#: 7966 S9/UNIX for the PC 17-Nov-86 14:53:53 Sb: #Special Topic Intro. Fm: Levi Thomas (Sysop) 76703,4060 To: ALL Hello folks and welcome to the ever-changing world of SubTopic 9. This week's special topic is UNIX on the PC. Our guest is Dwight Leu from Microport Systems, Inc. of Aptos CA. Microport has ported UNIX System V to the PC-AT and compatibles and is selling the Runtime System for about $159. Wow. Feel free to ask Dwight about the product, the project, the legal hassles from AT&T (just guessing Dwight), and...well...y'all can take it from there. Mr. Leu will be here until next Monday, so pace yourselves. --Levi (emcee) Thomas *** There are replies: 7968, 7983 #: 7983 S9/UNIX for the PC 17-Nov-86 21:08:11 Sb: #7966-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Levi Thomas (Sysop) 76703,4060 (X) Greetings! This is Dwight Leu. I led the System V UNIX port, and did much of the technical work, from the boot blocks, the kernel hacking, and AT specific user level utilities. Since I have no idea as to what people are interested in knowing about Microport, I will leave this open to you folks, and start off by answering any specific questions. For those of you who aren't familiar with what Microport has done, we are offering real true blue UNIX (and not a look alike) for the IBM AT, and we sell the basic OS and utilities (including vi and uucp) for $159. The complete package (with software and text development) for $450. We were also the first people to port System V.3 to the 386. We've also just introduced DOS MERGE, which allows one to run both DOS and UNIX at the same time. Our basic philosophy was inspired by Borland: to sell UNIX at the lowest price possible. Levi wasn't just guessing about some of the legal hassles we've experienced, and not just from ATT. I believe I mentioned some of them at the hacker's conference a few weeks ago. If there's enough demand, I'll go into some of them. Others I won't discuss here, because we are still under the active threat of lawsuits by various competitors. One final note: we are no longer located in Aptos. We moved to Scotts Valley a couple of months ago, into a much bigger building. -dwight- *** There are replies: 7985, 7993, 7998, 8019, 8072 *** Reading replies to 7966 *** *** More *** #: 7985 S9/UNIX for the PC 18-Nov-86 00:56:45 Sb: #7983-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Fred Buck 73327,3604 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Er, can I ask a general question? What's the real diff between System V and its predecessors (i.e., if someone has, say, Sys 3, why switch)? I'm not talking here about purely cosmetic or trivial changes like better utilities X, Y and Z: in what way is the operating system superior (if any)? I realize this has little specifically to do with Microport, but on the other hand, presumably, you guys expect to sell yer product, and also presumably you expect to sell it to people who may already have a non-V Unix or equivalent. *** There is a reply: 8002 *** Reading replies to 7966 *** *** More *** #: 8002 S9/UNIX for the PC 18-Nov-86 20:34:51 Sb: #7985-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Fred Buck 73327,3604 (X) System V is better than it's predecessors in several ways. First, the OS is faster in how it deals with various lists; it uses hashing, where previous versions used linear searching. Buffers, inodes and filesystem freelists are the first areas that come to mind. This results in a very noticable performance increase. Second, the OS is much more powerful in its capabilities. Interprocess Communication and Shared Memory are two obvious examples in V.2; built in networking is one example in V.3. I don't share your belief that better utilities are cosmetic or trivial changes; and there are a number of changes in this area that are definite improvements. The generic version for the 286 and 386 ports have an great feature called "file system hardening"; whereby buffers are continually aged and written out to disk, rather than being sync'ed every 30 seconds or so. The upshot of this is that you can pull out the plug on your AT at any time, and not have to worry about losing files, or having serious filesystem damage. With fs hardening, we can allocate many more buffers without having to worry about trashed filesystems, and this results in tremendous performance increases. Finally, System V is "The Standard", according to ATT, but only you can determine the importance of that to your work. As to why you should switch to System V, you'll really have to weigh your own needs in this area. I know of some sites that are still running V6. All I can say is that I've found that my own work is made easier when I deal with something that everyone else is trying to support. -dwight- *** There is a reply: 8010 *** Reading replies to 7966 *** *** More *** #: 8010 S9/UNIX for the PC 18-Nov-86 21:17:00 Sb: #8002-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Fred Buck 73327,3604 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) A fair answer. I didn't genuinely believe that AT&T would waste its time coming up with System V if there weren't such significant changes to be made, but I did genuinely have no idea what they might be. Thanks for the details. *** Reading replies to 7966 *** *** More *** #: 7993 S9/UNIX for the PC 18-Nov-86 14:28:48 Sb: #7983-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bob Peterson 76703,532 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Dwight, Which of your competition is not, as you put it, "...real true blue UNIX (and not a look alike)..." As I understand the situation, Xenix _is_ licensed from AT&T and is based on Unix sources just as your port is. Is there another port I'm not aware of that you consider to be your competition? *** There is a reply: 8006 *** Reading replies to 7966 *** *** More *** #: 8006 S9/UNIX for the PC 18-Nov-86 21:00:51 Sb: #7993-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Bob Peterson 76703,532 (X) In the micro UNIX world, there are only 3 competitors with a significant share of the market: XENIX (by Microsoft), VENIX (by Venturecom), and System V/AT. In my opinion, Venix has never been a serious contender. Xenix, on the otherhand, holds the greatest market share. Although Xenix is licensed from ATT, it is not real UNIX. While it is compatible at the System call level (and thus has passed the System V validation suite), it differs from real UNIX in many ways. By and large, Microsoft is constrained to be backwards compatible to its previous releases. For this reason, you see a number of outdated incompatibilities at the user level, dating back to V7 (e.g. /etc/ttys and termcap to name but two). And it is these incompatibilities which continually get in one's way when you try to switch between the two. While system call compatibility is nice, it is not sufficient to guarentee that a program which compiles under UNIX will port to XENIX. We saw a dramatic case of this recently. A customer had 20 