kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) (11/22/90)
How do I find out what versions of Unix support what kinds of hardware, and require what kinds of hardware? I want unix, but I'd like to be able to upgrade slowly - using as much existing hardware as possible. Disk controllers? Video? VGA? 1024x768? 800x600? Hercules? Page-white/greyscale? Microsoft 2-button mouse? Tape drives? Printers? Co-processor? What kind of performance can you get with VGA 800x600 & X? 1024x768? I'd like a couple of windows sized 60x80. Is this possible? Does X run a lot better with a co-processor? Can I get by with a Microsoft 2-button mouse, at least for a short time? How much disk space is required/recommended for various versions of Unix? How much does the system itself require? How much should be allocated for swap space? How much memory is required/recommended? I am willing to totally give up DOS. However, I understand that there are things like Merge and/or VP/ix; how well do they work? What DOS programs can be used with these? How doslike are these DOS shells? I notice that all the PC benchmarks seem to be 16 bits only. You can see that the performance is directly related to clock speed for all machines above a '286 (with better performance with a cache). Do any of the Unixes out there directly support the 32-bit '386? (What my question really is is "will I get significantly better performance from a 386-dx than a 386-sx, if the clock speeds are similar?") Should I buy a 386-dx? I will probably be the only user of the system. However, getting the 2-user system seems scary. What do you give up? Is the kernel crippled? What is to prevent one from just adding to /etc/passwd? Why should I get V.4? V.3 seems to be a lot cheaper now. Aside from loosing 256 character filenames, and sockets, what else will I loose? How much should I fear that V.4 will be full of bugs from any vendor, while V.3 may be relatively debugged? -- favourite oxymorons: student athlete, honest politician, civil war Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/26/90)
Boy, when you ask questions you certainly ask a mouthfull... In article <28346@usc> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: >How do I find out what versions of Unix support what kinds of hardware, >and require what kinds of hardware? I want unix, but I'd like to be >able to upgrade slowly - using as much existing hardware as possible. For particular hardware compatibility you ask the vendor which will only be able to tell you things that are known to work. That doesn't mean that you will have no problems with that hardware and it doesn't mean that you will have problems with hardware that is not on that list. >What kind of performance can you get with VGA 800x600 & X? 1024x768? Vga performance is kind of slow and it gets slower the deeper the display (the more bits used for color). >I'd like a couple of windows sized 60x80. Is this possible? It is possible, but under VGA either the font would be unreadable or the windows would runn off the display. For this kind of windows you need at least a megapixel display on a 19" or greater screen. > Does X run a lot better with a co-processor? Yes definately. However, your choice of an OS may limit you to the choices of graphics cards. Currently ISC supports the most cards. > Can I get by with a Microsoft 2-button mouse, at least for a short time? Yes. >How much disk space is required/recommended for various versions of >Unix? Most, if not all, of them require the same amount of space for the same configurations. > How much does the system itself require? A full blown system with X, SDS, etc, etc can eat up close to 100MB. > How much should be allocated for swap space? At least twice the amount of memory you have and if you are real short on memory, then as much as three times. > How much memory is required/recommended? At least 8MB if you plan to run X. 4MB otherwise. >I am willing to totally give up DOS. However, I understand that there >are things like Merge and/or VP/ix; how well do they work? What DOS >programs can be used with these? How doslike are these DOS shells? My experience is with VP/IX, but you can assume that the same will be true for dos MERGE. Most DOS programs (yes, even dirty ones) will work correctly under these shells. The problems you get into are with programs that run in protected mode (like windows386 or OS/2). These are not DOS shells. They are programs that envoke the 8086 real mode and run a full blown MS-DOS (version 3.x). You are running under a real command.com and you can even directly access the dos partition on the hard disk, or access the unix files as a network file system or have a unix file appear as the hard disk. >I notice that all the PC benchmarks seem to be 16 bits only. You