Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!jimomura From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Re: Re: Info on OS9 Operating System Message-ID: <881@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 20:29:47 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.881 Posted: Mon Oct 28 20:29:47 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 01:41:17 EST References: <347@wlbr.UUCP> <9500001@datacube.UUCP> Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) Organization: Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto Lines: 57 Summary: "Let a few hard facts ..." In article <286@steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen) writes: > >People who assume that UNIX must have huge quantities of {disk, memory, cpu >cycles, etc} are simply repeating the misinformation they have heard >elsewhere. I recently helped someone set up a small office system with the >following confiuration: 1 640k IBM PC clone ($2200), two terminals ($800), >one copy of PC/IX ($720). This included enough word processing, editors, >etc to run an office which does lots of word processing. At some time in >the future some additional software will be installed, but the system >including printer was < $5k, and runs in 640k for three users. The nroff With 640K under OS-9 I could support 6-8 for similar work (Level II OS-9 6809 version--it's unclear to me what the overhead of 68K version OS-9 really is at this time. On the one hand, the code should be smaller due to direct addressing instead of mmu bank juggling (2K or 4K banks are swapped in Level II depending on the computer), but there are some added features in 68K OS-9 which probably increase the size again). Welcome to the *real* world of OS-9! >processor is set up as a queue to keep too many jobs from killing the >machine. > >I think I could do this for < $10k using an AT&T 7300 (or 3b1) which >would give me more memory, 68k processor, virtual memory, and access to >many packages in the future. Even that package would be only 20Mb (or at >most 40) and 1 Mb of memory. UNIX is not always a hog of anything in >particular, although the use of processors with verbose instruction sets >(like the 68k) can increase the memory and disk somewhat. 8086 programs >run 30-50% smaller, since many instructions are only 1 byte. Curious. Most people I talk to tell me that programs under 68K are generally smaller (except for very trivial routines) because it takes fewer instructions to accomplish anything with a 68K. > >Note that the software includes all packages, including uucp, accounting, >and even games! This takes about 6Mb of disk. The clone they got runs a >20Mb, so there was no need to pare it. When the load increases they will >buy a second machine and link with uucp (no need for shared databases in >this case). > >Let a few hard facts shine on the matter. > >Bill Davidsen > >"It seemed like a good idea at the time..." Cheers! -- Jim O. -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura Compuserve: 72205,541 MTS at WU: GKL6