Mb of *source* code that they wanted ported to the AT. It took them 3 man-years (i.e. 3 engineers working a solid year) to port it to Xenix. One of my engineers did it in two weeks. The new release of UNIX (V.3) is the best example, though. The kernel is much more complex that V.2. This means that Microsoft is having to spend a tremendous amount of effort to come up with Xenix V.3. In contrast, I and 1 other engineer brought V.3 up on the 386 (a full port) in *two* weeks. To my knowledge, that is one of the fastest UNIX ports in history (it usually takes 3-6 months to bring UNIX up on a new architecture). Ultimately, I expect to see DOS pass the System V test suite. But in my opinion, it won't be UNIX either. -dwight- #: 8019 S9/UNIX for the PC 18-Nov-86 22:39:17 Sb: #7983-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Darryl Okahata 75206,3074 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Is there any chance you could upload an "electronic data sheet" on Microport UNIX? Do you have any benchmarks -- I'd like to get a feel for how fast/slow it is. -- Darryl *** There is a reply: 8023 *** Reading replies to 7966 *** *** More *** #: 8023 S9/UNIX for the PC 18-Nov-86 23:10:55 Sb: #8019-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Darryl Okahata 75206,3074 I'll see what I can do for an electronic data sheet; I suppose that sales must have something along these lines. As far as benchmarks go, drystones are in the bottom range of a VAX 750; between 1500-1800 as I recall. In our standard lit pack is an article about the Nelson benchmarks, which were performed independently, by Dmitri Rotow and Bob Glossman, of Bell Technologies. It compared us, IBM XENIX and SCO XENIX. We came out ahead of both XENIX's by factors of between 10% and 1000%. These benchmarks are weighted towards measuring multi-user performance though. -dwight- *** Reading replies to 7966 *** *** More *** #: 8072 S9/UNIX for the PC 19-Nov-86 13:40:16 Sb: #7983-Special Topic Intro. Fm: ERIC G. ECKBERG 74176,2731 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 Hello Dwight, thanks for participating in this SIG. I have seen the ads for your UNIX System V and am trying to get it stuck into my budget. I have also used PC/IX from Interactive Systems (UNIX System III) and was real excited about running UNIX on a PC. Now for the questions: You talk about one partition in the ad. Does this mean that UNIX and DOS reside in the same partition or does each require it's own? I'm sure you've got utilities that allow users to transfer files between partitions if that is required, but what about running say Lotus 1-2-3 from UNIX? Is that possible? Final question is on a different note: How could I get a DOS version of NROFF with the Memorandum Macros without having to go out and buy some complete commercial package? Is there any way to get ahold of some of the old UNIX I source code or technical documentation? Thanks. #: 8085 S9/UNIX for the PC 19-Nov-86 16:57:05 Sb: #Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bob Peterson 76703,532 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Dwight, So your definition of "real Unix" is one derived from AT&T sources _and_ doesn't support any backward compatibility? Does this mean that Berkley doesn't ship "real Unix"? After all, 4.3BSD still uses /etc/ttys and termcap! If you couldn't tell, I find your definition of "real Unix" extremely narrow, almost to the point of "real Unix" being what AT&T sells _exclusive_ of ports and/or passing the System V Validation Suite. There is, after all, a _lot_ of software out there, both commercial and free, that needs backward compatibility in areas such as termcap. For example, I'm aware of problems porting to System V very similar to your anecdote, ie, where moving from System III to System V required _lots_ of time. In my opinion, the portability of Unix applications is one of the biggest myths around. I say this having been there. Please tell me what a "...full port..." of System V Release 3 is for the 80386. Are you telling me you utilized the 32-bit nature, ie, flat address space instead of segmented space, by coding a brand new code generator and recompiling all of SVR3 in two weeks? And are shipping this capability now? Does this mean that your 80386 version doesn't have memory models? *** There are replies: 8103, 8104 #: 8103 S9/UNIX for the PC 19-Nov-86 22:30:13 Sb: #8085-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Bob Peterson 76703,532 (X) I agree completely with you, Bob; my definition of "real UNIX" is extremely narrow. And no, I don't consider UCB UNIX to be "real UNIX". Please note that this by itself doesn't place a value judgement on whether UCB or ATT UNIX is "better". Such a judgement is based upon the metric that you use. For speed high tech features, and just better thinking, UCB wins hands down. Occasionally they screw up, but that's part of what being a leader in technology is all about. But I live in the world of business, and have had to deal with industry software for many years. For this reason, I prefer to stick to standards; where the strength is using something that people agree on. One of the reasons that UNIX has done so miserably in the marketplace is because there have been so many different versions of it around; which is expensive when you want to port something from Funknix to Dosnix (as you have apparently seen). But this is not true when you are dealing with software that runs on the certified ATT UNIX ports (or at worst, it is considerably less expensive). ATT is spending literally millions of dollars in making sure that their certified ports are consistant across all architectures. And this pays off greatly when you have to port from SV on a Vax to SV on an AT. It has saved us millions of dollars, and given us instant application software, because our copy of the certified 286 port is *BINARY COMPATIBLE* with the copy that runs on ATT's 6300+. Finally, as to the 386 port, you must realize that we didn't have to recompile *any* 386 UNIX utilities. As with the 286 port, we merely *copied* them from the generic release. And this includes the compiler. For the port, we merely had to change the kernel, which originally ran on Intel's 386 310 box. And to be honest, half of that time was spent on developing the big boot code, which wasn't part of the original release. Normally, it takes about 2 weeks just to compile the utilities. As far as memory models go, yes, there is indeed just one, with the tiny model thrown in for whoever needs it. The 386 SVR3 has been shipping in Beta form *** There is a reply: 8115 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8115 S9/UNIX for the PC 20-Nov-86 02:21:22 Sb: #8103-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Chuck Forsberg Omen Tech 70007,2304 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Will 386 Unix be able to run 286 Unix programs, or must they be recompiled for the 386 system? Whch 286 models will be supported? *** There