can >see that the performance is directly related to clock speed for all >machines above a '286 (with better performance with a cache). Do any of >the Unixes out there directly support the 32-bit '386? (What my >question really is is "will I get significantly better performance from >a 386-dx than a 386-sx, if the clock speeds are similar?") Should I buy >a 386-dx? The 386 unix products use the full 32 bits. You will have much better performance from a dx than an sx. >I will probably be the only user of the system. However, getting the >2-user system seems scary. What do you give up? Is the kernel >crippled? What is to prevent one from just adding to /etc/passwd? The only thing that is crippled is that you cannot have more than two access points to the system activated at the same time. An access point will include the console (and its extra VTs), a serial tty, a network tty). You can have as many users as you wish defined in /etc/passwd. Only two of them (or one of them logged into multiple access points) will be able to access the system at the same time. >Why should I get V.4? If you are planning to use this system in a production environment where stability of the system is important, you should wait a while for SVR4 to stablize or get SVR3.2. -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Nov26.000804.20540@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >In article <28346@usc> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: >> Does X run a lot better with a co-processor? > >Yes definately. However, your choice of an OS may limit you to the >choices of graphics cards. Currently ISC supports the most cards. Did Ken mean a numeric or a graphic co-processor. I thought he meant numeric. Can anybody tell me if a '387 makes a difference with ISC 2.2 X? If yes, then some quantitative numbers would help. Are graphics co-processor cards avaliable for ISC 2.2 X on a '386? Any particular types recommended? Sorry if this is a simple question, but I've only got a Herculies for my X (sniff). -------------------- David Mason | "Strange the mind, mason@oct1.UUCP | that very fiery particle, "olsa99!oct1!mason"@ddsw1.MCS.COM | Should let itself be snuffed out ...!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!mason | by an article." Byron
grant@bluemoon.uucp (Grant DeLorean) (12/09/90)
mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) writes: > Did Ken mean a numeric or a graphic co-processor. I thought he meant > numeric. Can anybody tell me if a '387 makes a difference with ISC > 2.2 X? If yes, then some quantitative numbers would help. I can't say, I have always had one in all the machines I own. ISC claims it won't help much, as they borrowed some of X11 r4 and got rid of most of the FP intensive stuff... > Are graphics co-processor cards avaliable for ISC 2.2 X on a '386? > Any particular types recommended? Yes, many. There is the IBM 8514/a (MCA only), the Paradise 8514/a clone (ISA and MCA, and supposedly much faster than the IBM. I can't say for sure, as none of the 5 I have had would work in any of my machines) for IBM standards and then there are a wide assortment of TIGA cards. Some, like the NEC Graphics Engine, are not even listed in the ISC compatability guide (but you do have to buy the driver for it from someone else, so...). The new Hercules Graphics Station card has a driver, but you need the 2 meg option on the card (which raises dealer cost to $930, customer cost to ??) and then the driver for it will run an extra $595 from AGE. Your best bet is to get one of the cards that ISC gives you the driver for and run with it. I am probably going to a Matrox PG card since WDI/Paradise has been jerking me around with the 8514/a since mid-August... I'd rather have 1280x1024 than 1024x768 anyway, 1024x768 is feeling a little cramped just now... Grant DeLorean grant@bluemoon ...osu-cis!n8emr!bluemoon!grant ...towers!bluemoon!grant ### So just remember, if a weirdo in a blue suit comes up and offers you some DOS, just say NO! (a message from the President's War on DOS committee) ###
klm@gozer.UUCP (Kevin L. McBride) (12/15/90)
