Message-ID: <849@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jan-85 13:14:50 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.849
Posted: Sat Jan 19 13:14:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 16:46:48 EST
Reply-To: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.unix:3355 net.micro.pc:3142

< Nami nami nami nami ... >

The following is a brief summary of the replies I received to my query
about IBM PCs and PC/ATs running UNIX(tm Bell Labs).  The next article
contains the text of the replies (loooong!).  Thanks to everybody who
contributed and sent me information!

PC XT:	Venix 	- faster than Xenix
	Xenix	- mostly compatible with the AT Xenix
	PC/IX	- single-user only
	Coherent- v7-like, but not licensed UNIX, seems fast
	Unetix	- single-user but with windows and tty ports

PC AT:	Xenix	- full 286 implementation.
		- can run three applications users
	[all other UNIXes on the AT run in the 8086 mode, emulating
	 the PC/XT]

The general agreement was that INed (the PC/IX editor) is a piece of
garbage, unsuitable for programming.

Practically all of the abover versions need (for useability) 512K RAM
and a 10M hard disk.  Unetix can run from floppies, though.

Thanks very much all!

				\tom haapanen
				watmath!watdcsu!haapanen

Message-ID: <644@hou5a.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 07:45:20 EST
Article-I.D.: hou5a.644
Posted: Mon Jan 21 07:45:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 07:34:50 EST
References: <849@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.unix:3414 net.micro.pc:3171

 > The general agreement was that INed (the PC/IX editor) is a piece of
 > garbage, unsuitable for programming.
This is unfortunate, as the version of INed I used when I was using 
Interactive Systems, Inc's version of the UNIX* operating system in
college is far superior to any screen editor I have used since. This
may indicate that INed was "hacked" to work on the PC/IX environment
at the expense of much of its functionality and human interface.
-- 
Harlan B. Braude
{most "backbone" sites}!hou5a!hbb

Message-ID: <81@drivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 22:45:07 EST
Article-I.D.: drivax.81
Posted: Tue Jan 22 22:45:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 19:32:14 EST
References: <849@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA
Lines: 31
Xref: watmath net.unix:3431 net.micro.pc:3180


<>

Excuse me, but I must have missed the original question posted to the
net. Basically, I am interested in it, because I am the main kernel
architect of UNIX* System V/286 ( the AT&T sanctioned port to the 286 ).
If you don't like the fact that NONE of the current ports to the 286
are full System V ( and available ), then you should write your own
drivers and use the sanctioned port. We have gone to great pains to make
the V/286 act like a VAX ( in terms of functionality ), and we have closed
up many holes that the other ports have in terms of ability to crash
the kernel. Since the port should have been announced at Uniforum,
I would like to hear from anybody with a UNIX ( or UNIX-like )
operating system that runs on any 286 based box ( especially the
Intel 286/310 ), specifically in terms of crashes ( panics ) that
you have found. I will be more than happy to discuss the
( non-proprietary ) aspects of the problems.


*UNIX is a trademark of AT&T Bell Laboratories ( whenever I remember )

-- 
                                               _____________
                                              / |  _______  |
                                             |  |  |__ / |  |
	        Andrew Sharpe                |  |  |  |  |  |
                                             |  |  |  |  |  |
{ ihnp4, mot, ucscc, amdahl } !drivax!sharpe |  |  |__|  |  |
	                                     |  | /   |  |  |
	                                     |  -------  | /
	                                     -------------

Message-ID: <1713@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Jan-85 12:51:30 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1713
Posted: Fri Jan 25 12:51:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jan-85 02:14:00 EST
References: <849@watdcsu.UUCP> <644@hou5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: darrelj@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Darrel VanBuer)
Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica
Lines: 34
Summary: 

When reading comments on full-screen editors remember that the reviewer's
opinion of full-screen editors is heavily colored by the editors (s)he
already knows.  There have been at least three radically different
full-screen editors on (mostly) minicomputers.
The Rand editor (INed, Apple Pie are derivatives and/or imitators).
Emacs
vi

The style of interaction of these are all radically different, enough so
that it's very disorienting to use a different one.
I used to use Ined (until it finally became de-supported locally by changes
in operating software).
At that point, I switched to Emacs (more because similar editors are
available under Tops-20 and some Lisp machines, and because of the language
for writing extensions, rather than style of interaction).
The switch to a different editor is harder than learning your first one,
because, not only do you have to learn a bunch of new techniques, you have
to unlearn reflexes which just don't work.

There have been many other full screen editors for other systems, a number
of them also fairly different (e.g. Edgar for VM/CMS, Wordstar and
Wordmaster on CP/M, Tedit on Xerox Lisp machines--where the mouse
considerably simplifies the paradigm in full screen editing.  The keyboard
does text, the mouse does positioning, selection, commands all by pointing.
Highlighting and underlining provide feedback)
-- 
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
                                                            !sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA