Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!ulysses!atti07!althea!eddjp
From: eddjp@althea.UUCP (Dewey Paciaffi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: BEYOND DOS ? WHAT NEXT !
Message-ID: <413@althea.UUCP>
Date: 5 Nov 89 01:38:18 GMT
References: <13110@s.ms.uky.edu>
Reply-To: eddjp@althea.UUCP (Dewey Paciaffi)
Organization: Shakedown St. Public Access Unix - New Brunswick, NJ
Lines: 24

In article <13110@s.ms.uky.edu> munish@ms.uky.edu (Munish Mehra) writes:
>Here are my experiences with alternate PC operating systems.
>I would like people to respond with their opinions and experiences.
>
>I recently installed Unix (Microport) on a 20 MHz (Non Caching) Compaq
>386 portable. It has a 100 MB 28 ms HardDisk and 3 MB of 80 ns RAM.
>It was ridiculously SLOW. ls takes 5 to 10 seconds. hello world in C
>took over half a minute to compile (without errors), on introducing an
>error it took around a minute before giving the error message.

Sounds like you need some better UNIX. I just compiled helloworld.c in 10  
seconds, and my ls comes back immediately, on a 16Mhz 386 SX, 2 MB memory
and a 71 MB MFM disc, using SCO Xenix, 2.3.1.

I've benchmarked DOS on 286 and 386 machines against my Compaq 386/20
with a ESDI drive running Xenix, and the DOS performance is so pitiful
that I'd laugh if some of my buddies weren't trying to develop software
on those beasts.

Try some other UNIX combinations. You might find one you like :-).

Dewey Paciaffi

I don't even work for my boss, let alone anyone I mentioned above.