From: udo@umunk.GUN.de (Udo Munk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Coherent and Dos
Date: 17 Aug 92 11:36:45 GMT
Organization: umunk (private)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith) writes:
( lines deleted )
: Hmmm,  Not here.  What version VP/ix & SCO?

SCO 3.2, can't remeber the version of VP/ix.

: Look folks,  If the programs were available for unix of any flavor at a
: price that didn't melt your wallet We'd all buy them, but they are not. 

Hm, for me there is all the stuff available for unix and Coherent what
I really need. Of cause my needings differs from the needings of many
or all others. But take a look onto the USENET archive servers, there
are more then 4GB of programs available, most of them can be used
free of fee.

: Until we get simple well written programs written for Unix & clones
: we're stuck with what we have,  DOS stuff.  Coherent stands one of the
: best possibilities of becoming a stable unix platform for the masses,
: but we'll see what kind of apps we get.

You'll get all the programs which you can get for DOS also for unix.
The real problem is, that most of this programs aren't so easy to use
as under DOS. Another problem is, that all this programs comes as
sources, because there never will be one common object format for
all unix's on all hardware platforms. So you have to know about
makefiles and differences between various unix's, to port the
programs to that one, you are using. All the public domain,
freeware, shareware programs for DOS comes with or only as a executable,
ready to run immediately. Also if you can't find a public domain or
freeware program and you have to buy it, it is 3 to 10 times expensiver
than the same program for DOS. I hope that changes a little bit, if
MWC can hold the price for Coherent low (peoples working at MWC also
want to live and I hope they can it with $100 for a Coherent).

: In the mean time I cannot shut down my CPU every darn time I want to run
: some dweeby dos program that cost $40 that works, that I don't have to
: write.  The alternative would be another computer, which I really would

Why not? I can! Yes I'm using some DOS programs, the CompuServe
Information Mangager as an example.

: rather not purchase, and then there is the problem of Wife, Kid, Modem
: user all wanting the same dos program at the same time.

You are right, this is really a problem, if I'm running DOS my wife
can't chatt from the other terminal with people here on a local BBS :-)
But she is willing to use the unix programs, so that we both can do
something with our single system!

: I'd say a Merge type product would be preferable to a straight
: enviroment type of emulation with shell.  I have found very few low cost
: and shareware programs that would not run under VP/ix.  As for the High
: end DOS stuff, I'd go ahead and spend DOUBLE (and TRIPLE and ...) on the
: Unix Version in most instances.

As mentioned above, I think you can get all this programs also for unix.
If you run the high end DOS stuff in a DOS box under unix, you run it
with a strange loss of performance. Try the flight simulator, it runs,
but it's not funny to run it under VP/ix. Also you can't run all the
DOS protected mode software until Intel gives us an 80x86 which can
create a virtual 386 running in protected mode. Hm, if you are talking
about games, most of the good DOS games are more amusing then the
unix games, but this will change with a GUI.

: I think MWC definately has the right idea with COFF and INTEL ABI. 
: First thing I asked about LINUX and HURD was binary compatability.  This
: is an ABSOLUTE must.  We HAVE to have standards and MWC has done a great
: service to the *IX community in providing this.

I aggree!

: In the standards arena, like it or not DOS IS a standard.  By creating
: an interface to existing DOS programs you give a bridge between the old
: and the new.  IMHO this is a neccessary evil for any *IX to take hold. 
: Even MicroStuff knows this hence NT will be quite compatible at some
: level with Win 3.1, which runs on top of DOS and can run DOS apps...

It's not, that I don't like DOS, it's an easy to use nice program loader,
which can load lots of really good programs. But I think I'll use DOS
for that task, and not let unix emulate it, what never works perfectly.
Same problem with windows, I'm using windows for windows applications,
not to run DOS applications, therefor I'm using DOS. You ask why?
Last time when I run telemate 3.11 under windows 3.1, windows tells
me, that telemate tries to execute illegal instructions and it aborts
telemate. So far so good, I leave windows and try to run telemate from
DOS, but the file with the phonenumbers has been garbaged. I think everyone
else also has some examples, where the emulation of an OS under another
one doesn't work perfectly. So I think it's always better to run
programs in the environment, for which they are made for, and not blow
up an OS to emulate another one a little bit.
It would be fine, if the emulation can run 100% perfect all programs
made for the emulated OS. Today this is not possible for DOS under
unix, also forget about it until it really can be done.

: SCO and Interactive with VP/ix provided a bridge.  The BIG problem was
: PRICE.  Who in their right mind wants to spend $2000 for a glorified DOS
: platform?  No one, However, say Coherent for $100 + A $100 Merge product
: and you could still run your dos stuff AND get the benifits of UNIX for
: Under a couple of hundred bucks.  Great,  We'll try it.  For $2000 you
: have to NEED it for $200 you can check it out without melting your
: wallet if it won't fly. 

Because what I've sayed before, I wouldn't buy something like VP/ix for
$2000 nor for $100, I would spend the $100 for DOS to run DOS programs.

: MWC I think realizes this, hence a $100 OS.  I'd love it to become a
: standard, but WE'll have to see.

Sorry, but I think realize it not. It would blow up the kernel and you
can't get it to run every DOS program today. Maybe that one day whe
have the neccessary CPU which also must be payable, do do it right.
But it is questionable that DOS is even so popular in the future
then today. My good old PET2001 and Apple II are gone into the cellar
years ago, and I'm also not asking for a emulation of them. I'm simply
using todays software under the OS's which are available today.
--
Udo Munk     | voice:      +49 2131 275348             | uucp: +49 2131 278869
Oberstr. 21  | mail :      udo@umunk.GUN.de            |     2400/1200/300 8N1
4040 Neuss 1 | ...!{mcshh,smurf,unido}!easix!umunk!udo | MYNAME=bbsuser
Fed. Rep. of | CompuServe: 100021,2515                 | login: uucp
Germany      | at first connect get ~/info  and ~/files| pwd:   public