Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 (Fortune 01.1b1); site graffiti.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!shell!graffiti!peter From: peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Re: Re: Info on OS9 Operating System Message-ID: <299@graffiti.UUCP> Date: Sun, 13-Oct-85 11:34:07 EDT Article-I.D.: graffiti.299 Posted: Sun Oct 13 11:34:07 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 06:31:44 EDT References: <347@wlbr.UUCP> <9500001@datacube.UUCP> <126@mcrware.UUCP> <275@graffiti.UUCP> <837@lsuc.UUCP> Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX Lines: 113 > In article <275@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >> hardware but on the lower end (under $5000). Any system that is capable > > Actually, as I think I've said, OS-9 has advantages over real > Unix well above the $5,000.00 range. You software developers have > really funny notions about end users. We end users need lots of memory. Then why are end-users working quite well with IBM-PCs with 2 320K disk drives and 256K of RAM? Someone in that position would be able to survive quite well on an HP-integral with 2 720K drives (that being the size they come in) and 512K of RAM (since it puts '/' and '/tmp' in RAM and ROM). > Unix eats memory for breakfast and asks for more. My law practice > needs at least 20 meg. of disk and 256K for really unrestricted use > of OS-9. If I had Unix with that much I'd be back in the same position > I'm in now. Which UNIX? You can fit all the *required* UNIX utilities into 1 Meg. Since UNIX was originally written for a machine with a 64K-per-task limitation (I know the 6809 is even more limited... the point is that the 68000 is a much bigger machine than either O/S really needs), 256K should be plenty. So long as you stick to V7 and avoid SIII and SV you shouldn't have any problems. > I don't believe that an end user in my position could use > a Unix system with less than about 1 meg. of RAM and 40 - 60 meg. of > disk online. Unix overhead is fairly large even if you offload a > lot of the unused stuff. But the real problem is that you may find > you *need* some of the stuff you presumed was surplusage for later > software. As such, even if you think you have an adequate system now, > with a small change in software you could find out that you've doubled > your minimum and comfortable system levels soon after. I don't see this. Have you experienced this problem or are you just imagining it. I can see how 1 MEG of RAM couldn't hurt, but I don't see how UNIX would require an extra 20-40 Meg of disk space. > My current experience leads me to believe that a system developer > can get away with using a much less capable system than an end user. My experience is the opposite. I have seen *lots* of end-users with 256K 2-drive IBM-PCs. When I have to use a system that small I have to start juggling disks, putting the editor and compiler on seperate disks, and sometimes even having to copy a program onto a blank diskette to compile it. But it's fine for 123 or dBase. > He may *choose* to have a bigger system, but he could easily get by > without. If the above technique can be called "getting by", I guess. I can do real work on a DG-1 with 512K and 2 720K microfloppies, but not on a Compaq with 256K and 2 standard drives. I can also do real work on an HP-Integral with 512K and two 720K floppies. And have a less frustrating time doing it. > >> of running UNIX requires 1) hard disk(s) and 2) memory management. Both > > > > 1) False. HP put out a very nice little machine called the Integral > > that not only doesn't need a hard disk, but doesn't really work > > well with one. > > Maybe. Hard to define "nice". Nice means that it is competitive with the other luggables, and allows real software development in a UNIX environment. > > 2) True, but... I don't want to do serious work on a machine without > > an MMU any more. It's so frustrating... even sickening... to watch > > a lost pointer or bad copy of foocalc blow away everything & write > > garbage over a:\*.* > > OS-9 checks CRC before executing. It hasn't got anything to do > with *needing* an MMU (I'm not saying MMU's don't help ... ). A program can have a good CRC (meaning the author thought it was good) and still have a bad bug that can blow everything away. Also, with an MMU you can't write a Killer Prolok. > Other protection schemes can also be added. Gimix OS-9 has protection. How does it work? > Take the Tandy 6000 for an example. With the same hardware, an > OS-9 would allow me more disk space and more user memory space. But is an OS/9 available? And how much extra is it going to cost? > Some > applications might even run a bit faster (unlikely that any would run > slower). They could. What sort of disk cache does OS/9 use? > For a small time user like me (1 man law-firm) and up to > say a 20 man lawfirm, I can't see what advantage Unix would have. How about compatibility? How about UUCP? Or are you running Usenet on OS/9? How about the ability to upgrade to a bigger machine without having to learn yet another operating system... > Lawyers are *not* made of money. Other end users would probably prefer > OS-9 too if they knew what the real choice was. Don't you think > it's time you guys got out of the ivory towers and thought about > what end users need? I'm in an ivory tower, now? I believe that end-users need something better than Messy-Dos and other obsolete and incomplete operating systems. I agree that OS/9 is a good choice for such a situation. All I'm saying is that UNIX is too. My experience has been that, on similar hardware, UNIX is actually smaller and faster than other operating systems of equivalent capabilities. I would like a nice, cheap, floppy-based home computer with a 68000 and OS/9. Or with a 68000 and UNIX. Or a 32032 and UNIX. Or a Z8000 and UNIX, ... But in the meantime I think I'll get an AMIGA.