In article <1990Dec3.162251.19808@oct1.UUCP> mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) writes: >Did Ken mean a numeric or a graphic co-processor. I thought he meant >numeric. Can anybody tell me if a '387 makes a difference with ISC >2.2 X? If yes, then some quantitative numbers would help. I don't have any numbers for you but, yes, having a '387 DOES make a difference when running X on ISC UNIX. ISC's server (as most generic X11R3 servers do) relies heavily on floating point. If you're emulating every screen update, you lose. I have seen two Intel 303s running side by side; one with a '387, one without, and you could definitely tell the difference. My system is a '486 and it hums right along, even without the graphics coprocessor. >Are graphics co-processor cards avaliable for ISC 2.2 X on a '386? >Any particular types recommended? NEC has a graphics engine that has (I believe) a TI 340x0 chip on it. Drivers available for ISC from GSS. A bit pricey. You also need a pricey monitor to hook up to it. Another alternative is the Paradise 8514 card. I'm running one of these and it really helps speed up things like Motif shadow drawing, refreshing exposed areas of xterms (I'm constantly shuffling among 4 or 5 xterm windows, not to mention emacs), etc. Best thing about the 8514 is that it's pretty reasonably priced. It's not the fanciest board in town but it gives you a respectable amount of bang for the buck. I'm happy with it. >Sorry if this is a simple question, but I've only got a Herculies for my >X (sniff). Ick. That brings back horrible memories. Maybe Santa will bring you a Paradise VGA1024 with an 8514 piggyback card for Christmas. >-------------------- >David Mason >mason@oct1.UUCP -- Kevin L. McBride |Contract programming (on and offsite) |Brewmeister and President |X, Motif, TCP/IP, UNIX, VAX/VMS, |Bottle Washer MSCG, Inc. |Integration issues, Troubleshooting. |McBeer Brewery uunet!wang!gozer!klm |Reseller of ISC UNIX and Telebit Modems.|Nashua, NH
davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec3.162251.19808@oct1.UUCP> mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) writes: > >Are graphics co-processor cards avaliable for ISC 2.2 X on a '386? >Any particular types recommended? > There are a lot of 340x0 boards out there... it depends how much you want to spend and how much performance you want. If you want something at the very high end (8-plane 1280x1024 with hardware panning, ~40000 xstones in native mode) Artist Graphics and a number of other companies make 34020 boards; if you want to spend less, there are a ton of 34010 boards on the market. Several trade journals have run comparisons of various options recently; TI also publishes a list of 340x0-based products. As for OS support, again, it depends on how much performance you want. There's a company called Pittsburgh Powercomputing that has an X11R4 server that runs on a number of boards in native 34020 (and -10) mode that works transparently with clients from both Interactive and SCO. It should be available Real Soon Now. ISC also tries to make sure drivers are available for a variety of boards; these generally rely on TIGA, DGIS, or some other type of emulation on 34010 systems and get about half the performance from the same hardware. Check with ISC or the board manufacturer in question. [Disclaimer: I used to work for PPc; take the above with a grain of salt.] -- PTD -- BTW: Another big win from using a coprocessor board is that you *aren't* writing to the console video memory, which is hideously slow. And you aren't spending lots of 386 cycles on your server (SCO has Xsight default to running at nice -40!). So your clients should run a lot faster as well. -- Palmer T. Davis | davisp@scl.cwru.edu -OR- ptd2@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University | {att,sun,decvax,uunet}!cwjcc!skybridge!davisp ------------------------------------------------------+------------------------ Wake up and smell the cat food in your bank account. | Life is short.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec3.162251.19808@oct1.UUCP> mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) writes: >Did Ken mean a numeric or a graphic co-processor. I thought he meant >numeric. Can anybody tell me if a '387 makes a difference with ISC >2.2 X? If yes, then some quantitative numbers would help. I added a Cyrix 387sx to the little system I'm using to test V.4. By running a bunch of "normal" X things and looking at the CPU time used by the X process, and then repeating the process with the FPU installed, I noted that it run *five* timesfaster with FPU. Yes I know you can't believe it, measure it yourself before telling me it can't be so. With the FPU float is about 100x faster (I have the figures on that, too), from 0.026 MFLOP to 2.2MFLOP (roughly). The five to one means that with the FPU in 4-5% of the time is float ops. Now that was with X11R4, X11R3 which I believe you have is far more float intensive, so I would loook for a big jump in performance. However, if you don't have enough memory nothing will save you. A 486-25 running ODT took 25 sec to bring up an app with 4MB, 4 sec with 8MB. I didn't believe these numbers until I measured them, and I realize that a number of people who haven't measured them will try to discredit them. Tough. Taiwan board, NEAT chipset, 16MHz, Cyrix 387sx, Dell V.4. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me