wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) (08/31/90)
In article <2950@anasaz.UUCP> chad@anasaz.UUCP (Chad R. Larson) writes: }In article <152@grumbly.UUCP> root@grumbly.UUCP (rb duc) writes: }+--------------- }| Microport is shipping v4.0 *right now* and has been for *over a month*. }| I wouldn't count out a v3.2 either. }+--------------- }I talked to them yesterday. They ("Brian") said there would be an }upgrade to SysVr3.2 for the 286 in the future, as the overseas market }(which is a big one for their 286 port) wants that more than SysVr4. }They have been shipping Release 4.0 for the 386 and 486 for about a }month (non-beta versions) and have shipped over 200 copies. They are }also shipping SysVr3 for the 386. It would be REALLY USEFUL if someone OFFICIAL from MICROPORT could comment on all this, posting from "uport" so we know it's from the horse's mouth. We've had randy@rls say there will be no 386/3.2, chad@anasaz quoting Brian@Microport as saying there will be a 286/3.2, etc. If Microport does not want to produce a 386/3.2 product, and if AT&T will not allow a discounted upgrade path from V.3 to V.4, they could at least make a bulk purchase of AT&T, Intel or ESIX 3.2 and offer that at a nominal price as an update to their old 3.0e customers. If they are not going to offer any kind of update/upgrade path for owners of their 386/3.0e product, then I personally think that we should all forget about doing business with them. With the exception of a few employees like John Plocher and John Sully, the "old" Microport has never done very much to develop or even retain customer loyalty, and it sounds like the "new" Microport is no better. -- Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET * * * * Kurt Waldheim for President (of Mars, of course!) * * * *
randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) (09/02/90)
In article <863@iiasa.UUCP>, wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) writes: > It would be REALLY USEFUL if someone OFFICIAL from MICROPORT could > comment on all this, posting from "uport" so we know it's from the > horse's mouth. Agreed. > We've had randy@rls say there will be no 386/3.2, chad@anasaz quoting > Brian@Microport as saying there will be a 286/3.2, etc. My comments were based on information I received from Peter Tostado, the sales manager at Microport. I'm not pretending to represent their views but just my understanding to contribute to uor mutual growth. Additionally, all I care to refer to is the 386 product in this news group. Ah, I see somebody has generously crossposted to the unix pc universe. > If they are not going to offer any kind of update/upgrade path for > owners of their 386/3.0e product, then I personally think that we > should all forget about doing business with them. Forgive my ignorance, and please explain the benefits of an "upgrade path" when 4.0 will deliver all that 3.2 has and more. If its price you're worried about, my guess is it should be announced when the "official" release comes out. Just curious. Cheers! - randy Usenet: randy@rls.uucp Bangpath: ...<backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu %CC-I-ANACRONISM, The operator is an obsolete form and may not be portable.
rduc@uport.UUCP (Richard Ducoty) (09/02/90)
randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) writes: >In article <863@iiasa.UUCP>, wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) writes: >> It would be REALLY USEFUL if someone OFFICIAL from MICROPORT could >> comment on all this, posting from "uport" so we know it's from the >> horse's mouth. >Agreed. I'll try to answer some of these questions, I work at Microport - but I don't determine policy or products. >> We've had randy@rls say there will be no 386/3.2, chad@anasaz quoting >> Brian@Microport as saying there will be a 286/3.2, etc. There is a good possibility of a 386/3.2.2 upgrade and *upgrade path* as for a 286/3.2 ??? not that I know of. You must understand companies don't like to tell the world their game plan. Most companies wouldn't even tell you this much. So until product announcements are actually made - *all* of this is just speculation - and anyone who tries to tell you different is just guessing. >> If they are not going to offer any kind of update/upgrade path for >> owners of their 386/3.0e product, then I personally think that we >> should all forget about doing business with them. Where did you get the idea we wouldn't offer an upgrade path from 3.0 -> 3.2 if 3.2 becomes available? >Forgive my ignorance, and please explain the benefits of an "upgrade path" >when 4.0 will deliver all that 3.2 has and more. If its price you're >worried about, my guess is it should be announced when the "official" >release comes out. Just curious. Some people might not need all the power of 4.0 - version 3.x can still do a lot and it isn't a large as 4.0. If a person were upgrading from 3.0 he could go to 3.2 for less money than 4.0. Richard Ducoty Microport Inc. -- Richard Ducoty Microport uunet!{amdahl,amdcad}!netcom!uport!rduc Scotts Valley, CA claris!netcom!uport!rduc 408 438-8649
mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) (09/03/90)
In article <1737@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: [stuff indicating mild disappointment with Microport deleted :-)] >I'll grumble and growl about ISC and AT&T but I'll stick with them because >their products work. There are quirks and thinks that annoy, but they >don't hurt you. I screamed and howled about Microport because they hurt >you and laugh about it. Our '286 uPort systems have mean time between reboots of more than 60 days. When we got 'em out of the box from uPort that wasn't the case. uPort provided support as they were able, the gracious, kind, and generous dwellers of the net provided even more. uPort never laughed. For one used to source distribution environments in Unix(tm), the binary distribuition environment is a royal pain in the tail. When a person is reduced to violation of the license agreement (by disassmbling object code) to fix a bug, that stinks. I would lay blame on human frailty, but what good would it do? Goodness, if people had source, why they'd steal it or copy it or break it and still ask for support. Or not, but not having source really makes it a chore to fix problems. Forty-two curses on the marketing, legal, and management dweebs who came up with the idea of limited-use binary licenses, and on the techie dweebs who implemented the practice. BTW, anyone who has called any tech support facility with a non-trivial question knows what kind of support can be expected. It doesn't matter which company (3-letter, 4-letter, who cares) they all perform or mostly fail to perform about the same. I like the ploy of a one-operator 800 service with a constantly busy response. -- Mike Murphy Sceard Systems, Inc. 544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA 92069 mrm@Sceard.COM {hp-sdd,nosc,ucsd,uunet}!sceard!mrm +1 619 471 0655
tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) (09/04/90)
In <1737@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >In 1988 my article described >the Microport effort "I would not dignify it by calling it excrement". >The software was lousy, support non-existant, and documentation print >quality very poor (there was even an apology for that enclosed). ... >The happiest I ever was with V/386 was when the UPS driver carried >it away, I'd hide and lock the doors if I thought he might bring me another >Microport effort... Caveat emptor isn't enough, you have to push it >through banner first onto billboard size paper. and much else in similar tone. This is ridiculously unfair. I've been running Microport Unix V/386 for a couple of years now, and feel it's a pretty good product -- certainly for the price. It's not the best Unix I've seen, but it's not the worst either. Support was a bit laughable, I agree, but I didn't really expect more. (I will always remember the classic reply I got from US support, 'I guess what you've got there is some sort of hardware fault, or it may be a software bug,' in a very slow drawl. Microport is the nearest I've seen to a really cheap home Unix system. (I've heard BSD/386 is on the way, with AT&T code cut out, so maybe that will be the answer.) -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) (09/04/90)
In article <341@uport.UUCP> rduc@uport.UUCP (Richard Ducoty) writes:
)There is a good possibility of a 386/3.2.2 upgrade and *upgrade path*
)as for a 286/3.2 ??? not that I know of. You must understand companies
)don't like to tell the world their game plan. Most companies wouldn't
)even tell you this much. So until product announcements are actually
)made - *all* of this is just speculation - and anyone who tries to tell
)you different is just guessing.
I realize this. But in light of the way the "old" Microport went out
-- amid a **LOT** of customer dissatisfaction -- it seems to me that
you could recover a lot of good-will from past customers by making
some announcement to your old users of what your plans are for
regaining their loyalty. If you don't attempt to regain their loyalty,
they could really hamper your effort to develop new customers.
)>> If they are not going to offer any kind of update/upgrade path for
)>> owners of their 386/3.0e product, then I personally think that we
)>> should all forget about doing business with them.
)
)Where did you get the idea we wouldn't offer an upgrade path from
)3.0 -> 3.2 if 3.2 becomes available?
I didn't mean to say that you wouldn't do this if you had a 3.2; there
seemed to be doubt from people who sounded like they knew what they
were talking about whether you would even produce a 3.2. I think you
owe it to customers of the 3.0e product to produce and offer 3.2
at reasonable terms.
)>Forgive my ignorance, and please explain the benefits of an "upgrade path"
)>when 4.0 will deliver all that 3.2 has and more. If its price you're
)>worried about, my guess is it should be announced when the "official"
)>release comes out. Just curious.
It is my understanding that AT&T might make it difficult for vendors
like Microport, SCO etc. to offer a 3.x -> 4.x upgrade path. They seem
to consider it a new product rather than a new release of an old one.