is a reply: 8142 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8142 S9/UNIX for the PC 20-Nov-86 17:21:14 Sb: #8115-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Chuck Forsberg Omen Tech 70007,2304 (X) As things stand right now, 286 Unix programs must be recompiled for the 386! Yes, this is incredibly stupid, and I don't know why the folks who are developing the generic 386 port have done this. I also don't know if this is going to remain the same for the final release of the generic 386 port. We, and many others, have been applying a lot of pressure on Intel to support 286 binaries. But so far, they haven't made a firm decision on this, to the best of my knowledge. All I can say is, that if they don't support 286 binaries, we most likely will, as all of our application base is on the 286. As far as 286 models go, right now just the small model is supported on the 386. -dwight- *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8104 S9/UNIX for the PC 19-Nov-86 22:37:26 Sb: #8085-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Bob Peterson 76703,532 (X) SVR3-386 has been shipping from us since September, in beta release form, but only to select OEMs. End users will have to wait until ATT certification, which is scheduled for Feb 87. I also apologize for the length of this and other messages. I really have been trying to keep them all as short as possible; but some questions need a thorough answer. And when many questions are asked at once, it is difficult to keep a letter short. -dwightp.s. Now I know about the !#$%^& 35 line limit! jeez, this smacks of censorship *** There are replies: 8124, 8137 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8096 S9/UNIX for the PC 19-Nov-86 20:00:07 Sb: #Special Topic Intro. Fm: Peter Retief 76224,71 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Dwight, It's great to have you here! In my opinion, the most important question regarding which Unix to buy is the question of what additional software is available. As far as I know, Xenix Sys V has a large selection of spreadsheets, database, word processors, etc. How compatible is Microport with Xenix in terms of these products. Could you give us some idea of what is available under Microport. A second question: Does DOS-Merge allow more than one user to run DOS programs at the same time? What restrictio?s are there on which DOS applications will run? Thamnks, Peter. *** There are replies: 8109, 8112 #: 8109 S9/UNIX for the PC 19-Nov-86 23:05:13 Sb: #8096-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Peter Retief 76224,71 (X) This brings up an excellent topic: applications! System V/AT is in no way capable of running Xenix binaries. A year ago we had announced that we would be supporting this in 86. However, we got a very nasty letter from Microsoft, saying that they considered Xenix technology proprietary, even if we didn't need source code to implement it. I believe they threatened to sue us if we so much as even demo'ed this capability to anyone. In my opinion, they had no grounds whatsoever for a lawsuit, just a very large legal department. Around the beginning of this year, we realized that we didn't even need their applications anyway. ATT was kind enough to provide more applications than AT Xenix has. ATT spend millions of dollars in porting application software to the 6300+. And all of them (in the hundreds, at least) are binary compatible with our System V/AT. The *only* thing that we've had to do is to de-engineer the installation format on the floppies. Every single one has come up without a hitch. So virtually overnight we had instant applications. And, with our new DOS-MERGE technology, I believe we now have more applications than anyone else in the world, including Microsoft. -dwightDisclaimer: All of the above statements are my own personal opinion, and not those of my employer. And they are certainly not official Microport statements, or policy. *** There is a reply: 8224 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8224 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 10:42:51 Sb: #8109-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Dwight: Some questions. My programming experience is almost exclusively in the MS-DOS world. I have used other computers, including my university's CMS/VM mainframe (yuk!), but have never used anything beyond high-level languages with them. I would be interested in reading up on Unix, just to get a flavor for the machanics of it. What book(s) would you recommend? Most of the UNIX books available around here seem to be very introductory and not tell you anything about the nuts and bolts of the Unix OS. I would also be interested in some info about the various releases by AT&T, which you have briefly alluded to. Essentially, I am an MS-DOS Turbo Pascal and assembly language programmer. I know all about DOS and BIOS calls. I would be interested in how programmers do the same under Unix. I would also be interested in how graphics are coded and implemented. Thanks, Bill *** There is a reply: 8294 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8294 S9/UNIX for the PC 24-Nov-86 22:39:09 Sb: #8224-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 (X) This best book that I know of about the internals of UNIX is by Maurice J. Bach. I believe the title is "The Design of the UNIX Operating System". It has just been published, by Prentice-Hall. While it does has it's limitations, it is a must for anyone who wants to learn about the internal mechanics. As far as User-level books go, I'm less well-informed about the current offering. S.R. Bourne's book is a classic, as well as Kernigham and Plaugher(??). And of course, the C "bible" by Kernigham and Ritchie. All of these are for the more sophisticated user, though. And they were written by people who were instrumental in UNIX's early development. -dwight- *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8112 S9/UNIX for the PC 20-Nov-86 00:00:25 Sb: #8096-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Peter Retief 76224,71 (X) I forgot to answer the second part of your question, so here it is. 286 DOS-MERGE only runs DOS on the main console. 386 DOS-MERGE however runs on each remote (serial) terminal, in addition to the main console. Thus, we now have multiuser DOS currently running. Where's Microsoft with this, you might ask? About a year away. -dwight- *** Reading replies to 8085 *** #: 8099 S9/UNIX for the PC 19-Nov-86 21:47:36 Sb: Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: ERIC G. ECKBERG 74176,2731 (X) Currently, System V/AT (like the other UNIX ports) requires that DOS and UNIX be kept on separate partitions. Under DOS MERGE, they can live on the same partition; and this will allow one to run DOS programs (like Lotus and Flight Simulator) from UNIX. As for DOS versions of Nroff, I don't know of anyone who sells such a package; the closest thing I know of is some company in the midwest (?) who sells UNIX-like programs under DOS, but I don't know their name. As far as old UNIX source code, I suspect that you may actually still need an ATT license (they are incredibly fussy about these sorts of things). I don't know where old documentation can be had; but some of the current doc is availible in certain bookstores that carry hi-tech books. -dwight- *** Reading replies to 8085 *** #: 8120 S9/UNIX for the PC 20-Nov-86 07:31:55 Sb: #Special Topic Intro. Fm: Darryl Okahata 75206,3074 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Thanks! Do you know the specs of the machine used to run Microport UNIX (e.g., clock speed, avg. disk access time, etc.)