A/UX concerns

[Alan Mimms]

In article <1991Feb20.082410.20817 at nada.kth.se>, d88-jwa at byse.nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) writes:
|> In article <250 at raysnec.UUCP> shwake at raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:
|> 
|> >simply providing a kernel and utilities. Its ability to support both 
|> >UNIX and Mac applications simultaneously without resort to emulation is
|> >certainly remarkable. Unless the alleged Mach ports can offer something
|> >comparable there's little reason to choose it over A/UX.
|> 
|> Well, from what I've heard, the Mach port actually DID support mac
|> apps - and as separate processes per app, at that ! Oh, and this
|> "virtual" mac wasn't as doggy as A/UX is (My fx feels like a II :-(
|> macwise.

.Would you like to expound on what you found "doggy"?  I use an FX on
System 6.0.5, System 7.0, and A/UX 2.0.1, and find them all to be
comparable in performance.  (This is allowing for the A/UX filesystem
cache to be initialized -- second and third times through are quite
fast.)

Perhaps you're trying to run A/UX on a tiny memory machine (4MB is not
really the best light to view A/UX in)?

I'm not trying to be combative -- I (we) would like to know what's wrong
so we can fix it or help you to use it in a way that shows off A/UX's best
qualities...

|> 
|> 							Jon
|> 
|> "The IM-IV file manager chapter documents zillions of calls, all of which
|> seem to do almost the same thing and none of which seem to do what I want
|> them to do."  --  Juri Munkki in comp.sys.mac.programmer

-- 

Alan Mimms (alan at apple.com, ...!apple!alan)   | My opinions are generally
A/UX X group                                  | pretty worthless, but
Apple Computer                                | they *are* my own...
"Laugha whila you can, monkey boy..." -- John Whorfin in Buckaroo Banzai
"Never rub another man's rhubarb" -- The Joker in BatMan