I am not expecting Microport to do more than other vendors -- but
all others offered 3.2 updates.
)Some people might not need all the power of 4.0 - version 3.x can still
)do a lot and it isn't a large as 4.0. If a person were upgrading from
)3.0 he could go to 3.2 for less money than 4.0.
Right, and for a personal system that might be all one needs,
especially if a 3.2 had such things as "#!/bin/sh" recognition, like
ISC's latest, and networking stuff like NFS.
--
Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
* * * * Kurt Waldheim for President (of Mars, of course!) * * * *wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) (09/04/90)
In article <1737@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: )... Do you believe that they went through all of )the bug reports and fixed everything? If so, then why no 3.2? Do you )believe that they just picked up the buggy code and plastered it over the )Vr4 port? Such a deal! Actually, I think they would just take the Vr4 source code from AT&T and work from there; I don't think that the old 3.x code needs to enter into the picture. >I'll try to be fair and wait to see if the leopard has changed it's spots. >I'll not accuse the new crew of perpetuating the ethics and attitudes >that killed the first Microport and maimed its customers. You'll have a But that's why I feel that an announcement to 3.0e customers about their new policies and an offer of a 3.2 update would be so important. It would be an indication of a leopard with changed spots. > The happiest I ever was with V/386 was when the UPS driver carried >it away I won't comment on that, Bill :-) -- Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET * * * * Kurt Waldheim for President (of Mars, of course!) * * * *
wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) (09/05/90)
In article <1990Sep3.211648.7721@maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes: >In <1737@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: > > (Bill's comments on Microport deleted -- suffice it to say that > they were not very complimentary. -wnp) > >This is ridiculously unfair. >I've been running Microport Unix V/386 for a couple of years now, >and feel it's a pretty good product -- certainly for the price. >It's not the best Unix I've seen, but it's not the worst either. > ... >Microport is the nearest I've seen to a really cheap home Unix system. But that is exactly where the problem lies: Bill does not use UNIX as a cheap home system, but to conduct a business, which makes reliability and expert support somewhat more crucial. And Microport did not advertise their products as "cheap home systems." I have used Microport's 286 product for five years to run a typesetting operation in six different languages, and have used their 386 product as a home system, and have been reasonably satisfied; but then I didn't use the standard PC com ports, but an intelligent six-port card with third-party drivers, and I didn't do much software development: it was in these two areas that the 286 product stank most: serial drivers, and the C compiler. The serial port problem continued right on into the 386 product. If I had had to rely on either of these, I might share Bill's opinion. -- Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET * * * * Kurt Waldheim for President (of Mars, of course!) * * * *
dar@max.intel.com (dar) (09/13/90)
... following up some comments by Bill Kennedy on Microport, in particular, that he would avoid SVR4 from Microport because they "no doubt would plaster their old buggy code all over it", or comments to that effect. Having lived some of the experiences that Bill describes, I sympathize with his views and won't challenge them. But, there is a technical difference with UNIX System V Release 4.0 (5.4) that would allow Microport or anybody else to totally change state into 5.4 space. 5.4 is by far the most complete "binary" UNIX from AT&T/Intel/etc to date. Earlier releases, notably the 3.0 with which Microport started, required the vendor to create AT device drivers and otherwise write and debug a *lot* of code. Not nearly as much, of course, as in the *real* old days when one had to port a compiler, etc, but still, a lot of critical code. These days, any source/sublicencing licensee of AT&T's for 5.4 can take the source release, say "makeunix" and have a true, complete binary release with all the latest commercial features contributed by people like Interactive, Microsoft, SUN, Intel, and so on. 5.4 even supports a wide variety of commercial devices, disk controllers, video cards, etc, etc, and it comes with *by far* the best documentation ever created for a binary UNIX release. Better still, 5.4 has been throroughly debugged by a team of major-league systems companies, ISVs, UNIX distributors, and so on for over a year. The latest, so-called "Developers" release issued by AT&T in my view is much, much more stable and higher quality than the usual "production" releases from other companies. I'm not here to defend Microport, since I don't know anything about the "new" venture, it's people or products, but I do want to point out that they and any other distributor now have a very high quality option to distribute 5.4. If anything, if they are in fact distributing 5.4 the sheer logistics of doing anything other than reprinting the AT&T release would argue in favor of their product having the AT&T/Intel quality intact. Does anyone have any actual experience with the Microport or UNIX House distributions of 5.4? - Dimitri Rotow