? Also, using the C compiler, can you have single data arrays larger than 64K? I'm asking this because I'm wondering if it's possible to port GNU Emacs to MP UNIX. It probably can't be ported, but it would be very nice if it could (I imagine you'd have to rewrite large chunks of GNU Emacs). -- Darryl *** There is a reply: 8144 #: 8144 S9/UNIX for the PC 20-Nov-86 17:29:42 Sb: #8120-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Darryl Okahata 75206,3074 (X) Any AT clone that runs DOS should be able to run our software. I know of machines that run it from 6-10 Mhz (286). The Toshiba disk drives (86MB) are dynamite; they have a 23 ms access time (I have one on my own system). Televideo, Bell Technologies, and Nexus all have very nice hardware for running several users at the same time. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait for the V.3 release, for very large data arrays. This should be out first quarter next year. As far as Emacs goes, someone was kind enough to port micro Emacs, and give us a copy. We'll be assembling public domain floppies in the near future, and these will be availible for just the cost of distributing them. -dwight- *** There is a reply: 8162 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8162 S9/UNIX for the PC 20-Nov-86 22:01:22 Sb: #8144-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Darryl Okahata 75206,3074 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Thanks for the info. I've played around with MicroEmacs and have found it to be good as far as IBM PC editors go, but poor as far as UNIX editors go. On UNIX, MicroEmacs is slow in screen updating; vi updates the screen much faster. MicroEmacs is also missing regular expressions, not to mention the (mock)lisp programming language. GNU Emacs, on the other hand, has more of the features that I like in a UNIX editor (screen updates are still slower than those of vi, though). It's got regular expressions and the integrated lisp compiler/interpreter (?). It's incredibly awesome to be able to assign a lisp function to a key (not to mention being able to interactively debug the function). In case I haven't been too clear, GNU Emacs has a "version" of the lisp language built into it. Unfortunately, GNU Emacs was written for the 680x0-based UNIX systems and makes a few MAJOR assumptions about how memory is organized. For example, to initially configure GNU Emacs, the newly compiled version is run, which then loads the set of lisp functions that you want it to have, after which it writes a copy of itself from memory (?) to disk. It is this copy which is then run as "GNU Emacs"; the original version is no longer needed and can be removed. Not a very good programming practice, in my opinion. -- Darryl *** Reading replies to 8085 *** #: 8161 S9/UNIX for the PC 20-Nov-86 21:21:37 Sb: #Special Topic Intro. Fm: Jim Foy 75735,1505 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Does your version of UNIX run on a Tandy 3000? *** There is a reply: 8175 #: 8175 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 07:49:14 Sb: #8161-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Jim Foy 75735,1505 (X) Yep. It runs just fine on the Tandy 3000. In fact, we tested out one of the original releases at our local Radio Shack store. -dwight- *** There is a reply: 8179 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8179 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 15:05:03 Sb: #8175-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Jim Foy 75735,1505 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) What languages does the Microport Unix support? Any versions of Basic, such as MBasic that runs on SCO Xenix? *** There is a reply: 8187 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8187 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 19:03:27 Sb: #8179-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Jim Foy 75735,1505 (X) Fortran 77 is included in the software development package. I don't know what other languages will run on it, but the general rule is anything that runs on the 6300+ UNIX is binary compatible with our system. And ATT has a huge book listing all of the applications that run on the various architectures under UNIX. According to them, this applications book is availible at bookstores (such as B Dalton's) and your friendly neighborhood library. Sorry I don't know anything further on this, but I only use C. -dwight- *** There is a reply: 8202 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8202 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 21:24:42 Sb: #8187-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Jim Foy 75735,1505 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) For those of us who are not gurus, please explain exactly what "binary compatable" means. DOes that mean you can load and go, or does the source code have to be re-compiled, or what? Thanks. *** There is a reply: 8233 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8233 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 14:34:09 Sb: #8202-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Jim Foy 75735,1505 (X) "Binary compatible" means that you can take a program that's been compiled on one machine, under one operating system, and move it over to another machine and have it run immediately, without recompiling the source. In our case, all of the application software that runs on ATT's 6300+ runs directly on our System V/AT. This means that you can buy a 6300+ application package, and use it on our software. -dwight- *** Reading replies to 8085 *** #: 8166 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 01:06:37 Sb: #Special Topic Intro. Fm: Denis Hennessy 73277,1203 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) dwight, Can you tell me whether your unix will support the PC Network? If so, can it be a server to other DOS/UNIX machines? if not, can DOS Merge run the PC Network program (server) as a task with unix still available. Also can DOS Merge run MS Windows? Thanks Denis *** There is a reply: 8176 #: 8176 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 07:53:32 Sb: #8166-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Denis Hennessy 73277,1203 (X) Our current product doesn't support PC Net. Under DOS MERGE, PC Net and Windows *may* work; but we're still in the process of bringing the