Info wanted about Unix based PC's

[Robert Scott]

In article <102570001 at hpclapd.HP.COM>, defaria at hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) writes:
> Excuse me for the dumb question but:
> 
> 	What Unix based PC's are available.
> 
> I have no PC at present and am thinking of buying one.  I tried a couple of
> local PC dealers and they showed me their best DOS  setups.  After sticking
> my finger down my thought and puking  on the salesmans shoes  :-) I decided
> that I would probably like a Unix based system.  They  said that they don't
> sell Unix based systems.
> 
> So  I would like  some info  on what's available  in the way of  Unix based
> PC's.  How/Where would I get them?  What software comes as part of the base
> Unix OS?  What hardware is required?  Prices?  etc, etc, /etc! :-)
> 
> What I'm looking for is somewhat of a  scaled down  model of what I have at
> work (an HP 9000 series 350 using X) for as cheap as possible.   I  want to
> have a color monitor, multiprocessing, C, Pascal and what not (can  I get a
> Turbo Pascal for a Unix based system?) and,  of course, editors  like Emacs
> and/or vi.
> 

It sounds as if you are somewhat confusing the issue of hardware and operating
system software here.  What a PC dealer is showing you doesn't necessarily
have to be DOS.  If you have an 80386 based PC, you can run any one of 
several flavors of "real" unix, complete with all the goodies the
"real computers" have.
 
> Although it's tempting to just go for the DOS system and  use stuff like MS
> Windows 3.0, I would really like to be able to work on more than  one thing
> at a  time like at   work.   From what  I've seen of   MS Windows  and  DOS
> (probably the real  culprit)  you can't  do this on the "standard"  PC.  Is
> this possible with a Unix based PC?
> 
With a 386, Windows 3.0 can do multitasking just fine.  If you buy a 386 and
put real UNIX on it, you can also call up DOS in a UNIX window (if you have
the optional DOS under UNIX software).

> Also, Unix is just a better  environment than DOS anyway.   One of my goals
> is to help my girlfriend  learn more  about computers and programming.  DOS
> seems  woefully inadequate and   totally  non-standard to   be able  to  do
> anything "right".  Also there is more market appeal  for  someone who knows
> Unix. 

DOS non-standard?  Although being stuck with a 640K address space isn't
exactly the nicest thought, remember that there are literally millions of
copies of DOS running every day throughout the world.  Gonna be a long
time before UNIX gets to that stage.  Besides, with a compiler like
Turbo-C you can write code that is relatively if not completely
transportable from DOS to UNIX and vice-versa.  There are even UNIX tools
and UNIX environments, including one with a full-blown Korn Shell, for
DOS (the MKS Toolkit in particular).

I like UNIX better than DOS myself, but there is a lot of software and
challenge left in the DOS world.  Many more really useful "tools" for
everyday use are available, too.  That's why I run Interactive UNIX and
VP/IX on my machine (sometime just native DOS, too).



Zeke

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~ From the Shrine of the "Last Gasp of ETA Systems" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extra zesty disclaimer:  MINE! MINE! ALL MINE! <chortle snort froth drool>
Robert K. "Zeke" Scott        internet: zeke at eta.cdc.com
Control Data Corp, Supercomputer Support Group