karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/02/90)
In article <206@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM> ewasser@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM (Ed.Wasser) writes: >I am currently in the process of gathering information about UNIX offerings >from various UNIX vendors for INTEL 386/486 based microcomputers. The two >vendors that I am currently interested in are INTERACTIVE Systems Corp. and >Santa Cruz Operation. Both ISC and SCO currently offer versions of the UNIX >operating system based on AT&T UNIX System V Release 3.2. It is also my >understanding that both vendors are currently working on versions of UNIX >based on AT&T UNIX System V Release 4.0. This is correct. If experience from the past serves, ISC will be first with the V.4 release. >Can someone who has experience with or compared the current versions of ISC >386/ix Release 2 and SCO UNIX V.3.2 enlighten me as to what the advantages of >one product over the other are from a technical standpoint. Ok, here 'ya go... Good points: o ISC - Faster file system performance. - Better SCSI support at the present time (higher speed) - System V.3 core system; no add-on "security features" that break applications. - High performance X-windows server - Lower cost for complete system o SCO - Better Xenix compatibility - Ability to develop for Xenix, System V.3 I386, or MSDOS systems - Security features (if you need them, they can be nice) - More hardware devices supported in the base release Bad points: o ISC - Support, if not purchased through a reseller, can be a problem. - Hardware support is spotty -- fewer peripherals have drivers for ISC. o SCO - SCO Unix 3.2 has a few "warts" at present, including problems with mouse recognition and the development system. Tape drive trouble has also been reported. - SCO Unix 3.2 is a >new release<; some products are not yet shipping. - SCO's TCP/IP uses broadcast packets to identify license numbers; this causes performance problems in large ethernet installations. >In addition, I need information concerning what features each vendor will be >adding to their AT&T UNIX V.4 based release. I would appreciate any preliminary >information that can be provided for comparison purposes. > >The areas that I am most interested in are: > > DOS Compatibility (VP/ix, dossette, other forms of DOS/UNIX support) > - Any differences in VP/ix implementation or release level ? Not if you have the current stuff. Both seem to work about the same as far as we can determine, and have the same problems. > - Will future VP/ix releases support DOS 4 ? No information. > Performance enhancements > - What areas does one vendor have a performance advantage over the > other ? (networking, disk i/o, video, etc.) ISC's X11 support is excellent. Disk I/O also is faster on ISC at the present time; we've seen more than 1MB (megaBYTE)/second through the filesystem on ISC using SCSI adapters! SCO can't touch this right now, although I understand they are working on it. > Networking support > - Is either vendor planning to provide an LM/X interface for UNIX > applications ? No idea. > - What networking support currently exists ? TCP/IP & NFS for ISC, TCP for SCO at present. NFS is orderable, but I haven't heard of any production releases actually making their way to customers yet. > Security enhancements SCO has "C2" security certification; ISC does not. Disclaimer: We sell both. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (02/02/90)
I heard at Uniforum that SCO is in no rush at all to develop V.4, may not even announce an intention to develop it until 1991, and possibly may not ship V.4 at all, but skip to whatever comes out of AT&T after that. Apparently the drive to make (and market) a working 3.2, with everything SCO is adding to it, is moving back its V.4 intentions quite a bit. (That is, if indeed there will be any SCO V.4 product ever; that is not clear). I heard this from two hardware vendors at the show. Anyone from SCO care to clarify (or, I'd prefer, dismiss)? -- The Northwest Territories: | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Where men are men, women | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario are scarce, and caribou are | evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan very careful how they walk. | (416) 452-0504
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (02/03/90)
In article <1990Feb1.202942.5160@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <206@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM> ewasser@emdeng.Dayton.NCR.COM (Ed.Wasser) writes: >> [ requests info on various i[34]86 UNIX's ] >If experience from the past serves, ISC will be first with the V.4 release. For V.4, you should also talk directly to the people at Intel. The came out here to talk to us, and my take on the situation is that Intel is really worried about both how late SCO and to a lesser extent ISC has been with Intel ports, and the way these two are fragmenting the market. I'm not sure of the exact status of Intel's port (Beta or what), but it is available, and whatever they do is supposed to be sent back to AT&T to be part of their Intel reference port. The only problem I see is that they don't seem to be concerned enough about addressing the areas that SCO and ISC diverge on, namely package installation, disk partitioning, and a standard way to add SCSI host adapter drivers. SCO and ISC seem to be trying to differenciate their products with meaningless differences in these areas, but it's hard to blame them since the reference port does not have reasonable solutions in these areas. Standardization is just as important in these areas as for an ABI, and Intel will not succeed in unifying this market unless these issues are addressed. >> Security enhancements >SCO has "C2" security certification; ISC does not. ISC has this, but I don't think it's quite released yet. Theirs is better because it really is an add on package (though it replaces lots of stuff so you can't really back it out), so you still won't have the security stuff getting in your way if you don't want it. With SCO you can reduce the level of security to a low level, but you can't make it go away completely. Gerry Gleason
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (02/08/90)
> Resp: 6 of 6 by *Masked* at nstar.UUCP >Author: [Larry Snyder] > Date: Tue Feb 06 1990 22:48 >Have you looked at the review in Unix Review last summer where the compared >SCO Unix to ISC Unix? I would be very interested in the results if you posted them... **************************************************************************** Everything I say is Copr. 1990, except the stuff I stole from someone else and the stuff I don't want responsibility for. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" UUCP: tron1@tronsbox.UUCP BEST PATH ---> uunet!tronsbox!tron1 Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************