product into Beta release as of yet. So, the basic answer is "Please stay tuned". We should know about both of these in January. -dwight- *** Reading replies to 8085 *** #: 8190 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 20:02:52 Sb: #Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Levi Thomas (Sysop) 76703,4060 (X) Well, since the questions have slowed down a bit, and since I only have a couple more days left in this forum, I'd like to discuss a few things that have been on my mind lately. This is with the expressed hopes of stirring things up here. When I was at the hacker's conference a few weeks back, at one of the last discussions there seemed to be a general agreement on something that I felt was incredibly off-base.And that is the software world is several years behind the hardware technology. BULL! I didn't feel like saying anything then, but this misconception bothered me, and my not pointing out this fallacy has bothered me even more so now. So I'd like to correct this idea. The truth of the matter is that as far as the microcomputer world goes, the hardware technology is only now starting to catch up with the software technology. What has blinded people to this is that they are merely thinking in terms of yesterday's software technology; which for microcomputers has been DOS 3.x. The IBM AT benchmarks in at the low end of a VAX 750. The 386 has 3/4 the power of a VAX 8600 (as measured in dhrystones). Folks, the software to run these types of machines has been around for years! It's only been recently that microcomputers have had the power to run this kind of software. Of course the obvious case in point is UNIX. It has only been with the advent of the AT that one has had a decent UNIX engine at a relatively cheap price (i.e. less than 3 grand, including software). But my arguement here goes beyond UNIX, it applies to other OS's that are running on mini's and mainframes. When microcomputer's become as capable as the larger machines all one has to do is to port that software technology to the micro's. In term's of the current state of the art (software and hardware) we have availible very sophisticated tools *right now* for micro's. (cont'd next message) *** There are replies: 8192, 8220 #: 8192 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 20:19:21 Sb: #8190-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Lee Feldenstein made a comment that I feel is going to leave him, and so many other 386 developers out in the technological boonies. His comment was something like "it's going to take 2-3 years to develop the software that is going to run on (his) new hardware". If one stays in the mental rut of 8086 land, he is absolutely correct; and in fact 2-3 years may be optimistic. What he, and so many others don't realize is that the software is availible *today*. Graphics, networking, applications are all availible, or are being ported *now*. And anyone who doesn't make use of this fact is going to get left way behind by one's competitors. Well, it's time for me to get off of my soapbox on this. Comments anyone? -dwight- *** There is a reply: 8204 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8204 S9/UNIX for the PC 21-Nov-86 21:55:58 Sb: #8192-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Yeah, I have a comment. After using five different implementations of UNIX, all I have to say is I can't imagine any more inappropriate operating system for a personal computer than UNIX. *** There are replies: 8216, 8226 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8216 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 07:46:07 Sb: #8204-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Jim Foy 75735,1505 To: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 (X) ANd I can't believe that any serious multiuser application could be put onto a micro without UNIX. True, it's not real friendly to the programmer--he must be able to understand a fairly complex set of commands. But the tradeoff is that he can design a very friendly application for an unsophisticated user. OS's such as MS-DOS are light-years behind UNIX. *** There are replies: 8221, 8244 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8221 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 10:37:38 Sb: #8216-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bob Peterson 76703,532 To: Jim Foy 75735,1505 (X) Jim, Well, let's see. The following are _multiuser_ microcomputer operating systems that are _not_ Unix or Unix clones, or Unix-like: MBOS (A COBOL-oriented system) PDOS (A real-time system) RM/COS (Another COBOL-oriented system) Pick (Database oriented) Mirage (Initially to support APL, now with BASIC, FORTRAN, and Pascal) I can _easily_ imagine doing a multiuser microcomputer application without Unix!!! Now, if you want multitasking to support multiple terminals running a single application, the list of non-Unix support software grows significantly. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that Unix, the most common multiuser OS on micros, is the only (or best) of its type. Also don't forget that Intel isn't the only company whose cpu products are incorporated into personal computers. *** There is a reply: 8236 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8236 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 15:31:20 Sb: #8221-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Bob Peterson 76703,532 (X) I hope that I haven't started a UNIX vs other OS's donnybrook; and the same applies to the Intel hardware. I obviously have my own beliefs and biases in both of these areas. I was using UNIX and the 386 as a specific example of how software technology is *ahead* of hardware technology; and I believe it will be for the foreseeable future. As microcomputers get more sophisticated, they can use the software technology currently running on larger systems. And that it doesn't make sense to limit one's self to yesterday's tools. Granted, they'll probably be around forever (look at Fortran!). But to limit oneself like this will prove to be a significant hinderance if you're serious about market penetration using new hardware technology, whatever your product is. What I love about the hi-tech arena is that the rules change every three years, when new technology is brought out. What I object to is people who insist on using old tools and ideas on new systems. I claim that developers who stick to these won't stand a chance in the long run. This just seems incredibly obvious to me, and I believe that history has shown it over and over again. Yet there seems to be a certain reluctance to embrace new capabilites. Case in point being DOS 5.0; a horrible example of trying to teach an old dog new tricks. I would like to see people in this industry being innovative, and bold enough to come up with new approaches and ideas. Yet this is woefully lacking today. Why? What does it take to get people using new concepts? Is it simply cost-effectiveness? Perhaps