Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ncar!gatech!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!qaa
From: QAA@PSUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Unix/VMS "wars" & Machine MIPS "ratings"
Message-ID: <36568QAA@PSUVM>
Date: 18 Mar 88 17:10:32 GMT
Organization: The Pennsylvania State University - Computation Center
Lines: 53

Once again the traditional battle of which is better - Unix or VMS has
surfaced on the net.  Usually I just read these discussions and chuckle
because overall they are pretty entertaining.  However, this time I figured
I'd add my two cents into the discussion.

Rather than approach specific things which make one system better than or
worse than the other, I pose one simple question - What is the definition
of "compatability" that's used in reference to UNIX?

Surely you don't expect a VAX-UNIX program to run on a different UNIX box
without recompiling it, then where's the compatability between UNIX systems?
Of course, that's an over simplification of the problem, but I think it
makes a reasonable point.  Sure, porting software from one UNIX system to
another may be easier than porting from machines with different operating
systems, the fact remains, some conversion would most probably need to be
performed.

As for a direct comparison of UNIX versus VMS, well UNIX is fine for those
CS types who have the time to learn the system, but consider the average
department who uses a machine in an "application/education" based environment.
I would hate to try to teach first time users say in Architecture how to
use UNIX.  Yet, I see these students who've never touched a keyboard before
become quite productive working with VMS in a very short period of time.

** flame on **
To all UNIX lovers - give me ONE good reason why "rm" is better than "delete"
to delete a file.  And of course, there's the "wonderful" "help" on UNIX
systems - I won't even begin to touch that one...:)
** flame off **

The other discussion about MIPS of these 'fantastic' and inexpensive
workstations, as compared to the bumbling old VAX minis seems rather
narrow minded.  Sure, I wouldn't argue the fact that there are a lot
of high powered workstations out there that in raw compute power will
run circles around your average VAX, but has anyone ever considered
adding in I/O and other factors into those ratings?  Let's take the
VAX 8800 as compared to an equivalent 6-12 MIPS workstation.  Can you
see 300-400 people logged onto the workstation - ALL at the same time?

My point is simple - when you consider the 'power' of a machine - don't
forget to factor in things such as throughput - unless you're going to
dedicate the machine to ONE person.  MIPS as a rating is very mis-leading
in this sense, all it measures is pure compute cycles, not the overall
throughput of a given machine.

Well, enough for now - I welcome opposing opinions!

-Tim Bieling, system coordinator
              Architecture Computer Lab
              Penn State University

Email:  BIELING@PSUARCH.BITNET (a VAX/VMS site :)

"The opinions expressed here are .... [the usual disclaimer]"