From: hcp@csx.cciw.ca (H.C. Pulley)
Subject: Re: OS compare (Unix/clone)
Organization: Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:59:22 GMT

In article <michaelv.711988050@help.cc.iastate.edu> michaelv@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>In <1992Jul24.001255.13675@csx.cciw.ca> hcp@csx.cciw.ca (H.C. Pulley) writes:
>
>>In article <michaelv.711923616@vincent1.iastate.edu> michaelv@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>>>As someone said, don't forget 386BSD.
>>>
>>>P.S.  You canNOT run _any_ real multiprocessing operating system on an
>>>XT.  It can't even be done well on a 286 (witness DesqView and Coherent
>>>3.X).  You need at least a 386sx if you want to do unix in any
>>>reasonable fashion.
>
>I stand by my statement.  You can't do it on an XT.  And, you can't do
>it well on a 286.  Two important things that are missing: large address
>model and true virtual memory.  

This is a matter of opinion.  I don't think (note the personal word) that large
address space and virtual memory are needed to multitask.  If 'real'
multitasking for you needs these things, then I have no problem with you 
having an opinion different than mine.

>                               This is why you'll never see a
>full-featured unix on a 286, and why the top of the line for the 286
>will be crippled OS's like Coherent 3.2.1 (which does a great job with
>what it has to work with) and SCO Xenix 286.  Heck, you can't even use
>all the features of MS-Windoze on a 286, and OS/2 doesn't even bother
>trying with version 2.0.  Because they can't do the things they want to
>do without a) flat memory addressing and b) true virtual memory.
>
>Like I said, Coherent 3.2.1 and Desqview do a find job with what they
>have to work with.  But it will never go much farther than that.

IMHTTO, the 'fine job' they do is multitasking.  I think you are being more
than alittle harsh when you say they are crippled.

Here is where I went wrong:

>>The day when 386BSD is stable enough to run for a few hours, I might (and I
>>mean might) take a look at it.  I like my tech. support and manuals, thank
>>you very much!
>
>All the people who blast 386BSD seem to fail to recognize that until
>last week, it was an _alpha_ product--not even beta.  I found it quite
>stable (and managed to keep it up for days at a time) even in version
>0.0.  Version 0.1 is out now, though, and is truly impressive.  It's
>very stable, and amazing in its completeness.  I hate to advertise
>another "company's product" on someone else's newsgroup, but 386BSD is
>outstanding for a free unix, and would even be worth the price of
>Coherent, IMHO.

I don't have enough experience with BSD to give an opinion on it.  I apologize
for this.

>>[and yes, this IS A FLAME!]
>
>Already had the asbestos undies on. :)

Me too.  Anyone who can't stand people who disagree with them shouldn't be on
usenet.  I enjoy discussions of topics which are not cut and dried as much as 
the next netter.

Harry
-- 
         hcp@csx.cciw.ca           | This message    | It takes all kinds,
   hcpiv@grumpy.cis.uoguelph.ca    | released to the | and to each his own.
-----------------------------------| PUBLIC DOMAIN.  | This thought in mind,
 Stay away from the DOS side Luke! |                 | I walk alone.