marketing? I really don't know; and am trying to find out by stirring up some comments on our industry's muddling along, and what I perceive to be misguided notions among people who should be leading, and not sticking to comfortable old notions. Oh well, I'm climbing down off of my soapbox. Is there anyone out there who sees that I'm missing something, or am off-base on this? I'd really like to know. -dwight- *** There are replies: 8238, 8247, 8260 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8238 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 17:36:59 Sb: #8236-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Chris Dunford [IBMNET] 76703,2002 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) I'm sorry, have you seen DOS 5.0? I didn't realize it was available yet, for that kind of judgement. *** There is a reply: 8295 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8295 S9/UNIX for the PC 24-Nov-86 22:54:40 Sb: #8238-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Chris Dunford [IBMNET] 76703,2002 (X) I have some very good contacts with what's happening with DOS 5.0. What leads me to believe in their information is that it's consistant from different sources. It's definately not availible yet, and of course the final judgement will have to await it's appearance. But if I understand the thinking up at Microsoft, I'd be willing to bet that the only thing that will carry it is a huge marketing effort, and not it's technical merits. -dwight- *** There is a reply: 8304 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8304 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 17:20:07 Sb: #8295-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Lee Penn 70140,274 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 I feel that the force of DOS has been carried by those many programs that have been written that require that the user only be able to fine the reset button. The average USER USER does not want to even know about the Op sys. XENIX/UNIX et al is definitely not for this person. For me, the UNIX environment is nervana. The multiscreen function with SCO (and UNIX 5) makes this machine absolutely vital to my business. AND I do have spreadsheet/word processing/ and file processing all available at a quick flick of the ALT Fkey. Dos seem painfully archaic whenever I user. UNIX on MICROS FOREVER! *** There is a reply: 8307 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8307 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 18:02:16 Sb: #8304-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 To: Lee Penn 70140,274 Lee: I agree with you that us programming types have no problems with crytpic operating systems that need to be mastered to be useful. But if computer use ever reaches the point that we dream of, with machines on almost every desk, then we will be a definite minority, with the majority of people wanting to use those easy-to-use programs and operating systems. Bill *** There is a reply: 8312 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8312 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 20:26:12 Sb: #8307-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Jim Foy 75735,1505 To: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 (X) The main thing missing from UNIX is, as you say, ease of use. I suspect that we will ultimately see another shell--one that is less cryptic for the user. I guess Microsoft tried this approch with vsh, but it is not the answer. Various applications come with a user shell that handles the most important jobs, but fame and glory await the guru that developes one for all purposes. *** There is a reply: 8324 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8324 S9/UNIX for the PC 26-Nov-86 10:23:34 Sb: #8312-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bryan Headley/Tandy 70007,2060 To: Jim Foy 75735,1505 Jim - I personally like Telexpress's XMENU. Bryan *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8247 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 22:41:29 Sb: #8236-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) I'm surprised at your comment on DOS 5.0. People who know something about the system aren't allowed to discuss it. So are you just guessing, or violating your nondisclosure agreements? *** There is a reply: 8296 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8296 S9/UNIX for the PC 24-Nov-86 22:59:05 Sb: #8247-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 My beliefs on DOS 5.0 come from different sources associated with Microsoft. What leads me to believe their information is that they confirm the approach that Microsoft is taking. So I guess that you could say that I'm not guessing, or violating my nondisclosure agreement (as I have none in this area), but from violating other people's non-disclosure agreements . But of course *I* would never say this! -dwight- *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8260 S9/UNIX for the PC 23-Nov-86 12:41:59 Sb: #8236-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bob Peterson 76703,532 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 (X) Dwight, It is not my intention to fuel a "my OS is better than yours" discussion. Such religious wars are not productive. I don't know of an OS that meets what I'd like to have! And that includes Mac's Finder, Unix (on anyone's box, with anyone's extensions), MS-DOS, or even what I'm using right now, the UCSD p-System. Your statements about wishing to use new tools and your (apparent) position that Unix is such a tool are a very interesting contrast. I also don't believe that moving software from minicomputers to personal computers is (generally) the answer to the personal computer users' needs. There are, of course, exceptions, ie, situations when running Unix on a personal computer is exactly the right solution. As I noted above, our opinions of Unix' position with respect to "state of the art" operating systems differ. And that's OK. I have no urgent need to convert you to my view, only to state my opinion for the benefit of discussion. I'd like to see more powerful, more sophiscated personal computers be used to support not minicomputer system software, but system tools that are appropriate to the work a personal computer user is doing. This implies, to me, software that goes far beyond the capabilities present in most minicomputer operating systems, perhaps even to the point of the operating system as a distinct piece of software disappearing. I certainly agree that taking a narrow view of how personal computers should be operated, by limiting one's view to existing tools and methods, is the road to minimum performance, and a backward-looking position to take. On the other hand, I don't expect to see 1-2-3 running in native mode on a 386 for at least a year! I have enjoyed this week. I hope you've found enough value here to get a Microport account on Compuserve. Here's my .signature file: Hardcopy and Electronic Addresses: Bob Peterson