Message-ID: <850@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jan-85 13:18:35 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.850
Posted: Sat Jan 19 13:18:35 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 16:47:14 EST
Reply-To: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 376
Xref: watmath net.unix:3356 net.micro.pc:3143


The following is a summary of the responses to my request for
information about the various UNIX(-like) implementations on the IBM
PC/XT and PC/AT.  Thanks to all who replied.

			\tom haapanen
			watmath!watdcsu!haapanen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!allegra!noao!utastro!nather (Ed Nather)

You should cross PC/IX off your list for several reasons.  First, it is a
*single* user system, one per customer.  This means that each and every
user must also be a system guru, or have one on call ... it is very slow
on an XT (might be acceptable on an AT) and is cumbersome and unforgiving.
I found the editor, Ined, to be inferior to vi, PC-WRITE (which I like a
lot for text) and SEE, which I like a lot for writing programs.  Overall,
I was seriously disappointed in PC/IX, even though I use, and like, 4.2bsd
on a (very) overloaded Vax.

I've collected a lot of public domain software and written some myself, to
make MS-DOS look enough like Unix so I can go happily between the two
systems.  Compared with MS-DOS on a PC or XT, PC/IX runs like a snail...
and there's nothing you can do to fix it -- they don't let you look
at the source code.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Farber  

I have run SCO Xenix, venix and Coherent on my XT and I have
firmly arrived at the conclusion that for customer service
and rational business behavior only SCO meets my criteria
for a company I will do business with. 

The performance of Xenix is a bit slower than Venix but
still acceptable and getting better. It is also
rather more compatable with the new AT xenix and thus
a major advantage. Happy to say more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!ihnp4!umn-cs!digi-g!dan

I have an AT running the pre-release of Xenix from MicroSoft.
IBM authorized MicroSoft to ship Xenix/AT to software development
houses so they could get a jump on porting their software.

 > 	- How is it performance-wise?
As good as can be expected, considering the hardware.  Its far better than
Venix on a XT.  But it doesn't come close to our 68000 based system.  I
think it is a very adequate system for one person.  But software developers
tend to place a heavier demand on a computer than the average applications user.
It would easily keep up with 3 people doing word processing or data
entry/retrieval.

 > 	- What size of a hard disk and memory is required?
20 Meg disk and .5 Meg RAM is absolute minimal.

 > 	- Is there any facility to run PC-DOS programs?
No.  But there are programs to read and write DOS floppies.  It also includes
a cross-development package for DOS.  Give cc a -dos switch, and the final
executable file is a DOS .EXE file!

 > 	- Does it run on a PC AT?
This version of Xenix is a special port for the AT.  It uses the full 286
instruction set.

 > 	- Are you happy with it?
As far as Unix ports go, its not bad.  The manuals need work, but I hear
that IBM is going to totally re-work them.  The only bug I have found is
in nroff.  But I didn't spend much time on it.  It may have been a simple
problem in the ms package.  Some of the standard programs came with wierd
names, but that was easily corrected.

 > 	- Who was the vendor, and were you happy with him?
As stated previously, it was a special release from MS.  It will be marketed
by IBM shortly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!allegra!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!coleman (Don Coleman)

  I'll attempt to answer some of your questions.  We have been using IBM-XTs
running PC/IX since last june.  I have been developing a 4.2 socket like
network, and a remote disk device, running over omninet-- So our uses are
different from what yours will be. 

