#Review in Unix World
33 messages in this thread
We've got a bazillion mags around my place (IDG affiliate) and while
looking for something else, I came across the 3000UX review in Unix World
(Dec. '91).
Although he did have a couple favourable comments, the author didn't think
much of it at all. And here I thought this was considered a hot box.
Does anybody else who saw that review have any comments?
Malcolm
I also saw the review. If this is the same one I remember, they compared
it to two '040 systems, which is completely unfair.
Bob
Bob,
I believe he didn't think '040s were up to the task! I'll grab the mag and
get some quotes.
Malcolm
I saw that review. I agree with its conclusions for the most part. I think
it was a review of an earlier version and that there have been some
improvements since then. I got an A3000UX-100 for evaluation last year and
was not all that impressed with the performance. The X-window was really
slow but it might have been swapping like mad as there was only 5meg on
the machine. I don't think C= has been putting much effort into UNIX since
the initial port. Too bad as an A4000 with the AGA chipset aand 68040
would be a very nice X-terminal/workstation and could have a competitive
price.
Goin' AP,6
…..Mark Sterling6
Last I header, Unix would not run on the 68040, because
the USL "base" was made for the 68020 and uses
addressing modes not supported by the 68040.
So … as far as I know, you can't run unix on an Amiga 4000
with a 68040. Does anyone know different?
-Jay Pedersen
Jay,
That is news to me but I have not heard anything, up until now, saying one
way or the other.
Goin' AP,6
…..Mark Sterling6
Re: Unix on A4000/40
He is correct, the Amiga Unix implementation won't run on 68040. It has
been running on 68030 A2000 machines I was told (haven't seen one). It
might interest someone that the A1200 is a 68020 14Mhz AGA machine, and I
wonder if one couldn't slap 4mb and a 100mb IDE drive in it and run the
original package on it? Talk about a low cost Unix station! Then there is
the PCMCIA 386sx board for the 1200 and Linux to consider too. If I ever
get my hands on one I will let you know.
Tom,
You would need a MMU for Unix to run on any Amiga and the 1200 does not
have one. Maybe it could be added. PCMCIA 386sx for the 1200? Who makes
that?
Goin' AP6
…..Mark Sterling6
Tom,
Who makes the PCMCIA 386 card? And what is Linux?
Malcolm
Malcolm:
I don't know about the PCMCIA 386 card, but I can tell you a little about
Linux. It's a freeware Unix clone written for 386 or better systems.
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Thanks, Mike.
Malcolm
Malcolm;
Linux is a public domain Unix OS project. There are a couple of
"versions" for the PC and supposedly there is one being developed for the
Amiga. The kernal is written from "scratch" and contains no copyrighted
code. Some of the PC Linix systems are actually used for production work
but the system is not anywhere near as stable as say System V R4. You
expect a Unix system to stay up without crashes for months or years (esp.
if development work is not done on the system).
-bill
Interesting. Thanks, Bill.
Malcolm
If you could refer to the message I wrote Mark Sterling it will save
repeating it, please. I think it means Commodore will have their name on
it, probably. It is a 386SX, which does not have a MMU, so Unix may not be
able to run on it if that is required as Mark says. I have heard that
also, but I know Unix (some versions) ran on pre-MMU machines too.
My personal option is going to be the "yet to be shipped" A4000/30 machine
and there are sure to be 486 and 586 modules to plug into it's other slots
before long. Which brings us to Linux.
Linux is a popular public domain "Unix like" implementation. I like it
because it is free and because most of the tools are too, and I really
don't have time to do much with unix anymore, just keeping my hand in for
boring crass commercial reasons, you know? Oh well.
OK, thanks for the info, Tom.
Malcolm
Tom;
May be a somewhat mute point but Unix look alikes ran on pre-MMU PC
machines, not Unix itself.
Happy Holidays
-bill
Bill:
Remember, Unix can be run on a 68000 without an MMU, it just emulates it
in software. (but doesn't do as nice a job of course!)
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
I quickly demure to your opinion on this Bill, since I am a new student
of Unix and know very little of it's early days. I seem to remember Xenix
running on old 8080 based Heath-Kit computers, but I guess you are saying
that Xenix is not true Unix as "from AT&T" (or now from that network
company, NOVELL, that bought the UNIX Labs part of AT&T I hear.) Oh Well,
now we have to get used to Novell Unix. What the heck, it was concieved on
an old GE/Honeywell Multics machine I read (thus the name Unix, as in
single user Multics they said), so anyone can play.
Merry Christmas to you
Tom Jones
Tom;
Sounds to me like you know some of the lore anyway 🙂
And yes, Xenix and the like are not Unix (though one can certainly learn a
lot about Unix running such things).
Happy Holidays to you and yours,
-bill
No MMU == no UNIX.
no FPU == no UNIX.
{@_@}
Joanne:
If that's true "No MMU == no Unix, No FPU == no Unix" then how did Altos
do it with their 68000 only machines? I was told that Unix has the
capability to emulate either an FPU or MMU in the absence of them. Is this
untrue?
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike;
>…Unix has the capability to emulate either an FPU or MMU ….
Unix doesn't have the ability to do that but one could patch the boot code
and kernal to provide the capability I suppose. However, "the Unix
community" does not consider anything running on a machine without an MMU
to be Unix.
-bill
I suspect it would have more to do with the differences between the '030
and '040 MMU, because UNIX depends on the MMU pretty heavily.
– dan
I believe Unix was first written on DEC PDP-7,
precursor to the PDP-11, which was the precursor to the
VAX-11. This was done starting back in 1969.
Footnote: Bell System Technical Journal, July-August 1978,
Vol 57, No 6, Part 2. ISSN0005-8580
I did hear the same rumor that the name Unix was
a takeoff of Multics.
-Jay Pedersen
Jay;
And the original name was Unics.
-bill
Bill:
Yes, and it was short for 'Castrated Multics'
🙂
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike;
Now that is one that I hadn't heard!
-bill
Bill:
My brother works for MIT as their network manager, and is one of the last
of the Multics gurus left. (or at least one of the few that will admit to
knowing Multics!). Multics was a product of Honeywell at the time of it's
demise, and that was due to a screwup at Honeywell, where a rumor got
leaked to the folks working on the Multics project that Honeywell was
gonna cancel it, and fire all the folks working on it, so they all
basically left seeking other employment, efectively killing Multics, so
Honeywell had to cancel the project (even if they hadn't really planned to
in the first place)! MIT had the last up and running Multics machine, and
that went down about 2 or so years ago as I recall. (I used to have an
account on it too)
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike;
On that basis, it is safe to assume that Multics probably was the best OS
around at the time 🙂
-bill
I know that of 1989 at least, they were running Multics at the Pentagon and
didn't have a strong desire to replace it. It seems that it is one of the
few B-2 certified systems in existance. It is actually quite a nice
operating system to program with. The people who put it together really
thought about a few of the things. What is really nice is the ability to
add or remove memory, CPUs, and disks from the system WHILE it is running.
That's probably because certification is such a bear. 🙂 Luckily, the
NCSC is working on streamlining the process.
Steve
I heard that the 'uni' portion of the name came from the name of the bus
on the DEC machines of that era "Unibus".