Usenet: ...!ut-sally!im4u!ti-csl!peterson P.O. Box 1686 Compuserve: 76703,532 Plano, Tx 75074 (214) 995-6080 (work) or (214) 596-3720 (ans. machine) *** There are replies: 8261, 8297 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8261 S9/UNIX for the PC 23-Nov-86 13:03:53 Sb: #8260-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Levi Thomas (Sysop) 76703,4060 To: Bob Peterson 76703,532 (X) Dwight will be with us on his current account for another week so we can keep this fire going for a bit longer. --Levi *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8297 S9/UNIX for the PC 24-Nov-86 23:30:11 Sb: #8260-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Bob Peterson 76703,532 (X) There are several interesting points that you bring up here. First, I'd agree that a number of the ideas offered would be desirable. But what is the quickest way to implement them? I believe that this can be done by making use of the software technology that is used to exploiting the power of sophisticated hardware, rather than trying to mimic this capability with more limited technology. For this reason, I disagree completely with the notion that software technology is behind hardware technology for micros. I've been rather disappointed that no one has disagreed with me; there seemed to be so much agreement on this at the hackers conference (where's Lee Felsenstein when I need him !). Also, I'm not sure that you'll ever see 1-2-3 running in native mode on the 386, except under DOS 3.x. To do so would be to ignore the capabilities of the 386. In Virtual Mode, though, is another matter. It's currently running on our implementation of DOS-MERGE, and on multiple serial consoles. Finally, it looks like you'll have to put up with me for another week. Levi was kind of enough to let me extend my access to CIS. Thanks Levi! I'll probably be off though, from Thursday through Saturday, and returning Sunday. -dwight- *** There is a reply: 8309 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8309 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 19:58:06 Sb: #8297-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bob Peterson 76703,532 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 Dwight, Part of my position is that minicomputer software doesn't take advantage of microcomputer hardware! Specifically, how much minicomputer (or larger) software works with bit-mapped and/or color dislays? What I see happening is that such capabilities are utilized by various vendors grafting something onto a minicomputer software base. Heck, Unix doesn't even do a decent job of utilizing a video display terminal! The command interface assumptions with respect to hardware haven't really changed since Unix began! (I'm talking here about Unix as delivered by AT&T or Berkley.) No standard shell (sh csh ksh) makes decent use of a VDT. The user interface assumes nothing more than a TTY-33!!! Hardware technology made that sort of interface obsolete years ago. Sun has made some progress in retrofitting utilization of a large, bitmapped screen to a Unix core. But the basic assumptions of the TTY-33 are still there. And, at this point, Sun is just beginning to distribute their stuff to the general marketplace, ie, other vendors' hardware. For example, why are Unix pipes still linear? I'd like to take the output of the "tee" command and connect _BOTH_ output streams to two other standard inputs! I've been trying to disagree with your assertion that personal computer software technology is ahead of personal computer hardware. I find most personal computer operating system pretty bad, mostly because they are modeled on minicomputer systems not designed as single user, multitasking systems. Why shouldn't I expect 1-2-3 to run in native mode on a '386? Didn't Lotus admitt that 640K isn't enough when they changed 1-2-3 to access "extended" memory? Doesn't this imply that 1-2-3 _should_ be running in an environment that doesn't require a kludge? And isn't the '386 linear addressing just such an environment? *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8244 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 22:23:53 Sb: #8216-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 To: Jim Foy 75735,1505 (X) Exactly my point, a multiuser operating system has no business on a personal computer. *** There is a reply: 8298 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8298 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 00:05:25 Sb: #8244-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 To: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 "A multiuser OS has no business on a personal computer"?? At least I've managed to touch someone's nerve ! I suppose one could go down the drain in various technical debates on this. And personally, it strikes me as rather dogmatic. So let me give you one extremely important reason why the single-user OS is a thing of the past (not that *I'm* dogmatic :-)). Take a look at simple economics, that driving forcce of the marketplace. In my opinion, there is no greater waste of money than a bunch of AT's running DOS. The simple fact is that for around $800 *per user* you can automate an entire office! To my knowledge, there is no other alternative which is as cost effective as an AT running 9 users on System V/AT. A dealer can get an 8-10 Mhz AT for around $1K, 80 Mb (23 ms access time) Toshiba for around another $1K, 3.5 Mb Ram for less than $500. A multiport board (8 users) will run less than $500. And let's say a mono card and monitor for about another $500. Throw in 8 terminals for around $300 each. With our complete software package, that brings the price up to less than $6.5K. For 9 users, that's around $725 per user (and my price estimates are slightly high). And there's no networking needed! I defy *anyone* to show me a more cost effective solution! Given this type of price/performance ration, the single user OS is going to have a great deal of trouble competing in the long term. -dwight- *** There are replies: 8302, 8310, 8322 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8302 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 05:57:59 Sb: #8298-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Chuck Forsberg Omen Tech 70007,2304 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 Where's a good place to get that price on the Tosh HD and the 8 port serial board? 