chas@stax.uchicago.edu (Charles Blair) (04/24/91)
I've just installed SCO Unix on a 16 MHz AST Bravo 386/SX, Paradise VGA Plus card, Princeton Max 15 monitor. The installation went well, and Open Desktop looks like it might be something I could put in front of our users (the configuration above is standard for them), but performance is very slow. Admittedly, the machine has only 4 MB memory (we'll install more, but the dealer said 4 MB was sufficient if we didn't push it). However, I wonder whether upgrading to 6 or 8 MB will alter performance sufficiently to make a real difference. Right now the unit might keep up with an old 4.77MHz PC running MS-DOS, but no more, in terms of how it looks to the user (obviously, it's doing a lot more). Is the 386/SX architecture just sub-optimal for Unix? (The doc said the SX is the slowest 386 around, and that some chips can barely keep up under some circumstances; as I recall, this was in re: drives and interleaving; our drives are pretty fast.) Is the video card too slow? What's a reasonable platform, to make SCO Unix an attractive alternative to something line MS-Windows? Any responses with people's experiences, etc., will be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Internet: chas@uchicago.edu
ggvvgg@mixcom.COM (Dave Fenske) (04/25/91)
If you REALLY want to have sexy windows. And, if you really want Unix, but still might want to run DOS applications from time to time, why not consider a nice Sun Sparcstation. You'll get better performance (much better) and save money.
Michael Squires <mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> (04/25/91)
In article <638@mixcom.COM> ggvvgg@mixcom.COM (Dave Fenske) writes: >If you REALLY want to have sexy windows. And, if you really want Unix, but >still might want to run DOS applications from time to time, why not >consider a nice Sun Sparcstation. You'll get better performance (much >better) and save money. A 486/25 under SCO ODT 1.0 clocked at 21K 1.1 Dhrystones/sec; the same code compiled on a SPARCStation-1 clocked at the same, 21K/sec. A very short loop running under the elk 1.3 SCHEME interpreter showed nearly identical wall clock times running on a SPARCStation 1+ and the same 486/25 (if anyone wants to play with SCHEME elk 1.3 has 386 UNIX support and compiles without signficant changes using Microsoft C). DOS Merge on the 486/25 should be much faster than a DOS emulator on the SPARC. I don't use the SCO X11R3 and have not installed the X11R4 X386, but the SPARC graphics is clearly much much better than what I've got. -- Mike Squires (mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) 812 855 3974 (w) 812 333 6564 (h) mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408 Under construction: mikes@sir-alan.cica.indiana.edu
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (04/25/91)
chas@stax.uchicago.edu (Charles Blair) writes: >Admittedly, the machine has only 4 MB memory (we'll install more, but >the dealer said 4 MB was sufficient if we didn't push it). However, I >wonder whether upgrading to 6 or 8 MB will alter performance >sufficiently to make a real difference. Right now the unit might keep >up with an old 4.77MHz PC running MS-DOS, but no more, in terms of how >it looks to the user (obviously, it's doing a lot more). We just installed Open Desktop 1.1 on an AST/386 33, with 8 MB of RAM, and I've been sorely disappointed with the performance. Compiles run well, and have yet to install the networking components, much less the Ingress. DOS runs slowly - and serial connections are pathetic - but one most notes the lack of response in the ODT-VIEW (windows) component. Your 16 MHz AST Bravo could only run worse. Perhaps those who have run ISC's Architech alternative on similar (or smaller) platforms could post their impressions. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (04/26/91)
In article <638@mixcom.COM> ggvvgg@mixcom.COM (Dave Fenske) writes: > If you REALLY want to have sexy windows. And, if you > really want Unix, but still might want to run DOS > applications from time to time, why not consider a nice > Sun Sparcstation. You'll get better performance (much > better) and save money. Here's a myth that's going to die a quick death. Two years ago, some Sun architectures were much quicker than the equivalent PC architectures. It just ain't true anymore. It was the surprise of my life when I discovered that a Dell 486-25 (running Dell Unix) was a snappier machine that a Sun IPC, but it's true. PC hardware has grown up in the last couple of years. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (04/26/91)
chas@stax.uchicago.edu (Charles Blair) writes: > I've just installed SCO Unix on a 16 MHz AST Bravo 386/SX, Paradise > VGA Plus card, Princeton Max 15 monitor. The installation went well, > and Open Desktop looks like it might be something I could put in front > of our users (the configuration above is standard for them), but > performance is very slow. The SX ought to be enough for UNIX itself, but the ODT layer really wants more horsepower than that. Still, CPU may not be your major limitation at this point... > Admittedly, the machine has only 4 MB memory (we'll install more, but > the dealer said 4 MB was sufficient if we didn't push it)... Unless SCO has changed it recently, they were recommending a minimum of 6 Mb for ODT, and I'd say you really want 8. At 4 Mb you're likely to be thrashing badly. (This isn't all due to ODT, nor specific to SCO--X is the major hog.) > Is the 386/SX architecture just sub-optimal for Unix?... No. The SX is fine for UNIX, but I feel it's not enough power for UNIX+X. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...While you were reading this, Motif grew by another kilobyte.
