Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!ari
From: ari@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ari Halberstadt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Subtantiatng my criticism (again...) [really: VM on PDP 11/70]
Summary: My experience on a Fortune 32:16 UNIX microcomputer
Message-ID: <14895@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 8 Aug 89 03:55:34 GMT
References: <13277@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Reply-To: ari@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ari Halberstadt)
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 79

Seeing as the topic of unix running on tiny machines has come up,
I thought I may as well add my own history to the pot. The following
is also one more reason I don't think the mac is so great [but it
sure is good for writing papers for college, especially when you can
use fonts to make an 8.5 page paper into a 10pg paper :=)]

I first learned unix on a Fortune 32:16 micro-computer, running
a slightly scaled down version of BSD4.2. We purchased it in
1983, but I think it had been around for a year before that.
Our first configuration was: 1 terminal, 1 dot matrix printer,
a 5meg Seagate or Rodime drive, a 700K double sided-double density
5-1/4 inch floppy disk, 500K RAM, Multiplan, FortuneWord, C, and some
basic unix tools.

The Fortune Computer used a Motorola 68000 CPU, the same as the mac.
We could run just about any number of processes without really
hurting performance too much, unless I was compiling. But what really
proved this system so good was its excellent word processor, which was
better than *any* WP available on microcomputers at the time. It is
still better than Microsoft Word, at least for version 3.1; the only
thing MS-Word beats it at is WYSIWYG for any font, but that is really
due to the macintosh's graphics screen, something that was *not*
popularly available when the Fortune computer came out. I would also like
to praise the implementation of Multiplan, which was an excellent spreadsheet.
The computer came with a very well laid out menu system which shielded the user
from UNIX, unless the person chose to enter the shell, which was very
simple to do from any location.

The interface was, of course, based on a 24x80 screen, but also included
an ergonomic keyboard with over 16 function keys, numeric keypad,
and arrow keys. Calling programs and selecting commands was done
with a menu system, where selections were made either by using
the cursor keys, entering a 'yes/no' type response, or, one could
have shortcuts, and cut out about 3 layers of menus for frequently
used commands. Both software packages we had -- Fortune Word and Multiplan --
were excelent tools for their time, and if the company had been a better
marketer, should have evolved into major products.

They both used unix tools to their fullest, splitting the word processor,
for instance, into about 10 programs; these included: mail merge,
the editor itself, spelling checker, printing program, etc. And all
this ran on a small drive and with little RAM. Eventually, we expanded,
and got a 20meg drive [wow :-)], and 256K more RAM [gee whiz...].
One problem we had had with a 5meg disk was that whenever I wanted
to program I had to removed the wordprocessor, and install C; this
was no longer necessary. We also purchased the full set of UNIX tools,
which allowed us to do some very nice automated typesetting.

Both the spreadsheet and word processor allowed splitting
the screen into several independent windows. This was facilitated by
the special terminal, which had some graphics characters. The WP
was fully programmable, with a C-like language syntax, allowing
me to implement a data-base entry system directly in
the editor! There were quite a few more good features, such as
columns and a glossary. The best feature of these programs
was the combination of a very user friendly environment with
powerful, extendable, and modular, programs.

A final note about Fortune Word: the designers of this program realized
that by using a text-only format for the files, it would allow people
to use all the standard unix utilities on them. They solved the
problem by:
	1. Splitting each file into three files: the text itself;
	statistical info, such as number of hours worked on document and by
	whom; and formatting specs, such as printing preferences, line
	spacing, etc.
	2. Embeding codes in the text, such as: \B\ to start bold,
	\b\ to end bold text; \I\ to mark a hanging indent, etc.

I have many fond memories about that computer. Unfortunately, the CEO's
of the company don't seem to have been as smart as its engineers, and the
computer has faded into the background.  Sadly, we also had serious trouble
getting adequate service for our computer [we lived overseas].
Today, just add a mouse, some fonts, and a graphical display, and I think
this system would be up there competing with the best of them.

-- Ari Halberstadt '91, "Long live succinct signatures"
E-mail: ari@eleazar.dartmouth.edu	Telephone: (603)640-5687
Mailing address: HB1128, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH 03755