 > 	- How is it performance-wise?
	not too great... feels like a mediumly loaded vax-730.
 > 	- What size of a hard disk and memory is required?
	don't get less then 512K. Any swaping and performance goes through
	the floor.
	No less then 10 meg... but ten meg is plenty if you don't install
	all the programming development stuff... with everything thing you
	end up with about 1.8 meg's free.  By being selective, my machine 
	has about 3.6 meg free... I don't have troff and stuff like that on
	it. Space is no longer a problem since we now have disk shareing
	working.  We have currently five XTs connected, and all the stuff
	they only use rarely are only on one of them.  This leaves about 6
	of the 10 meg free for local files.
 > 	- Is there any facility to run PC-DOS programs?
	yes, you can install the "connector" from Uniform Software Systems Inc.
	we have use it, and it does work... but beware, if something plays with
	the clock, or other various special stuff, pc/ix may halt while you use
	the pc-dos program.  PC Rogue works just fine... turbo pascal doesn't
	work at all.
 > 	- Does it run on a PC AT?
	Yes, but not until late jan, or early feb 85.  We have three ATs just
	sitting on a desk until pc/ix comes in for them.  The new pc/ix 1.1
	version has a medium model kernel, as apposed to the current one 
	which limits the kernel code to 64K, which we cannot live with.
 > 	- Are you happy with it?
	Yes, it is nothing less, and nothing more, then I expected in a micro
	unix.  But I can't wait for pc/ix on the AT's.  An XT will *not*
	allow three people to edit nicely, let alone run troff. an AT
	should.
 > 	- Who was the vendor, and were you happy with him?
	IBM.  Yes, they gave us two copies for a six month loan, and helped
	with a few problems during initial development of our device drivers.

	As for the editer, I couldn't stand it.  It isn't bad if you like Word
	Star... its really more of a word processing editer then a programming
	editor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watcgl!ihnp4!bradley!brad

I have been trying UNETIX on  a IBMPC.  release 1.0. A newer release is
out now.  It is nice if you understand how slow the PC is.  It allows
multi-process and window.  Windows can be assigned to tty ports to get
a 'multi-user' (with everyone the same user) effect.  Although I am 
waiting on 2.0, 1.0 is slow, but 2.0 claims to be twice as fast.
 > 	- How is it performance-wise?
Slow but new versions should be faster.
 > 	- What size of a hard disk and memory is required?
320K min memory, has hard disk support but will run on 2 floppys
 > 	- Is there any facility to run PC-DOS programs?
DOS 1.1 programs but reads 2.0 Files I believe.
 > 	- Does it run on a PC AT?
????
 > 	- Are you happy with it?
When I get 2.0 in I think it will be better.  They have a Lattice 'C'
compiler, 'vi' editor, and some networking stuff you can buy.
 > 	- Who was the vendor, and were you happy with him?
Ordered direct. Don't have address handy, if you need it let me know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!allegra!noao!utastro!nather (Ed Nather)

It is possible to use the two serial ports on the PC with PC/IX for
remote access, but as I understand the manual, it is an either/or
proposition, and cannot support more than 1 user at a time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Natalie 

PC/IX is not a multiuser machine (well you can have multiple users but
only one at a time).  It's entirely plain.  It will run on a PC/AT but
you will not see any benefit frokm doing so, it uses the 8086 compatability
mode.

Coherent, nice v7ish O/S.  Available multiuser for a little under twice the
price of a single user license.  Don't know if it has ever been extended for
the AT.

Xenix, a enhanced tracking of the Bell code with bells and whistles added.
Don't know if you can get multiuser license.  Supposed to work on the AT
using all the extended features.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!ihnp4!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull

 > What I'd like to hear from all the net.people out there is any
 > experiences with UNIX for the IBM-type machines.  I've heard of ...
 > ..., Coherent ...
 > 	- How is it performance-wise?
never ran any benchmarks but it always seemed fast (on a PC/XT with 1
& 2 users)
 > 	- What size of a hard disk and memory is required?
256K+ memory, 5Meg+ disk, 10Meg+ is recommended (by me), you would be
well advised to spend a bit more and get LOTS of disk, there are 40M,
60M, and bigger available for not too much.
 > 	- Is there any facility to run PC-DOS programs?
if there is, I never found it.
 > 	- Does it run on a PC AT?
yes
 > 	- Are you happy with it?
very.  at $500US, the price is WAY out in front (p.s., in my opinion
Coherent is MUCH better than PC/IX)
 > 	- Who was the vendor, and were you happy with him?
Mark Williams Company, very happy, good telephone support for
technical and legal questions(multiple licensing)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!clyde!ulysses!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!usceast!wescott

If your minds made up on the PC go no further.  Otherwise I would suggest
taking a look at the NCR Tower series of machines.  They currently run Unix 
System V.  The lowend machine, called "Minitower" supports 3-4 users with
no problem and uses a 46MB disk.  NCR support is allover Europe, so that
shouldn't be a problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!bet

