparcstation has a considerably faster CPU than the NeXT (especially in >low context switching situations, such as running just one process, such as >an emulator), and still the PC emulator you get on it is on the slow side. >Same goes for the Sun-386i, and that even uses the '86 mode (whatever it's >called) of the chip, instead of emulating it in software. You'll probably >get as good or better performance out of a $750 XT clone. Is it possible to do something along the lines of the Bridgeboard on the Amiga? After all, the other three slots in the cube along with Mach's existing multiprocessing (via threads) capability should allow some kind of AT motherboard with a NeXT bus interface to work. The way they do it on the Amiga, there is an AT clone on a board which plugs into an Amiga slot, then uses some software on the Amiga side to create a PC window under the multitasking OS through which monitor and keyboard I/O travel. The Bridgeboard also uses the Amiga parallel port for printing. Data transfer is through a dual-ported memory cache. In the case of the Amiga, there is are AT slots on the Amiga motherboard (the Bridgeboard acts as a bridge between the two busses), so you can use standard AT boards to get serial ports and alternate monitors, etc., but these could be built onto a NeXT-compatible AT board. I can't see how this board could cost more than an AT system, given that the board wouldn't require a monitor, case, keyboard, etc. NOTE: I am not a hardware boy, so (1) I'm talking out of my hat and (2) I can safely ignore any "fine, you build it" responses. :-) What say ye? Is it doable? -- Be seeing you... --Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"
jdm@gssc.UUCP (John David Miller) (10/10/89)
PC emulation is NOT what you want, for the reasons already mentioned, plus
one other: DOS apps were not designed to share the hardware.
a more interesting scenario is a MAC emulator for the NeXT. this seems
much more plausible for several reasons:
- same processor
- both windowing environments
- MAC apps are being converted to be "32-bit clean" for multi-tasking
- there is enough high-quality MAC software available to make the
NeXT box a viable option to apple hardware, should a reasonable
emulator be available.
you can't tell me steve jobs hasn't thought about this!!
-- jdm
--
...!{tektronix!verdix}!sequent!gssc!jdm John David Miller
(503) 641-2200 Graphic Software Systems
* This space intentionally * 9590 S.W. Gemini Dr.
* left blank. * Beaverton, OR 97005