Live data from Hacker News

So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

virtuallyfun.com

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#81
post #19
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, in retrospect, a mistake not to embrace good enough and, instead, keep pushing towards the high end of the market when good enough was what most users needed. Of course a Unix workstation was twice as fast as a PC and cost twice as much, but it becomes pointless when most of the time it’s bored to death waiting for me to move the mouse.

The irony for me is that Unix was the (unhappy) inspiration for the famous “worse is better” memo. The Unix workstation vendors made high end hardware with (semi-) commodity software, and had their lunch eaten by generic hardware coupled with software that gave more people a better experience. (Though personally not at all a fan of most of the Unix paradigm, for me it’s a vastly superior experience to Windows. But I…

> Unix was the (unhappy) inspiration for the famous “worse is better” memo.

It could be rephrased as “done is better than perfect”. I would love to have a high-end workstation based on exotic hardware with ridiculously fast storage, but an average home PC is probably enough for my development work and, when it’s not, I can acknowledge it is so because the software is much more bloated than it should be.

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#82
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, in retrospect, a mistake not to embrace good enough and, instead, keep pushing towards the high end of the market when good enough was what most users needed. Of course a Unix workstation was twice as fast as a PC and cost twice as much, but it becomes pointless when most of the time it’s bored to death waiting for me to move the mouse.

The Macintosh was the "good enough" version of the "Apple Lisa". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa

It saddens me the beautiful stationery metaphor of the Lisa got ditched in favour of files and applications…

The Lisa deserved better.

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#83

As the author mentions, Apple's internal work with A/UX and the associated Mac toolbox led to a product known as the Macintosh Application Environment, MAE. I used it on a PA-RISC HPUX workstation in the 90s. Actually worked really well. We were using CAD tools on HPUX workstations but it didn't have much in the way of productivity apps. Running the MAE layer allowed one to fill that gap. It was a surprisingly lightw…

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

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#84
post #3

I 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.

Same! Thanks Jim for all your work on A/UX back in the day. You made a huge difference.

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#85
I 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 were Version 7 ports done by UniSoft. The business model problem was that support costs, Time-to-market, and vendor customization rapidly pushed high volume customers into doing all their Unix work in-house. Apple followed the same path with A/UX, pulling the entire project in-house after UniSoft delivered the first version.

UniPlus was a blend of software from AT&T (System V release 2 and later SVR3) and BSD (TCP/IP, sendmail, bind and other utilities) and eventually Sun (NFS). This was viable because AT&T had a semi-official position that UUCP was networking. That was the business wing of AT&T, not Bell Labs. The internal fights at AT&T are items of legend, but basically Bell Labs stepped back and kept to its research charter (with OS work turning into Plan9). AT&T corporate kept adding legal and technical stupid to Unix until eventually the only option was SysVR4 and the unified field theory with Sun.

The Mac-II target for UniPlus used the Motorola 68851 MMU, a table walking highly configurable system. It was a stock item that UniPlus supported, but Apple wanted quite a bit of customization. 4K pages, Nubus memory, and MacOS address space support.

4k pages was a mostly trivial tweak from the 8k baseline, which had been selected at UniSoft for TLB efficiency. Apple wanted 4k because they had a smaller memory footprint and wanted to get better memory utilization. This was a good decision - I tested a 2k page size and it was even snappier for the small memory size, but lost on the TLB issues for larger memory and Apple didn't want the pagesize to be determined at boot time.

The NuBus memory was a discontiguous physical address space that wasn't initialized by the system. It was also an extra 2 clocks away compared to main memory. I dealt with the memory map, and added initialization hooks so that the memory could be found and used early, and built up a test system with two expansion cards and 20 MBytes of memory. Slower memory was pretty bad normally, but the 68020 I-cache and large register file made it benchmark OK. Unfortunately, sometimes the system stack was placed on NuBus memory and the impact on interrupt and system call latency was horrible. I set it up so that by default any external memory was dedicated to the IO buffer cache. Apple wasn't happy with this, but they accepted it since there was a driver boot-time flag to force a big pool of slow memory.

The MacOS address space was the most interesting. The old Mac systems were so memory starved that they took advantage of the 32 bit memory and 24 address lines on the 68000/68010 to store stuff in the high order byte. I can't remember if it was general storage or metadata - I seem to have blocked out the usage details. I put together a design that would alias the high order bytes by creating 256 overlapping top level segments that could share the rest of the page tables so that physical memory wouldn't be exhausted with page tables to cover the 32-bit address space.

Apple decided not to do this - they wanted a 100% user mode implementation. I was irritated at the time since they were choosing to sacrifice memory protection and security, but in retrospect I was only a couple of years out of school and I am not sure I fully appreciated the side effects of aliasing addresses that way. Still, it would have been fun to implement.

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#86
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually wrote a large chunk of the A/UX unix port (late 80s) - a decade before (mid 70s) I'd obtained an undergraduate degree in Comp Sci (in New Zealand) - undergraduate Comp Sci was very much a thing at the time

not at Berkeley ! but proper respect to you Taniwha, many paths

Yes, Berkeley had undergrad CS degrees in the 80's (and late 70's). One in the College of Engineering and one in the College of Letters and Science. Also, an undergrad EECS in Engineering.

The Bay Area school that didn't have an undergrad CS program was Stanfurd.

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#87
post #67

From 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…

I don't even think the Macintosh II was all that unpopular with Mac users. The Mac II family was sold for six years and was discontinued only a year before the switch to PowerPC. I think Apple just didn't seriously commit to selling them as Unix workstations with A/UX.

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#88
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not at Berkeley ! but proper respect to you Taniwha, many paths

Yes, Berkeley had undergrad CS degrees in the 80's (and late 70's). One in the College of Engineering and one in the College of Letters and Science. Also, an undergrad EECS in Engineering. The Bay Area school that didn't have an undergrad CS program was Stanfurd.

Back then MIT had one but Harvard did not. I felt sorry for my friends who opted to go there.

H recently started an engineering school. Years ago they tried to buy MIT but were rebuffed.

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#89
post #67

From 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…

[deleted]

Re: So what is the deal with A/UX anyways?

#90
post #56
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot there was still OpenSTEP and the collaboration with Sun, which ended up having an influence on a language being designed at the time called Oak. Early versions of OS X were still based on OpenSTEP, thus able to run on top of Windows as well.

OpenStep was still based on Mach 2 and (encumbered) 4.3BSD. OS X Server 1.0 was very OpenStep like yes, it used the old Display Postscript server and was more compatible with next/openstep (I think the display servers were similar enough you could forward OpenSTEP software to a OS X Server 1.0 windowserver), but I believe it was based on the un-encumbered XNU, and couldn't directly run OpenSTEP programs due to this i…

That much I don't recall, maybe, not sure.
Post reply on HN