From: coolidge@sirius.aux.apple.com (John L. Coolidge)
Subject: Re: Quadra 700 - Multitasking
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:23:08 GMT
Reply-To: coolidge@apple.com
Organization: Open Systems Development, Porting&I/O Group, Apple Computer, Inc.,Summary:

rseymour@reed.edu (Robert Seymour) writes:
>In article <sharad.720933792@murlibobo> sharad@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Sharad)  
>writes:
>> I want to buy a Macintosh to run A/UX.  I understand that the Quadra 700
>> is multitasking and should be able to handle unix.  My question is : 
>> Does the Qudra 700 have DMA.  To the best of my knowledge it does not(I
>> hope I am wrong).  If there is no DMA then I imagine that the multitasking
>> performance will be stuffed.   Can someone please make a comment on this
>> issue. 

>	The Quadra 700 can indeed multi-task, and runs A/UX about as well as  
>any of the other machines. It does not have direct memory access by the  
>peripherals, so yes the performance is hampered. It's not terribly important to  
>use a DMA controller unless your doing a very large amount of I/O.

This is basically true. Also, the SCSI implementation on the Quadras
is very good, which means that you don't usually spend a lot of time
talking to the disks anyway.

>However, I highly suggest you use A/UX 3.0, because I  
>think its an awful implementation of UNIX. Right now, the Macintosh as a UNIX  
>workstation is not a very good computer.

I highly suggest that you use A/UX 3.0 also (although I think it's
clear that that's not what Mr. Seymour intended to say, it's a good
idea anyhow :-)). Note: I'm biased -- I was a beta tester for 3.0 and
I'm now working in the A/UX group (I didn't work on 3.0, however).

A/UX 3.0 is a very good implementation of UNIX. It's basically SVR2
(old, I know) with lots of SVR3 and BSD4.3isms. Except for highly
platform-dependent code, most network-available UNIX software ports
easily to A/UX. The kernel implementation is very good (looking at
UNIX kernel benchmarks, A/UX appears to be a much better UNIX
implementation than SunOS 4.x, Solaris 2.x, Ultrix, SCO, or many
others). Integration with the MacOS is very clean; most MacOS software
(with obvious exceptions -- things that work directly with the
hardware, for instance) runs fine under A/UX.

>P.S.	A/UX is also quite expensive (compared to it coming free and integrated  
>	on almost all other workstation type computers. Check out the Sun  
>	Tsunami which will be announced on November 10th. It will be RISC using  
>	Solaris 2.0 and retail for under $6000. Though, I don't like the OS,  
>	for UNIX it's a great deal from what I've heard.

Basically, this is apples (urk) and oranges. Most other workstation-
type computers don't run anything except their own UNIX version, so
the cost of the UNIX license is built into the CPU price. If you look
at update prices, A/UX compares pretty well. If you look at unbundled
pricing (SCO, for instance) we do very well. A/UX lists at $750 or so
(it can probably be found much cheaper) and includes just about
everything: the development system, X Windows (currently X11R4; R5 is
available on the net), MacX, NFS, YP/NIS, and other UNIX goodies.

As for Solaris, note that Sun themselves consider Solaris 2.0 to not
be a full production-quality operating system. Solaris 2.1 will come
out late this year (if nothing slips) and will be free to Solaris 2.0
users. However, for non-2.0 users the upgrade cost is $795 (so much
for "free and integrated"). SunOS (and Solaris) have, so far, been
quite large and poorly tuned; hopefully this won't be true of Solaris
2.1 for the sake of those forced to use it.

The real question is: why do you want to get into the UNIX game, and
what do you want to do once you're there? If you're a pure UNIX-head
who's going to run X windows and pure UNIX software, there isn't much
benefit in buying a Macintosh to run A/UX. Sure, a Q950 will
outperform a SparcStation IPX or an SS2, but those aren't Sun's
current machines anyway. On the other hand, traditionally Sun's
price/performance has been pretty poor also -- you're probably better
off with a low-end HP-PA box (if you can handle HP-UX) or a NeXT.

However, if you care about the user interface of the system, and
you're willing to run X Windows as a secondary interface (or not use
it at all), A/UX 3.0 is the best UNIX out there (NeXT is close, but
IMHO it's still not as nice an interface as the Mac). If you care
about having cheap software available, A/UX is a better choice than
any of the non-80x86-based UNIXes (some of those allow you to run DOS
programs). It really depends on how much you value Mac compatibility
and integration.

You might want to ask these questions on comp.unix.aux also; there's a
pretty good community of A/UX users on the net, and they're usually
willing to help out. You can also get unbiased (or less-biased)
appraisals of the product...

--John

        What do you do [...] when you list all the qualities that you
        despise / And you realize you're describing yourself
                -- Marillion, "The Rake's Progress", _Holidays_In_Eden

+++John L. Coolidge++++++++++++++++coolidge@apple.com+++++++++++++++++++++++
I speak for myself, not for Apple Computer. Copyright 1992 John L. Coolidge.
Copying allowed only if attributed, and if all copies may be further copied.