8 ports is just about right for one power user :-) *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8310 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 19:59:01 Sb: #8298-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bob Peterson 76703,532 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 Dwight, "So let me give you one extremely important reason why the single-user OS is a thing of the past ..." Your reasons are all well and good for those environments that are I/O bound at the mass storage interface. However, there _are_ applications that are compute bound, either number crunching or at the user interface. In this sort of environment the best solution I'm aware of is diskless workstations accessing a central file server via a high-speed link. (A local area network is _one_ example of such a link.) I know of an environment of around 100 personal computers with color graphics. Users interact with the displays, using significant amounts of cpu time to update the screen _and_ to check the updates for legality. The displays are required to respond within a few tenths of a second. The database lives on an IBM mainframe. At various points in the process, the workstation exchanges data with the mainframe at high speed. "High speed" means the mainframe transaction should complete in 0.4 seconds or faster. Such an environment could _not_ be economically implemented using a timeshared host because of the computational requirements. The personal computers run MS-DOS! The personal computers _replaced_ IBM color terminals in order to improve response time. These users, and their management, do not consider the machines running MS-DOS to be a waste of money! I assert that even when scaled down to 8 workstations, a single central machine will not provide adequate cpu power. To be more specific, would you be prepared to force 8 engineers to share a single CPU to run AutoCAD??? Most AutoCAD users feel a PC is too slow, much less 1/8 of an AT! *** There is a reply: 8314 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8314 S9/UNIX for the PC 25-Nov-86 21:25:46 Sb: #8310-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: tom genereaux 76470,32 To: Bob Peterson 76703,532 (X) I use a microvax II as a personal workstation for some of the things that I do - and it's too slow! A small Cray should be just about right... Tom G. *** There is a reply: 8325 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8325 S9/UNIX for the PC 26-Nov-86 10:24:39 Sb: #8314-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bryan Headley/Tandy 70007,2060 To: tom genereaux 76470,32 Tom - There you are! My care package never arrived... (How's Germany nowadays?) Bryan *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8322 S9/UNIX for the PC 26-Nov-86 06:20:22 Sb: #8298-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Russ Ranshaw (Wiz-10) 70003,3076 To: Dwight Leu [Microport] 76703,4266 But the multi-user system is definately NOT a PERSONAL Computer! The idea behind the PC is that each individual has a system unto him-/her-self. This allows each individual to have an environment that is potentially configurable for specific needs. Admitedly there are situations where multi-TASKING is desirable (I've not encountered on with my PC), but multi-USER is not necessary. The down-side is that in order to use a multi-user system, multiple terminals are required. And terminals are not free. For not significantly more $$$ than a good terminal one can have a lot of PC power. For those applications which require multi-user access (accounting, engineering, other large data bases), an individual's PC can also have access to a central system, either through a multi-user system or a LAN. And what about the fact that central computers take down an entire operation when they fail? I thought the move to PC's on every desk was a step in the right direction. Lest the facts get lost, I have over 26 years of experience in the computer field. I cut my computer teeth on an IBM 650, and my intimate use of computers covers a range of some 10 or 12 large systems. I have been a proponent of time sharing for many years. I don't believe the need for multi-user systems will vanish. But I am also a supporter of PC's on every desk. In our environment (CIS software development), most programmers have some kind of PC. We typically do our editing locally, upload the CHANGES to the files, and compiler on the mainframe. This has cut down the mainframe requirements significantly. Editing on-line takes a lot of resources, and the capabilities can never match the speed/efficiency of local editing on the PC, where everyone can use the editor of his/her choice. Let's not be myopic and try to keep a larger perspective. *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8226 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 10:43:25 Sb: #8204-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 To: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 (X) Ray: I love your "Advanced MS-DOS" book, and agree that it is a superb reference for MS-DOS. Got a slightly more personal question. There is a small blurb at the back of the book stating you are a physician, speicalizing in neonatology. Are you still practicing medicine? I know you are in California; have you ever hooked up with Shortliffe and his group at Stanford or Blois and his group at UCSF? Are you interested in computer applications specific to medicine? I myself am in my last year of Internal Medicine residency at University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago. I am, however, quite interested in computer applications in clinical medicine, and will most likely be with Blois at UCSF in their Medical Informatics Fellowship next summer. Bill *** There is a reply: 8246 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8246 S9/UNIX for the PC 22-Nov-86 22:32:47 Sb: #8226-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 To: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 (X) I still practice but the amount varies, I cover vacations for some neonatologists in this area and also work weekends and cover nights for them. My fellowship days were before the days of official Medical Informatics fellowships & suchlike. But I did spend about half of my residency and fellowship implementing a data management/on-line reference/physician assistant system for the Neonatal Intensive Care unit at Cedars-Sinai in LA. It was based on a Z-80 system with a hard disk running MP/M II and served 4 terminals and a Printronix 300 LPM printer. Was a lot of fun and was used around the clock by the residents and neonatology staff for about 4 years. Since I left there the software has been ported to a VAX I understand! (they needed more computing power to acquire data frotient monitors in realtime etc.) *** There is a reply: 8253 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8253 S9/UNIX for the PC 23-Nov-86 05:41:59 Sb: #8246-#Special Topic Intro. Fm: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 To: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 (X) Ray: Interesting. Are you working on any medical computing projects currently, or do you plan to? Bill *** There is a reply: 8272 *** Reading replies to 8085 *** *** More *** #: 8272 S9/UNIX for the PC 23-Nov-86 20:55:24 Sb: #8253-Special Topic Intro. Fm: Ray Duncan [DDJFORUM] 76703,4265 To: Bill Hersh 73117,3320 (X) We have done quite a bit of work on an NICU data management system based on IBM PC/ATs and Ethernet. However, I don't know when and if we will ever try to market it.