Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!indri!nic.MR.NET!hal!ncoast!mikes
From: mikes@ncoast.ORG (Mike Squires)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Summary: Some speed comparisons
Message-ID: <13630@ncoast.ORG>
Date: 8 May 89 04:00:13 GMT
References: <7632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <256@jwt.UUCP> <2496@bucsb.UUCP> <274@tree.UUCP> <13723@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: mikes@ncoast.ORG (Mike Squires)
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 23

I ported Gary Perlman's |STAT5.3 package to XENIX V 386 v2.3.1 on an AMI
20MHz 386, 64k cache, 4MB RAM, 150MB ESDI drive.  The examples run on the
386 box under XENIX took 7 seconds; the same under PC-DOS on an IBM PS/2
50Z took 44 seconds.  

The Dhrystone benchmark on the same system is 7000 for a 386 binary,
4000 for a 286 binary, 5000 for an 8086 binary.  I can also execute
programs that take up to 4400K of memory (and have - I modified the
Perlman regression routine to take more than 20 variables.

I also ran compress 4.0 on a PS 2/70, RS 6000 under XENIX (an old 68000
system), and on the 386 box.  The RS 6000 compressed a 512K file faster
than the 386 box under PC-DOS.  I believe the major reason for this is
that the 6000 is running Quantum 2080 HD's which are quite fast and that
the PS 2/70 uses a fairly slow ESDI drive (no cache used).  The UNIX file
system also seems faster than PC-DOS.

As an old mainframe person (CDC 3600/3800/6600/Cyber) I like working with
sources and with an operating system with a good set of utilities.  UNIX/
XENIX has that; PC-DOS definitely does not without massive extensions.
OS/2 286 is just too slow.  I can move my environment from one hardware
platform to the next with only minor hassles (the stuff really IS
portable!).