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr25.143342.18221@news.cs.indiana.edu> mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes: > I don't use the SCO X11R3 and have not installed the X11R4 > X386, but the SPARC graphics is clearly much much better > than what I've got. A Renaissance card under Dell (1kx768x256) or a #9 card under ODT, with Xoftware X11R4 from AGE Logic (1280x1024x256) will make the IPC look sick. Here's how the price breaks down: 25 MHz 486 w/ 8MB, 200 MB, no graphics $3,000 #9 Graphics eXcellerator (1280x1024x256) $1,800 NEC 5D 20" monitor $2,000 Xoftware (X11R4) from AGE Logic $600 SCO Open Desktop $1,000 ------- $8,400 Sun IPC w/8 MB, 200 MB, 16" 1190x900 color $9,995 And the 486 has a much larger, higher resolution screen, and is quicker. And you can get software for about half the price of Sun stuff. And ODT includes DOS emulation and Ingres, either of which will cost you an arm and a leg under Sun. (I included the Xoftware because it actually loads onto the #9 card (which has 6 MB of RAM), unburdening the host cpu from running the X server) And if you want an inexpensive solution, get a Hercules Graphics Station card (60 MHz 34010) for about $600 and a NEC 4D or Nanao 16" monitor for about $800, and get the same snappy 1kx768x256 performance. 25 MHz 486 w/ 8MB, 200 MB, no graphics $3,000 Hercules Graphics Station Card $600 NEC 4D 16" $1,000 Xoftware (X11R4) from AGE Logic $600 SCO Open Desktop $1,000 ------- $6,200 Still better performance than the IPC. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
drolet@drolet.CAM.ORG (Jean-Jacques Drolet) (04/26/91)
In <CHAS.91Apr24095031@stax.uchicago.edu> chas@stax.uchicago.edu (Charles Blair) writes: >I've just installed SCO Unix on a 16 MHz AST Bravo 386/SX, Paradise >VGA Plus card, Princeton Max 15 monitor. The installation went well, >and Open Desktop looks like it might be something I could put in front >of our users (the configuration above is standard for them), but >performance is very slow. >Admittedly, the machine has only 4 MB memory (we'll install more, but >the dealer said 4 MB was sufficient if we didn't push it). However, I >wonder whether upgrading to 6 or 8 MB will alter performance >sufficiently to make a real difference. Right now the unit might keep >up with an old 4.77MHz PC running MS-DOS, but no more, in terms of how >it looks to the user (obviously, it's doing a lot more). Depending on the applications you run, adding a couple of MB's of RAM may substantially improve performance. If your system is constantly swapping virtual memory to and from the disk, this may be part of what you need. SCO recommends a minimum of 6 MB of RAM. >Is the 386/SX architecture just sub-optimal for Unix? (The doc said >the SX is the slowest 386 around, and that some chips can barely keep >up under some circumstances; as I recall, this was in re: drives and >interleaving; our drives are pretty fast.) Is the video card too slow? >What's a reasonable platform, to make SCO Unix an attractive >alternative to something line MS-Windows? If possible, I would recommend using a 25 MHz 386DX with at least 6 MB of RAM and a 200 MB hard disk as a minimum platform. The 386SX may be acceptable in some situations, but it is definitely not optimal. >Any responses with people's experiences, etc., will be much >appreciated. >Thanks. >-- >Internet: chas@uchicago.edu -- Jean-Jacques P. Drolet | Snail: 2631 boul. Liegeois, Sainte-Foy National Optics Institute | Quebec, Canada, G1W 1Z5 Phone: +1 418 657 7006 | Internet: drolet@drolet.CAM.ORG Home phone: +1 418 651 3796 | UUCP: uunet!drolet!drolet
