Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!uwvax!daffy!cat9.cs.wisc.edu!schaut
From: schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix
Message-ID: <4549@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 90 03:34:10 GMT
References: <90070.221543GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <18131@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <1990Mar16.222205.9749@comm.WANG.COM> <4512@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <8563@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@daffy.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 20

In article <8563@pt.cs.cmu.edu> ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) writes:
| In article <4512@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> schaut@cat9.cs.wisc.edu (Rick Schaut) writes:
| }Neither the AT&T nor
| }the Berkely flavors of UNIX can handle tightly-coupled multi-processors.
| 
| Well, consider how old BSD 4.3 is....  Mach has shared memory, handles 
| tightly-coupled multi-processors (CMU has it running on pMax and MultiMax
| systems), and lots of other goodies.  A 386 port is in progress; a Macintosh
| port has been running for a while.

You're correct.  I should have said that neither AT&T nor Berkely UNIX can
make full use of tightly coupled multi-processors without some non-standard
extensions.  Yes, you _can_ run UNIX on such a system, but it isn't as
efficient as an OS that has multi-threading.

--
Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)
"Your degree in Economics is not necessarily an aide to finding gainfull
emplyoment, but at least it helps you understand why you're unemployed"
	--Samuel Bates