Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!amdahl!nzm10
From: nzm10@amdahl.UUCP (Neal Macklin)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: UNIX* on IBM machines running VM
Message-ID: <1870@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 21:31:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1870
Posted: Fri Aug  2 21:31:19 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 10:29:44 EDT
References: <1960@sunybcs.UUCP> <759@utcs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 29

> The Amdahl (note spelling) port IS the AT&T System V-VM under
> a new name. Same product, same performance, same completeness.
>                           .......
> A more interesting comparison would be between the Amdahl/AT&T
> port and the IBM port, `IX-370'. Among the salient differences,
> the Amdahl one supports IBM 3270 terminals, while the IBM one
> does not! However, the Amdahl one is not supported on IBM 3705
> front-end processors, since Amdahl doesn't own one to test it on.
> 

Well, almost true.  Amdahl's Unix (UTS) *does* support the 3705, as well
as the 4705, our own faster model.  And we do own several 3705s.  It's
IBM's IX/370 that doesn't run on 3705s (or 3725s....or 3270s...)

>
> Anybody have a full, reasonably unbiased comparison between
> the two commercially-available ports (there are others, such
> as one done for a heavily-modified TSS, that are not really
> available outside certain parts of AT&T)?

BTW, the IBM IX/370 product *IS* the TSS/UNIX port that was done at AT&T.
AT&T is marketing the Amdahl port because it is a straight Unix port
and not a layered kluge like IX.
-- 
				Neal Macklin
				(408) 737-5214
				...{hplabs,ihnp4}!amdahl!nzm10

              [There are no opinions expressed in this article].