Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!husc6!m2c!maxx!tyager From: tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: VP/ix could be good... Summary: Yes, but... Message-ID: <49@maxx.UUCP> Date: 30 Jan 89 03:46:06 GMT References: <5980005@hplsla.HP.COM> <408@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> Organization: MAXX Public Access Xenix Lines: 89 In article <408@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> root@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US (Mark J. Bailey) writes: [ familiar complaints about real VP/ix problems deleted ] > I AGREE! When *IS* it going to get fixed? With the price that SCO charges > for the product (a commercial $$$), shouldn't we expect more results? > > Mark J. Bailey "Y'all com bak naw, ya hear!" > USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ___________________________ > VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | JobSoft > UUCP: ...!{ames,mit-eddie}!killer!mjbtn!mjb | Design & Development Co. > DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US | Murfreesboro, TN USA Before I present what will probably be an unpopular view, let me say that EVERYONE is right. What hasn't been pointed out yet, however, is that the problem isn't just with VP/ix. MS-DOS and the software written to use it are more than partly to blame. Most commercial packages build in some form of direct device access in order to improve performance. This is necessary--MS-DOS i/o is pretty horrid. But for the people who have to write the software to make it multitask, this presents an almost insurmountable problem: all of these direct i/o requests have to be intercepted and routed through handlers. Other OS software to multitask DOS fairs similarly. Even the ones who have had years to sort it out, like Software Link, still have to constantly patch and add to their code to accomodate some package that breaks the rules in a new way. I think you'll find this to be true: any piece of software that always uses the BIOS for i/o and otherwise acts according to the "well-behaved" guidelines will run flawlessly under VP/ix, Concurrent DOS, DOS-merge, or what-have-you. The software that meets this criteria, however, makes a very short (and often uninteresting) list. The 80386 hardware makes it somewhat easier with its virtual 8086s, but some code still needs to be built in to trap attempted port i/o and decipher direct memory access. I'm afraid, for VP/ix and other programs like it, there will always be exception cases that just don't run. Complexity of the task is one factor, but another, non-technical issue bears considering: what if ISC just sat on the product until they felt is was perfect? Then this forum would be overflowing with unpleasant comments about how long we've all waited for this stuff. The pre-release and the subsequent "released-before-ready" versions of VP/ix were put out because of stiff competition and overwhelming market demand. Look at all the flack Lotus and Ashton-Tate have taken over holding back releases. Being careful costs software companies business, and ISC (SCO/AT&T) must weigh marketing as well as technical considerations. We'd all be hard-pressed to buy anything from a company that failed to turn a profit. Until the "art" of software development is raised to a level where perfection is attainable, we should learn not to expect so much from recently-released products. Anyone in the industry would tell you that VP/ix, from conception to present, is still just an infant. It will grow and improve, but don't be critical of ISC for grouping the improvements together instead of dribbling them out a bit at a time. This is expensive, and only serves to raise the ire of those whose pet bug fixes/enhancements didn't make it into the latest incremental release. Is there anything good to be said for VP/ix? I think so. It's saved us all the expense of a second machine (it certainly runs faster than any system you could build for $500, considering the cost to network it in with your Unix box), and rescues us from the "Unix-reboot-DOS-reboot-Unix..." cycle. In short, it's a convenience. A luxury. Nobody on the planet NEEDS this product, but we all want it. Does this mean I'm not in favor of these discussions? Hardly--it helps people set their expectations. Many consultants considered using VP/ix as a way to run DOS applications on multiple dumb terminals. Frighteningly, some are selling it as just that (pity their poor customers), but the informed ones have either heard the news or seen it for themselves: its capabilities don't stretch that far. For the record, I'm a registered owner of VP/ix, running under SCO Xenix, and soon will be running it under ISC's 386/ix. I agree that it is flawed, but frankly my experience with it has been fair. My work is 90% Unix, and I kick over to DOS for some telecommunications and Unix-->DOS development. I'm running Turbo C 2.0, Carbon Copy (communications) and a host of other applications. I have seen some anomalies and learned to work around them. I much prefer the dynamically-sized "pseudo drive" to a dedicated DOS partition. I look forward to performance and reliability gains, but for my purposes, it will do for now. For all those who complained: I don't take lightly the frustration and dis- pleasure you feel over VP/ix, and hope that ISC is working feverishly on solutions that we will all find satisfactory. Good luck to all. Thanks for lending an eye to my opinions. (ty) -- +--Tom Yager, Apollo Computer R & D----------------------------------------+ | ARPA: tyager%maxx@m2c.m2c.org (preferred) -or- tyager@apollo.com | | I speak only for (and to) myself | +--"I like life; it's something to do."------------------------------------+