Two items.
1) I have used PC/IX. I am whelmed (neither over- nor under-). In terms
of performance, I am frankly astonished -- acceptably responsive (single
user on PC/XT with 1 10 Meg hard disk and 512K of ram) and only about
half as fast running C application programs as MS-DOS with a good MS-DOS
compiler. Truly remarkable performance considering it does run-time
memory protection *without* hardware support! On the other hand, after
using it some I decided that I liked MS-DOS v2.10 better than AT&T
System III -- even V7 would be better, and V7 with Berkeley enhancements
would be vastly better. This comes to a head with the absence of "vi" --
PC/IX (a System III port by Interactive Systems) comes with the
Interactive Systems screen editor INed. I disliked INed SO much that I
am using ed(1) gaaak! I really would like an acceptable full-screen
editor.

Conclusion: if you have your own portable full-screen editor, and you
can get along with System III (a major step backwards, in my opinion)
then PC/IX is a first class product -- the performance it achieves is
astonishing for this hardware.

2) DON'T let people feed you a common misunderstanding about XENIX on
the PC/AT. There is an older version of XENIX, developed for the PC/XT,
which is what is currently available, which only uses the
"compatability" mode of the AT's 80286 -- no hardware memory management.
THIS IS NOT the product IBM has announced for the PC/AT for 1st quarter
85, which uses the full power of the 80286. If you can hold out until it
is available, IBM's XENIX for the PC/AT is probably the best bet for
your application -- it is far and away the best performer, and is a
classy UNIX in its own right (SIII if I recall correctly, but with
enough Berkeley enhancements so you won't be burnt unless you need to
program AT&T's disgusting tty interface).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: watmath!decvax!mogwai!paul (Paul H. Mauritz)

	At my previous place of employment, we were a Beta Test site for
PC/IX on the IBM PC-XT.  We had good rappor (sp?) with both the IBM
people and the Interactive Systems People (They did the port).  Now to
your questions:

	- Performance on the XT was ok.  Note:  The PC/IX implementation
on the XT was "single user" due to lack of memory management on the
8086.  Although we had uucp running while still logged in, so it's possible
to have more than one user.  On the AT, I *believe* that PC/IX is
multi-user.

	- We ran with 512K memory, although I believe 256K is enough.
A 10M hard disk is required (at least).  If you install all 19
diskettes, you will use up about 2/3 of the 10M.

	- Sadly, no facility for MS-DOS programs (at least then).  You
could read and write DOS files.  Wait.  I have some literature here for
"The Connector" from Uniform Software Systems Inc.
 		     1110 Eugenia Pl.
		     Carpinteria, CA 93013
		     805 684 5434
which - and I quote - "... is a new program that allows DOS applications
software to run under the UN*X operating system.  ..."

	- Interactive has recently announced - and I have seen it run at
a local user group meeting - PC/IX for the AT.  Faster.

	- All in All, I was happy with it.  It ran faithfully, no
software crashes that were unexplained or unexpected.  Meaning, I could
make it crash, but under normal circumstances, it ran like a champ.  

	- We dealt with IBM and Interactive directly - on-site visits by
large teams, etc - so I never dealt with vendors, although I did have
occasion to use the PC/IX support center number recently, and found them
to be extremely helpful but a little slow.

	- Now we get to the good stuff.  PC/IX has as the page editor,
INed from Interactive.  The guys who wrote this were original ned
writers, therefore, it has VAST improvements.  It has a special file
format which only it uses to provide *EXTENSIVE* personal tailoring,
on-line help, and - best of all - on-line commands at the touch of a
button.  Both help and commands are accesible by use of a "pop-box", a
box which at the touch of a button appears on your screen.  INed has
many of the features of e17, the latest RAND distro.  I can't say enough
about thge editor, maybe it shadows the rest of my opinions about PC/IX
allitle, as it is extremely powerful, and with on-line help - again
tailorable - it is easy to learn.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Erik Fortune
  

Greetings.  I've been using PC/IX on an XT, and XENIX on an AT since
May.  Overall, I'm pleased with both systems, but especially so with
XENIX.   Under biases list the fact that I'm a part-time IBM employee.

