Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!works
From: works@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.computers.workstations
Subject: Re: Masscomp
Message-ID: <8512012256.AA04320@neuro1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Dec-85 17:56:06 EST
Article-I.D.: neuro1.8512012256.AA04320
Posted: Sun Dec  1 17:56:06 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Dec-85 20:10:53 EST
References: <8511261311.AA17149@caip.rutgers.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber)
Organization: Neurophysiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Lines: 24
Keywords: facts?
Approved: works@red.rutgers.edu

Steve Wall's recent comments about the masscomp do little to explain why
his opinion is so negative. His remarks about RTU 3.0 probably are about
the beta-test version since the actual released product is only just
now getting into the hands of the users.

I will have to agree that the masscomp software does have its problems, but
much the same can be said of many companies' software (a good example is
the Sun and Pyramid f77 compilers). It all depends on the market the machine 
is aimed at. 

In the case of the masscomp, the market was scientific, real-time computing
originally. The Masscomp is the only machine I know of that was designed to
run UNIX in a REAL-TIME environment (Please tell me if I am wrong). It has
one of the highest performance/cost ratios and one of the best FORTRAN
compilers available in its price range. 

There are problems as well. It may not run GNU-emacs. It does run Gosling-emacs
in the BSD-4.1 style. I have not tried to port GNU as yet. I have tried a 
number of other 4.2 items, and if you plug in BSD 2.9 or 4.1 networking for 
those programs that use it, you make very few modifications. Almost all the
System V stuff I have ported required no modification at all.

As the case with many vendors, some customers are happy and some aren't.
We are happy with Masscomp.