Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!sonia!scleary
From: scleary@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Sean Cleary)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: UNIX on the Apple II?
Message-ID: <2166@sunset.MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 18 Jan 90 18:51:09 GMT
References: <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <11977@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: scleary@math.ucla.edu (Sean Cleary)
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Lines: 32

> Doug Gwyn writes:
>In article <113300242@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> saa33413@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>Here's my question.  UNIX was written in C.  Given this fact, one could
>>theoretically run UNIX on any computer with a C compiler.  The Apple II has
>>several C compilers.  Theoretically, you could therefore run UNIX on an Apple
>>II.  However, theory and practice are sometimes two different things.
>
>>Has anybody ever tried to run UNIX on an Apple II?
>
>A full port would be required, involving a vast amount of work
>particularly considering how awful the Apple II hardware is.
>
>My advice is to forget it.  If you want UNIX, buy a real computer.

Running UNIX on a 6502 would be a major headache with its limited address
space and relatively slow speed.  However, with a big enough coprocessor
running UNIX on an Apple II is feasible.  I have an old 12.5 MHZ 68000
co-processor board with 4Meg fast RAM for which a good implementation of
UNIX exists. (If I remember properly, it required only 512k or even
128k.)  I expect that things have changed, but at the time I last
considered getting UNIX (1984) for my Apple II the cost was ridiculous:
something more than $10000, more than the cost of my (quite suped-up)
Apple II- based system.  That was before smaller UNIX machines were
commonly available and at that time there was only the price for a 'site
license.' I don't know what happened to the company with the UNIX
implementation for my 68000 board, either.

I wouldn't call Apple II hardware 'awful'- I think terms like 'quaint,'
'fascinating,' or 'maddeningly clever' are more appropriate.

Sean Cleary
scleary@math.ucla.edu