foley@phoebus.meteor.wisc.edu (Jonathan Foley) (06/11/91)
I have never used an Amiga so please bear with me. I am using a bunch of Unix workstations at my office (Sun Sparcstations, etc.) and I would like to get something like this for my own personal use at home. I have heard that the Amiga 3000 is a pretty good computer and that it can run a flavor of Unix and X11. Is this really true? Can someone buy an Amiga with Unix and X11 already installed? How much would something like that cost - with the appropriate hardware setup? How well does something like this work? What kind of hardware is involved? What version of X11 is it? What kind of window manager does the X11 server use? Can you get Motif for the Amiga? Etc...? Any information about Amiga Unix/X11 would be most appreciated. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Foley | email: foley@meteor.wisc.edu | Center for Climatic Research and ------------------------------- Department of Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences University of Wisconsin 1225 West Dayton Street (608) 262-0794 Madison, WI 53706 - United States (608) 262-2839 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun10.212147.19177@meteor.wisc.edu> foley@meteor.wisc.edu writes:
:I have never used an Amiga so please bear with me.
That's okay, every body has to start somewhere.
:I am using a bunch of Unix workstations at my office (Sun Sparcstations,
:etc.) and I would like to get something like this for my own personal
:use at home. I have heard that the Amiga 3000 is a pretty good computer
:and that it can run a flavor of Unix and X11.
Yes, you can run Unix System V, Release 4, X Windows, OpenLook, and lots
of other goodies on a 3000UX. Byte Magazine called the 3000UX "the best
implementation of Unix SVR4 available" and said it "significantly outperformed
NexT and Macintosh computers running" their flavours of Unix. And there are
cheaper, as well!
:Is this really true? Can someone buy an Amiga with Unix and X11 already
:installed? How much would something like that cost - with the appropriate
:hardware setup? How well does something like this work? What kind of
:hardware is involved? What version of X11 is it? What kind of window
:manager does the X11 server use? Can you get Motif for the Amiga?
:Etc...?
You buy the 3000UX in a number of configurations for different prices,
I can't tell you exactly because I am up here in Canada. Check with your
local authorized Amiga dealer, and ask about the Power Up program, through
which you could save $1500 or $2000, depending on model purchased.
:Any information about Amiga Unix/X11 would be most appreciated.
:
Simply the smartest choice for a Unix workstation for the money.
--Chuck Cazabon, cazabon@hercules.cc.uregina.ca
* My Opinions Are Not My Own...Feel Free To Plagiarize bn@mndcrme.UUCP (Bo Najdrovsky) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun10.212147.19177@meteor.wisc.edu> foley@phoebus.meteor.wisc.edu (Jonathan Foley) writes: >I have never used an Amiga so please bear with me. You've missed out.. 8-) > >I am using a bunch of Unix workstations at my office (Sun Sparcstations, >etc.) and I would like to get something like this for my own personal >use at home. I have heard that the Amiga 3000 is a pretty good computer >and that it can run a flavor of Unix and X11. True... > >Is this really true? Sure is... >Can someone buy an Amiga with Unix and X11 already >installed? Plug and play... Unix along with X comes installed on the HD. > How much would something like that cost - with the appropriate >hardware setup? Our local dealer has the whole thing, with a multisync monitor for $6000. that includes: A3000UX, 1950 MultiSync, Ethernet adapter, Unix, 10 megs or RAM, 210 meg HD. > How well does something like this work? What kind of >hardware is involved? Works quite well, though the current X server is kinda slow. Byte mag compared the machine to equivalent NeXT and Mac, and concluded that the Amiga wins hands down in overall speed. > What version of X11 is it? What kind of window >manager does the X11 server use? Can you get Motif for the Amiga? >Etc...? Right now its X11R3, however it will be X11R4 as of this summer... It runs Open Look since this is the default window manager for SVR4. There is a lot of talk about porting Motif to it here on C.U.A. however, I believe that people will have to have X11R4 first.... Commodore folks are saying that it will ship with the new revision of Unix (2.0) by the middle of summer. > >Any information about Amiga Unix/X11 would be most appreciated. > Does the above qualify?? 8-) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bo Najdrovsky ...uunet!att!occrsh!mndcrme!bn | // | | | // | | "...they've got nothing to loose, they're building empire!" | \X/ AMIGA | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dj@micromuse.co.uk (D. J. Walker-Morgan) (06/13/91)
cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) writes: >In article <1991Jun10.212147.19177@meteor.wisc.edu> foley@meteor.wisc.edu writes: >:I am using a bunch of Unix workstations at my office (Sun Sparcstations, >:etc.) and I would like to get something like this for my own personal >:use at home. I have heard that the Amiga 3000 is a pretty good computer >:and that it can run a flavor of Unix and X11. >Yes, you can run Unix System V, Release 4, X Windows, OpenLook, and lots >of other goodies on a 3000UX. Byte Magazine called the 3000UX "the best >implementation of Unix SVR4 available" and said it "significantly outperformed >NexT and Macintosh computers running" their flavours of Unix. And there are >cheaper, as well! The Byte review, after my experiences with the A3000Ux has a hollow ring... The SVR4 is *NOT* as well put together as other SVR4's, the X11 seems to be based on AT&T's distribution and is X11R3... and for the money you pay for the basic machine here in the UK, you can acquire higher specification NeXTs, Macs, 486's and some SPARC systems. Basically, that Byte review was well, rubbish. The A3000UX has to be bought with a ULowell card (the A2024 monitor I don't regard as an alternative) and monitor. >:Is this really true? Can someone buy an Amiga with Unix and X11 already >:installed? How much would something like that cost - with the appropriate >:hardware setup? How well does something like this work? What kind of >:hardware is involved? What version of X11 is it? What kind of window >:manager does the X11 server use? Can you get Motif for the Amiga? >:Etc...? Goodness knows. The A3000Ux I had was a base configuration with 8Mb of memory and no video card. I had a price from Commodore of 5000 UK pounds. I coughed and spluttered and looked up SVR4 on 386/486's (Cheaper) and NeXT's (nicer for many folks, and at now you can get Motif 1.1 and X11R4 for it) and then put the A3000Ux way down my shopping list... The window manager supplied is olwm (with olwsm (session manager) and olfm (file manager))... With 2d OpenLook, they look dreadful, and with the Amiga video hardware, they fill the screen rapidly. It's X11R3 by the way. >:Any information about Amiga Unix/X11 would be most appreciated. >: >Simply the smartest choice for a Unix workstation for the money. You must use different money.... There's plenty of better Unix workstations at plenty better prices... That said, it is somehow what I expected to come from Commodore as their Unix box. Previous incarnations of Amix have appeared to be more "matched" to the machine, but that work seems to have been discarded.... I'm waiting for version 2.0 of Commodore's SVR4 to see if they fix it up a bit better.... I found it very slow, even to the point of embaressing... (I don't expect to have to go downstairs for a cup of coffee while waiting for an Xterm to come up).... >--Chuck Cazabon, cazabon@hercules.cc.uregina.ca >* My Opinions Are Not My Own...Feel Free To Plagiarize ========================================================================= dj@micromuse.co.uk | "I've seen the future, I can't afford it" - ABC | Voice +44-71-352-7774 Fax +44-71-351-7834 ---------------------+--------------------------------------------------- Non-standard Disclaimer : "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I wasn't there" -- ========================================================================= dj@micromuse.co.uk | "I've seen the future, I can't afford it" - ABC | Voice +44-71-352-7774 Fax +44-71-351-7834
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun13.132128.21224@micromuse.co.uk> dj@micromuse.co.uk (D. J. Walker-Morgan) writes: >cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) writes: >The SVR4 is *NOT* as well put together as other SVR4's, the X11 seems to >be based on AT&T's distribution and is X11R3... and for the money you pay >for the basic machine here in the UK, you can acquire higher specification >NeXTs, Macs, 486's and some SPARC systems. Well, perhaps you should consider that SVrR4 isn't yet available on NeXT, Mac, or SPARC. And most of the UNIX systems currently shipping for PClone are not SVr4, though that is available. >The A3000UX has to be bought with a ULowell card (the A2024 monitor I don't >regard as an alternative) and monitor. Have you actually used an A2024 or Moniterm? I use them daily, both at home and at work. There's no obvious difference between these and the NeXT display in practical use. If you want high resolution color, I can understand that this doesn't solve you problem, but otherwise, it's a fine display IMHO. >That said, it is somehow what I expected to come from Commodore as their >Unix box. Previous incarnations of Amix have appeared to be more "matched" >to the machine, but that work seems to have been discarded.... I don't know what that means. Real early versions, back in the days of AMIX, used Rico's window manager. But that was because there was no graphics standard for SVr3.2, and we intended that the machine do graphics things. It would be foolish to provide a standard OS, SVr4, and require posts to adopt some alien graphics standard. That's the current problem with Apple UNIX -- Apple wants UNIX ports to use the Mac graphics toolbox rather than any standard UNIX display manager. C= decided to do a modern UNIX. The difference is, UNIX people might be attracted to UNIX on the A3000. On the Mac, Mac users might get attracted to UNIX, but you're not going to have people who know UNIX attracted to AU/X. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey) (06/17/91)