py@meadow.uucp (Peter Yeung) (04/27/91)
In article <CHAS.91Apr24095031@stax.uchicago.edu> chas@stax.uchicago.edu (Charles Blair) writes: > > >Admittedly, the machine has only 4 MB memory (we'll install more, but >the dealer said 4 MB was sufficient if we didn't push it). However, I I think you definitely need more than 4Meg especially if you are running ODT. I just can't see why your dealer suggested only 4 Meg. By the way, it was only CDN$260 for 4 Megs if SIMMS the last time I looked at it. I would say 8 Meg is a minimum for running anything with X Windows (we have 16Meg in the boxes running ODT). > >-- >Internet: chas@uchicago.edu -- Peter Yeung Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300 Mississauga, Ont. L5N 1V8 Phone: (416) 542-6300 Fax: (416) 858-2233
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (04/29/91)
mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes: >A 486/25 under SCO ODT 1.0 clocked at 21K 1.1 Dhrystones/sec; the same code >compiled on a SPARCStation-1 clocked at the same, 21K/sec. A very short >loop running under the elk 1.3 SCHEME interpreter showed nearly identical >wall clock times running on a SPARCStation 1+ and the same 486/25 (if anyone >wants to play with SCHEME elk 1.3 has 386 UNIX support and compiles without >signficant changes using Microsoft C). Great. You've shown that a 486/25 can run Dhrystones and short loops under elk as well as a SparcStation 1+. Is *that* what you do all day? Has it occurred to you that these tests, and others of their ilk, provide only the crudest indication of relative performance? Well, consider it. How tragic that, as hardware, operating environments and applications have become more sophisticated, people still give credence to such quick-and-dirty measurements. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
wes@harem.clydeunix.com (Wes Peters) (05/02/91)
In article <638@mixcom.COM> ggvvgg@mixcom.COM (Dave Fenske) writes: > If you REALLY want to have sexy windows. And, if you > really want Unix, but still might want to run DOS > applications from time to time, why not consider a nice > Sun Sparcstation. You'll get better performance (much > better) and save money. In article <1991Apr25.170915.17770@rfengr.com>, rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) replies: % Here's a myth that's going to die a quick death. Two years % ago, some Sun architectures were much quicker than the % equivalent PC architectures. It just ain't true anymore. % % It was the surprise of my life when I discovered that a Dell % 486-25 (running Dell Unix) was a snappier machine that a Sun % IPC, but it's true. % % PC hardware has grown up in the last couple of years. Well, if you really want snappy video performance and the ability to run an occasional PC program, buy: 1) A Silicon Graphics 4D/380 with 256M ram and a BIG disk; 2) A cheap PC/XT clone with an ethernet adapter; 3) PC-NFS Beat that! Of course, the SiliG will set you back several hundred K$. :-) Oh, sorry, I guess I should have posted this in comp.unix.dreams... Wes Peters -- #include <std/disclaimer.h> The worst day sailing My opinions, your screen. is much better than Raxco had nothing to do with this! the best day at work. Wes Peters: wes@harem.clydeunix.com ...!sun!unislc!harem!wes