 >     - How is it performance-wise?
     XENIX -- I'm happy.  I get (subjectively) better performance out of my
              AT (20 meg hard disk, 1 meg core) than I do out of a moderately
              loaded (5-7 users, or 3 doing real stuff) VAX 780 (4.2bsd).
     PC/IX -- Not bad.  The XT is a fairly lightweight machine, but PC/IX
              squeezes as much as possible out of it.  For a single user,
              PC/IX is tolerable but not great.  For multi-user?  Frankly,
              I wouldn't recommend it.  It should also be noted that the
              license that comes with PC/IX is single-user only, although
              remote logins are supported, and work just fine.
     VENIX -- Source:  Hearsay, mostly.  I'm told that VENIX and PC/IX give
              roughly the same performance. (The one set of benchmarks I've
              seen put PC/IX slightly ahead)  A friend at VentureCom (VENIX
          vendors) claims to have seen benchmarks that put VENIX slightly
          ahead.  I haven't really run VENIX, so I can't say.  Also, I
          believe that multi-user licenses are available from VENIX, but
          I'm not certain.

 >     - What size of a hard disk and memory is required?
     XENIX -- My PC/AT has 1meg of core, and a 20 meg disk.  I've run XENIX
              on an AT with 512k, and not noticed any significant decrease
          in performance.  (informal benchmarks say 5-10% at the worst)
     PC/IX -- Requires a hard disk, so 10 meg on an XT and 20 meg on an AT.
              Core? I'm not sure how much memory is required, but I'm told
          that performance degrades pretty heavily below 256k.
     VENIX -- I haven't a clue.

 >     - Is there any facility to run PC-DOS programs?
     XENIX and PC/IX -- neither has a facility to run PC-DOS programs,
              although both can read and write DOS format diskettes. (yahoo)
          I believe the same is true of VENIX, although I'm not sure.
          PC/IX and XENIX can also share the hard disk with DOS, I'm not
          sure if this is true of VENIX. I have also heard rumors of a
          facility for running DOS programs under PC/IX available from
          an outside vendor.  If it becomes an issue, send me a note and
          I'll try to track it down.

 >     - Does it run on a PC AT?
     XENIX -- Only on an AT
     PC/IX -- Yes, but only in 8086 compatiblity mode.  I've not used PC/IX
              on an AT, so I can't comment on performance.
     VENIX -- I believe so.

 >     - Are you happy with it?
     XENIX -- Very happy. Performance is good, I get csh (yaay!) and VI
              (if you're into that kind of torture :-) ).  There's also a
          public-domain (I believe) version of JOVE (emacs knock-off)
          kicking around, which pleases me tremendously.  The only thing
          that I really miss in XENIX is berkeley style job control.
     PC/IX -- Fairly.  I'd like more berkeley goodies (csh, at least), but
              have thrown together enough shell scripts to make me reasonably
          happy.  The editor is another story, I'm not crazy about it,
          but others are.  I have JOVE anyways.
     VENIX -- I'm told that VENIX has more of the Berkeley goodies I'd like
              and a reasonable editor.

 >     - Who was the vendor, and were you happy with him?
     XENIX and PC/IX -- IBM, perfectly happy, but see biases above.
                        PC/IX comes with limited support, I'm not sure
            about XENIX or VENIX.

 >    I would also like to have any impressions of the PC/IX editor.
    Ick.  Fairly slow, uses the console even if you're logged in
    on a remote line.  Does have undo for the life of the file, though.
    (if you want it, part of the reason it's slow)  Marginally extensible,
    but not tremendously.

The moral of ths story?
I heartily recommend XENIX on the PC/AT.  If you'll be running multiple
users, you probably want at least a meg of core.  If you MUST use XTs, PC/IX
is friendlier than VENIX, so for novice users I'd recommend PC/IX.  If you
aren't interested in "berkeley goodies", I'd recommend PC/IX.  Frankly,
though, if I were buying Unix for my own XT I'd buy VENIX at this point.
(I REALLY miss csh).  I'd also probably try to track down JOVE for any
system I'd buy.  (Although VI is tolerable).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, my thanks to all the people who responded.

			\tom
			watmath!watdcsu!haapanen