Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!ptsfa!ihnp4!chinet!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Which clones *don't* run MINIX
Message-ID: <1201@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Feb-87 14:57:18 EST
Article-I.D.: steinmet.1201
Posted: Wed Feb 11 14:57:18 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Feb-87 22:43:30 EST
References: <275@ihnp3.UUCP> <459@moncol.UUCP> <2529@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (william E Davidsen)
Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 24
Keywords: MINIX BIOS COMPATIBILITY

In article <2529@well.UUCP> hrh@well.UUCP (Harry Henderson) writes:
>My apologies if this is a dumb question, by why the design decision to
>make MINIX so hardware-dependant. Why wasn't the BIOS used? Does the
>BIOS not provide enough functionality? If the problem is just speed,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I a word, no. The BIOS does not overlap i/o and CPU. While you are
reading or writing a disk the CPU sits and waits. Likewise console and
serial i/o. A multitasking o/s needs to run jobs (or kernel) while
the i/o grinds away.

>why not write a slower version for those of us whose chips don't have
>the right pedigree? The hardware dependance strikes at one of the
>basic tentents of UNIX philosophy.

The standalone shell of PC/IX seems to use the BIOS for the install
process. This lets the system install on systems on which it can't
execute. The reason was to keep the sash small enough to fit on
one 360k floppy.

-- 
bill davidsen			sixhub \
      ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz ->  crdos1!davidsen
				chinet /
ARPA: davidsen%crdos1.uucp@ge-crd.ARPA (or davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)