Warm up the 'thrower Katie! Enter Soapbox mode: In article <1991Jun13.132128.21224@micromuse.co.uk> dj@micromuse.co.uk (D. J. Walker-Morgan) writes: >The Byte review, after my experiences with the A3000Ux has a hollow ring... >The SVR4 is *NOT* as well put together as other SVR4's, the X11 seems to >be based on AT&T's distribution and is X11R3... and for the money you pay >for the basic machine here in the UK, you can acquire higher specification >NeXTs, Macs, 486's and some SPARC systems. Basically, that Byte review >was well, rubbish. The A3000UX has to be bought with a ULowell card (the >A2024 monitor I don't regard as an alternative) and monitor. > WHERE did you see a better put together version of R4 than the Amiga in the same price class?!?! I've used every 386 version of R4 currently out and they are all WORSE than 1.1 Amiga UNIX. By the way, NO 386 R4 user edition has been released. ALL the 386 R4's I've seen are DEVELOPER releases and for good reason, a normal user wouldn't stand a chance in hell getting them to work right. 1.1 UNIX took 15 minutes from the boxes being dropped on the floor of my cube till it was set up and running full networking, mail, remote news and compiling the PD apps I had waiting for it. The closest a 386 version has come is 5 hours with knowledge of how R4 and its predicessors, BSD and R3, are put together. NO WAY is there an easier system to set up in a UNIX networking environment. I've personally set up or help set up Suns, NeXT's, IBM RT & 6000's, DECstations, VAXstations, Multiprocessor UNIX and VMS. NOWHERE have I seen a system go in as fast as my 3000, especially a system that doesn't match ANY of the systems currently on the network. The only prep I had to do was assign a name and IP address for the box and get a thinnet cable for it. I would call 1.1 a stable Developers release and 2.0 a user release which should be available MONTHS before any Intel R4. For every major and minor problem on 1.1 I can point to multiple problems on 4.0.2+ on 386 platforms. Hell, the symbolic debuggers on some Intel R4's don't even work properly. I got news for you bub, except for Dell, who I hear borrowed heavily from Mr. Roell's PD version of X11, R4's ALL use the AT&T R3 X and Open Look code. The REAL fun is that the code didn't even work on non-AT&T equipment. C= had to develop X11R4 without the benifit of 9 months of PD porting already done for them... NexT, Mac and SPARC are NOT R4's and so any comparison between them and R4 is irrelevant because they are different, albeit similar, OS's. I concede the price point. UX's are too expensive. To be REALLY competitive a UXD, 8M/200M/ether/1950/SCSI-tape, should be priced in the low $7k range LIST. If C= marketed for high volume/ low price then this is what we'd be paying. You can get a 33Mhz 386 based R4 system for < $7k. I leave the details as an exercise to the reader... The shrude buyer might even be able to get a 486 EISA system for around $7500.00, I came close but had to cheat with discounts given by one of the distributors used at work... The end point here is that UX's cost to much for the limited amount of software that is out there. Now, if they ran 123, a trendy database and Word Perfect the current asking price might be more in line... >Goodness knows. The A3000Ux I had was a base configuration with 8Mb of >memory and no video card. I had a price from Commodore of 5000 UK pounds. >I coughed and spluttered and looked up SVR4 on 386/486's (Cheaper) and >NeXT's (nicer for many folks, and at now you can get Motif 1.1 and X11R4 for >it) and then put the A3000Ux way down my shopping list... > WHERE did you find an Amiga WITHOUT a builtin video system? It WASN'T an Amiga if you did. As I mentioned above, 386/486 R4 is still shakey and hostile toward an end user. 1.1 Amiga UNIX just works for an end user although you have to compile the apps you want to use on it. By the way, HOW MUCH do you pay for the Motif and X11R4 on the NeXT? I KNOW NeXT doesn't provide them; "X is braindead" - quote from you know who... >>Simply the smartest choice for a Unix workstation for the money. >You must use different money.... There's plenty of better Unix workstations >at plenty better prices... > YUP! I use American dollars. As far as better workstations that depends on how you define better. 