rob@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Rob McDonald) (07/28/90)
In article <275@nih-csl.nih.gov> hays@suntory.dcrt.nih.gov (art hays) writes: > >I am considering porting ... to the 386/486 under QNX. I too am faced with possibly working with QNX. In this case the application already exists, on a PC/AT clone. A database on a DG Eclipse provides order info via serial line to the AT, which controls several packing machine via RS232 links to OPTO22 control boards at each machine. I need to recommend the best course of action for the client to take with this operational but undocumented timebomb. I have no previous experience with QNX. I qould be interested in hearing about experiences, good or bad, and any particular advice or warnings previous users might be able to give. Thanks .....rob -- EMAIL: rob@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca <<< Standard Disclaimers Apply >>> ARCHAIC: Steltech, 1375 Kerns Rd., Burlington, Ontario, Canada, L7P 3H8.
checky@umn-ai (Michael Checky) (08/01/90)
In article <26B09727.22976@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> rob@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Rob McDonald) writes: >In article <275@nih-csl.nih.gov> hays@suntory.dcrt.nih.gov (art hays) writes: >> >>I am considering porting ... to the 386/486 under QNX. > >I too am faced with possibly working with QNX. In this case the application >already exists, on a PC/AT clone. A database on a DG Eclipse provides >order info via serial line to the AT, which controls several packing machine >via RS232 links to OPTO22 control boards at each machine. > >I need to recommend the best course of action for the client to take with >this operational but undocumented timebomb. I have no previous experience >with QNX. I qould be interested in hearing about experiences, good or bad, >and any particular advice or warnings previous users might be able to give. I've been working with QNX for about a year now. It's got its good points and bad points. It's enough like unix to allow someone familiar with unix to use it, but it's also different enough to frustrate you. Two other bad points, its file system is rather slow, roughly 150Kb/s on a 20MHz '386 using an adaptec 1542b SCSI controller and seagate drive. The only half-way decent C complier is 3rd party from Computer Innovations, and I consider it only marinal, (buggy, but they do fix them fast). Now for the good points: - It's message based, the kernel just handles message passing and memory management, so it's small (and fast). All other system serices are privilaged tasks. - The scheduler is preemptive, and prioritized (16 priorities). - You can directly grab the interrupt vectors. My system can process ~9000 messages/sec (gives you an idea of context switch time). - System's programming (device drivers, new file systems, ...) is a dream compared to unix. Just write a privileged task, no more relink the kernel and reboot the system. - Runs in real and protected mode. C programs can run in either mode without relinking. - Tech. support is excellent. They have an online bbs and the system engineers seem to be always logged on (you usually get a response within the hour). - Quantum is developing a POSIX complient kernel, due 3rd quarter '90. Their new C compiler is from Watcom (BYTE gives them good reviews). Quantum is promising to vastly improve their new kernel (up to a 10x file system thru put, better system documentation,...) I am not affiliated with Quantum, I just use their products. QNX -- What UNIX should be.
pat@grebyn.com (Pat Bahn) (08/08/90)
HI I'm doing a trade off study between operating systems for the 68020. I'm looking at 0S-9, VXworks, VRTX32, PSOS, REGULUS . does anyone have any other reccomendations?? any horror stories? How about versados?? I've heard people call it versadog... WE need multi-tasking, file systems, self-hosting and a good developement environment.. thanks -- ============================================================================= Pat @ grebyn.com | If the human mind was simple enough to understand, 301-948-8142 | We'd be too simple to understand it. -Emerson Pugh =============================================================================
zhang@cs.rochester.edu (Zhang Ju) (08/10/90)
In article <21033@grebyn.com> pat@grebyn.UUCP (Pat Bahn) writes: (lines deleted) > >How about versados?? I've heard people call it versadog... > >WE need multi-tasking, file systems, self-hosting and a good >developement environment.. Versados has the worst development environment I have ever seen. Motorola has long abandoned this baby and other vendors also stopped support it. It's not even a dog. It's a worm.