Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone here ever run into a copy of MAE 3.0? I’ve been searching for over a decade now.
Yep -- looks like you got the pointer you needed, but I have it running on a SPARCstation 20 under Solaris 2.6 and it works well! The SPARCstation also has a SunPC card in it, so I have Windows 3.11, Mac System 7.5, and Solaris 2.6 all running on the same desktop: https://i.imgur.com/ctvlzCX.gif
So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
101–110 of 166 posts
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#102I don't know the technical details of why it wasn't viable, and wouldn't understand them if I did, but every time I see something about A/UX, I say "Apple, you spent a decade trying to come up with a modern successor to System 6/7, and nearly died doing so, and all along you had this in the labs—and shipping?!"
My understanding is the "Mac" side of A/UX still had no memory protection. It still had all the stability problems plaguing System 7, unlike modern macOS / OS/X
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#103I did some of the initial mmu support for A/UX while at UniSoft, so lived a fair amount of the history, at least for version 0 of A/UX. For those not familiar with the times, this was still at the outset of the Unix wars - Berkeley vs AT&T vs everyone else. UniSoft was a porting house based in Berkeley that specialized in putting Unix on almost anything. For example, the first Unix implementations for Sun and SGI wer…
The early 68k systems used in the early macs only brought out 24 address bits, Apple did indeed use that memory for metadata - memory was tight - the first Macs had 128k, we were shipping Unix systems at UniSoft that ran in 256k.
I don't think anyone ever used NuBus memory :-)
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#104So, has anyone gotten this to run in a Mac emulator on the Amiga?
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#105I truly believe that A/UX doesn't get the credit it deserves. Was it ambitious? Sure. Did it it fully succeed in the goals it set for itself? Not really. But it was really a very nice integration of the Finder and UNIX. After all these years, I still look back on it with fondness. It certainly was a cornerstone platform for me.
I also thought it was pretty nifty little OS, courtesy of an A/UX office file server that I was tasked to set up in 1993 or so I think. And yes it was a very expensive file server at that. My recollection was that internals of A/UX emulation were reused to enable the PowerPC transition from Motorola, but I might be wrong about that.
I don't think so. I don't remember a connection, at least, but it'll be in here straight from the horse's mouth:
https://computerhistory.org/blog/transplanting-the-macs-cent...
I watched all of that a while ago and thought it was very interesting. Recommended.
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#106This YouTube video on A/UX https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwrTTXOg-KI is one of the best things I've found about the subject. (It has a usable transcript.) On the subject of what happened with Big Mac, the Macintosh II and NeXT, https://lowendmac.com/2013/apples-bigmac-project-failed-prec... and some of the articles linked from it https://lowendmac.com/2013/next-years-steve-jobs-before-triu... https://www.aventure-a…
* On the software side, Big Mac's vision of Unix with Macintosh on top is familiar from NeXT and OS X. It was also roughly paralleled by many other projects, from Pink/Taligent and BeOS to OS/2 and WinNT. But it's worth asking where Jobs and the other Big Mac supporters got the idea from in turn. One obvious source of inspiration for the NeXT work was Xerox PARC, and Jobs seems to have been acknowledging (or claiming…
* The Apple Extended Keyboard https://deskthority.net/wiki/Apple_Extended_Keyboard with its Model-M based layout was by far the biggest Apple keyboard up to that point and was clearly part of the Macintosh II power-user vision just as slots and colour were. (IIRC it was explicitly justified as making the Mac compatible with PC software.) And so it's no surprise that Jobs didn't like it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/841771 .
* It isn't quite directly stated anywhere I know of, but it's clear that rival visions of Macintosh cost, margins and market share were a big factor in the internal strife. Even back at the launch of the original Macintosh, Jobs had been very unhappy that the price had been set at $2500 rather than $2000 https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor... . There's also a video clip from the '90s, almost certainly from his NeXT days, complaining bitterly about Apple's decision to choose high margins and low market share for the Macintosh, but I can't find it atm. Despite the big screen and the ambitious Unix-based OS rewrite which probably imposed a big RAM penalty, Big Mac's creators evidently hoped (realistically or not) that it would compete for something like the mainstream market. On the other hand, whether or not this was quite Gassée's vision from Day 1, the Macintosh IIs were and remained brutally high-margin, priced to soak those who not only both needed a high-end Mac and could afford one but were also trapped on the Mac platform, while the all-in-one Macs (and even the later LCs, to a lesser extent) were kept underpowered but also swingeingly expensive. It's not a coincidence that Gassée popped up to smirk and leer when the 2019 Mac Pro's prices were announced https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20163321 . To be fair, the Macintosh II pricing strategy actually did make Apple a great deal of money, for a while. Meanwhile NeXT was, ironically, in no position to compete for the mass market.
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#107From the article: The damned thing was just too expensive! From Wikipedia “When introduced, a basic system with monitor and 20 MB hard drive cost US$5,498” I respectfully disagree that price was the issue. The competition was a Sun workstation. In 1990, a sparcstation was $5k without the hard drive, a configuration that only made sense if you mounted the root filesystem using NFS, which meant you had a more expensive…
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#108I did some of the initial mmu support for A/UX while at UniSoft, so lived a fair amount of the history, at least for version 0 of A/UX. For those not familiar with the times, this was still at the outset of the Unix wars - Berkeley vs AT&T vs everyone else. UniSoft was a porting house based in Berkeley that specialized in putting Unix on almost anything. For example, the first Unix implementations for Sun and SGI wer…
FYI, https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor... has more info on what they did in the high order byte, and what they had to do to make things "32-bit clean" later on.
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
While killing almost everything else. The video of the audience heat he is taking for those decisions and how he goes justifying his decisions is worth watching for anyone that needs to go through something similar.
Though he did notably compromise on Carbon. The early plan was Cocoa/App Kit all the way, which meant a fundamental rewrite of all the important applications, namely Adobe and Microsoft stuff. Which would not have flown.
Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?
#110Anyways, remarkably, A/UX could run on a Macintosh LC II and III. The LC III was remarkable in that if you found the right DIMM, it wouldn't reject a 32MB SIMM RAM chip. Long story short, you could buy an Mac LC II for $10 in 2000, and install A/UX on there. The tricky thing was that Macs all used SCSI drives back then, and most macs required the SCSI drive to have a special bit flipped (in, I guess, firmware? or bootloader?) that marked it as a Mac hardware scsi drive.
A/UX was unique in that 1. it did not require a Mac specific SCSI drive and 2. utilities existed to convert any scsi drive to be marked as a "Mac hardware" scsi drive.
TL;DR ran A/UX for a couple of weeks on a $10 Macintosh LC II that I bought at a computer consignment shop in the early 2000s