1) 386/486 - Lot's of hardware that doesn't work with other hardware and a developer's version of R4 that's MUCH worse than 1.1 UNIX and WAAAAAY worse than 2.0 UNIX will be. Cheeper, but, You get what you pay for in many ways. 2) Sun - Add up ALL the costs for a non-University person and add in the maintainance contract 'cause Sun hardware, especially monitors, aren't as reliable as Sun would like us to think. YOW! Those apps are a tad pricy... 3) Mac - A/UX? Get real. This is the most pathetic excuse, 2.0, for a UNIX that I have seen in my life. Hardware is even pricer than Amiga! You can run all that Mac software though. 4) NeXT - Hmmm, B&W NeXTStep and Mach. Lot's of fun porting involved with NeXT OS. All sorts of gottchas. Not as easy as R4. Add more for color hardware, then more for X11 and Motif/OL. Not QUITE as cheep as one would believe, unless you're a University type, but that's cheating as far as I'm concerned. Hmmm, Mr. slab doesn't appear to be quite as expandable as I thought either. Gee, all these certainly DO look "better" don't they?! They also leave me flat out of luck if I want to run some of the useful AmigaDOS software I already have. If C= gets off it's keister and has Soft-PC ported then I can run my PeeWee stuff too. >That said, it is somehow what I expected to come from Commodore as their >Unix box. Previous incarnations of Amix have appeared to be more "matched" >to the machine, but that work seems to have been discarded.... > Out with the old, in with the new I say. I'd rather have R4 than R3 UNIX. I think you'll find 2.0 UNIX a much better fit than 1.1. >I'm waiting for version 2.0 of Commodore's SVR4 to see if they fix it >up a bit better.... I found it very slow, even to the point of embaressing... >(I don't expect to have to go downstairs for a cup of coffee while >waiting for an Xterm to come up).... > SLOW?! Try a 25Mhz 386 with cache running 4.0.2, X and some useful work! THAT'S slow! I know, my workstation at work is a 25Mhz 386 4.0.2+ system running Roell's faster X and my UXD at home is ALOT faster. I've tuned the bejezus out of the R4 at work and still can't get it to run faster than my UXD. I've got 9M of 32 bit cached memory in the Compaq and a 18ms drive so I'd say the hardware is pretty even. From what I've heard from the Virginia guys, 2.0 alpha was faster than 1.1 and there was a sound device too. X11R4 will be in 2.0 and THAT should fix the X problems along with having a leaner window manager like twm. (twm can be fetched from MIT sources if C= doesn't provide it) To summarize this response: 1) ALL the costs, $$$ and time, have to be added up. The Intel boxes at work are a big pain in the keister on a continuing basis. Mac, Sun and NeXT have their costs and disadvantages when you look at EVERYTHING and not just sales liturature. R4 isn't as mature as the other OS's. Intel R4 is only now getting a stable DEVELOPERS version. Amiga UNIX will have a stable end user version of R4 in 2 or less months if you believe C= RSN stuff, even if it slips Amiga UNIX will have a user friendly version of R4 long before 386 R4. 2) The UX's have two main problems: C= marketing and C= sales. Pricing is out of line for what you get by ~1.9k. The UX line is application starved, it NEEDS Soft-PC, 123, DataBase and Word Perfect in order to sell units. Technical superiority won't do it. C= HAS to provide these apps if they want to stay in the UNIX biz, NeXT and 386/486 will wipe them out if they don't. I hope the C= tech guys will point this out to sales and marketing if they haven't already. Why do I have an Amiga UXD instead of a 486 system, which I could have gotten for less, or a NeXT, which would have cost a bit more, or a Sun IPC which would have cost ALOT more? 1) I wanted a machine whose hardware was built from the ground up for MultiMedia purposes. The NeXT sorta has this but it's running a goofy OS that I personally don't like. I worked with a cube for quite a while in school and even ran a PD X on it. 2) I wanted System V Release 4 and a Motorola based arch. I HATE Intel braindead architecture with a passion. R4's on the Intel arch. are still ALOT worse than Amiga UNIX. 3) I've wanted an Amiga since I saw the August 1985 issue of BYTE. Amiga + UNIX finally made it irresistable. The rumor mill seems to indicate that 2.0 WILL fix most of the glaring and annoying problems of 1.1 and add useful functionality. I think I bought the right hardware, now I'll just have to be a little patient till C= catches up with the software that pushes the machine to its limits. I see a 3000UX sitting at a tradeshow taunting it's rivals by speaking in multiple languages, playing stereo music and awesome 2410 graphics all AT THE SAME TIME, under UNIX and NOT loading the UX down heavily. I see this happening in < a year. There also could be CD-ROM applications too. The hardware exists, the software has to be worked on. I don't see any other system doing ALL of this, at the same time, under UNIX within the next year. End of soapbox. -Rob
cates504@pirates.armstrong.edu (06/17/91)
Your UK price of 5000 pounds is way out league. That same 8 mb. box can be had here in the US for just under $4000, I believe. C-Amiga, and other, hardware has, I seem to gather, always been overpriced in the UK. Not that this is surprising, but it does not correspondingly mean that those are the prices you would expect US buyers to pay. Are they offering the "Power-Up" program in the UK? If so then the prices should have dropped considerably. Jim
dj@micromuse.co.uk (D.J.Walker-Morgan) (06/17/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Jun13.132128.21224@micromuse.co.uk> dj@micromuse.co.uk (D. J. Walker-Morgan) writes: >>cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) writes: >>The SVR4 is *NOT* as well put together as other SVR4's, the X11 seems to >>be based on AT&T's distribution and is X11R3... and for the money you pay >>for the basic machine here in the UK, you can acquire higher specification >>NeXTs, Macs, 486's and some SPARC systems. >Well, perhaps you should consider that SVrR4 isn't yet available on NeXT, Mac, >or SPARC. And most of the UNIX systems currently shipping for PClone are not >SVr4, though that is available. Well, I've been living with 386 SVR4's for a while now, from a number of vendors (AT&T, Intel, UHC, Dell... all commercially availble SVR4's) There's nothing an SVr4 user misses under SunOS 4.1..... >>The A3000UX has to be bought with a ULowell card (the A2024 monitor I don't >>regard as an alternative) and monitor. >Have you actually used an A2024 or Moniterm? I use them daily, both at home >and at work. There's no obvious difference between these and the NeXT display >in practical use. If you want high resolution color, I can understand that >this doesn't solve you problem, but otherwise, it's a fine display IMHO. I have no doubt it's a fine display, but I don't buy a fine color computer like the Amiga, and run a large mono screen on it. >>That said, it is somehow what I expected to come from Commodore as their >>Unix box. Previous incarnations of Amix have appeared to be more "matched" >>to the machine, but that work seems to have been discarded.... >I don't know what that means. Real early versions, back in the days of AMIX, >used Rico's window manager. But that was because there was no graphics >standard for SVr3.2, and we intended that the machine do graphics things. >It would be foolish to provide a standard OS, SVr4, and require posts to adopt >some alien graphics standard. That's the current problem with Apple UNIX -- >Apple wants UNIX ports to use the Mac graphics toolbox rather than any standard >UNIX display manager. C= decided to do a modern UNIX. The difference is, >UNIX people might be attracted to UNIX on the A3000. On the Mac, Mac users >might get attracted to UNIX, but you're not going to have people who know UNIX >attracted to AU/X. Yes, but the supplied X server could make an effort to use the Amiga chippery rather than work in mono. Like I said, I'm waiting for 2.0 Amiga Unix, because I hear you guys are working on the server to get it's smarts up a bit. I'm a Unix person, born and bred, and I found the A3000UX disappointing. I don't like the Mac A/UX much for the reasons you mention, but at least you don't feel that you are only getting 10% of what the video hardware is capable of. BTW, are Commodore looking at adding Motif to the SVR4 as standard... >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M. ========================================================================= dj@micromuse.co.uk | "I've seen the future, I can't afford it" - ABC | Voice +44-71-352-7774 Fax +44-71-351-7834 ---------------------+--------------------------------------------------- Non-standard Disclaimer : "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I wasn't there" -- ========================================================================= dj@micromuse.co.uk | "I've seen the future, I can't afford it" - ABC | Voice +44-71-352-7774 Fax +44-71-351-7834
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/21/91)
In article <dj.677145389@micromuse> dj@micromuse.co.uk (D.J.Walker-Morgan) writes: > Well, I've been living with 386 SVR4's for a while now, from a number of > vendors (AT&T, Intel, UHC, Dell... all commercially availble SVR4's) > There's nothing an SVr4 user misses under SunOS 4.1..... Well, I don't know about as a *user*, in terms of bells and whistles, but as a system administrator SunOS/BSD hasn't changed in any good way since V7: all the old kludges are there, with the simplistic configuration model (you edit makefiles) only further degraded by the additional functionality that has to be supported. Even as long ago as System III, the AT&T branch of UNIX has been heavily modified to make the basic tasks of system administration easier. I haven't seen SVR4, but R3 and R3.2 are wonderful. For the first time I can confidently add devices and tune the kernel without having to use scratch paper to track devices and parameters. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"