[HN Gopher] So what is the deal with A/UX anyways? ___________________________________________________________________ So what is the deal with A/UX anyways? Author : skreuzer Score : 130 points Date : 2021-09-20 13:28 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (virtuallyfun.com) (TXT) w3m dump (virtuallyfun.com) | jimjag wrote: | 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. | latchkey wrote: | For those who don't know, Jim is/was the person who maintained | the A/UX FAQ and often bailed people, like myself, out of | corners when we got into them. | | Thanks Jim! | kerblang wrote: | 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. | rbanffy wrote: | Unix licenses at the time were ridiculously expensive, even | for PC-grade hardware. Adding compilers and development tools | was frequently an extra eye-watering expense. | hondo77 wrote: | We had 286's running Microport Unix at the company I was at | back in the 1980s. I seem to recall that we were using | Microport because it was pretty cheap. Compilers and all. I | could be mis-remembering. | scruffyherder wrote: | which to me was surprising about A/UX, you got both C89 and | F77! | rbanffy wrote: | I think GCC was available back then. Not sure about F77. | What C compiler did BSD use? | classichasclass wrote: | > My recollection was that internals of A/UX emulation were | reused to enable the PowerPC transition from Motorola | | No, pretty sure this wasn't the case. The RISC LC group used | a custom emulator and nanokernel which is not at all similar | to A/UX. The RLC couldn't even run A/UX, which was why Apple | talked about porting it to OSF/1 for the new Power Macs | (which, of course, never happened). | rvense wrote: | > 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. | ac50hz wrote: | Ah yes, Jagubox :-) | | A/UX was easy to integrate into a mixed SunOS, Solaris, Irix | network with liberal use of arch-dependent automounting. | ForOldHack wrote: | Yes, when I went looking for all the bits and pieces, jagubox | had them. Thanks Jim. I used this on a SE/30, a Turbo IIci, | more than one Mac IIfxs. | jandrese wrote: | Interesting that the article calls out the price point as one | of the reasons it didn't succeed. Although a lot of that was | the OS only having drivers for expensive hardware and being | unusable on the lower end Macs. | | That said, high price killed off most of the legacy Unix | vendors/products. The world was changing around them and they | weren't ready or able to give up the profit margins they had | enjoyed for so long. Personal computers were becoming commodity | equipment and free versions of Unix were hard to compete | against. | rbanffy wrote: | 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. | silvestrov wrote: | The Macintosh was the "good enough" version of the "Apple | Lisa". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa | rbanffy wrote: | It saddens me the beautiful stationery metaphor of the | Lisa got ditched in favour of files and applications... | | The Lisa deserved better. | pjmlp wrote: | That and Object Pascal being replaced by C++. | zeckalpha wrote: | C++ was not yet released when the Mac was released. | jandrese wrote: | If the workstations were twice as fast and cost twice as | much they would still have a good market niche. Instead | they were more like 30% faster and cost 10 times as much. | | Intel eroded that speed delta pretty quickly too. The other | chip makers were crushed by Intel's billions of R&D | spending. | ncmncm wrote: | Motorola's floating point was 5x as fast as Intel's. | | That wasn't enough to overcome market positioning. | gumby wrote: | 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 can't deny that that is not the case for | most people) | mistrial9 wrote: | I was there at that time, there are manuals in white | binders down the hall from me now. The Mac was made to | never, ever, use the command line. That is what I chose | to develop for at that time, including exposure to "high | end" machines at University. | | fun fact - there were no undergraduate courses in | computer science at that time; master's level and up .. | you have to be trained to use those workstations, even | for five minutes, AND the oversight of an admin with | security. | | Mac? get one, fire it up, make Mac Paint pictures. The | network IS NOT the computer, thankyouverymuch | reaperducer wrote: | _fun fact - there were no undergraduate courses in | computer science at that time_ | | Perhaps this was regional. I was enrolled in | undergraduate Computer Science courses at this time, and | it was at a pretty low-end state university. | msh wrote: | I assume it can't have been that common not to have | undergrad courses in cs? | | I know my (non US) University have had undergrad courses | since 1970. | Taniwha wrote: | 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 | mistrial9 wrote: | not at Berkeley ! but proper respect to you Taniwha, many | paths | Taniwha wrote: | Well I did the A/UX port IN Berkeley (the city, not the | university). | | The thing is that as a discipline Comp Sci is a late | comer, university Comp Sci departments came from lots of | places, some grew out of Engineering depts, others from | Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Commerce, others from the | computing infrastructure groups withing universities - | they ended up being called all sorts of things - early on | places offered Comp Sci by a whole lot of names | [deleted] | cjsplat wrote: | 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. | gumby wrote: | 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. | mistrial9 wrote: | evidence welcome - I do not recall that as the case | rbanffy wrote: | > 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. | aoki wrote: | "Worse" was Bell Labs: portable C/Unix. As opposed to | MIT: codesigned Lisp/LispMs. The Unix workstation was the | triumph of COTS micros over LSI or custom VLSI hardware. | gumby wrote: | > The Unix workstation was the triumph of COTS micros | over LSI or custom VLSI hardware. | | Well the Sun-1 definitely started there, no question (I | don't remember the Daisy or Apollo hardware). HP | definitely never did and Sun (and SGI et al) all went | down the custom hardware rabbit hole. | | By the time they tried to hop onto the PC hardware train | it was too late. None of those companies survive in any | meaningful way. | | BTW if you catch this in time to edit: you might want to | put a hyphen between "co" and "design" because you didn't | mean signing code. | temac wrote: | The customness of the hardware is partly relative. One | had to guess the trajectory of the PC to bet on clones | and their components. Of course at one point there was no | question the non-x86 workstation used "custom" hardware | vs. the kind of more open ecosystem of x86 PC components, | however even in this situation doing custom is not even | an absolute criteria for success or failure or even | eventual economy of scale: case in point Apple. Now of | course there is in-house design vs. OTS but while it was | true that the first PCs used pre-existing chips, quickly | some chips started to be developed specifically for PCs | or at least with PC as the main target, by far. So it is | also kind of "custom", just developed by multiple | companies. | | Now in retrospect _some_ workstation vendors could maybe | have survived a little more by switching to x86 PC like | hardware except the window for doing the switch was | astonishingly small and they would have transformed to | either a random OS vendor, or a random PC hardware | vendor, or even both (even if requiring their own | hardware, their competition would have quickly been way | more directly e.g. Linux or BSD on generic PCs, and | eventually with e.g. CAD vendors switching to Windows it | would not have helped either) | | Or as a random hardware PC vendor, what is even the point | compared to their initial positioning and what was a | "workstation". This market is now taken mostly by chip | vendors with more or less artificial market segmentation | -- and then computer vendors using such chips but they do | not define the platforms anymore and add far less value. | It's kind or logical; well at least in _retrospect_ , | here too. A very few number of platforms had to remain | because of both the network effect and the practicality | of using and developing for them. And consumer hardware | was bound to eventually get state of the art designs | (mostly scaled with parallelism for pro hw + a few | artificial market seg) | | You can take the internal dev route (again: Apple) but | you had to target the general public first to do that (so | not appropriate for a WS vendor) | | Ironically, we could argue that to survive "in a | meaningful way", if I read that in yielding a legacy | today that could influence the ws workload by providing | them at least a part of the platform, the old-school | Workstation vendors would have needed to pivot to more | pure component makers (for PCs). | twoodfin wrote: | _Now in retrospect some workstation vendors could maybe | have survived a little more by switching to x86 PC like | hardware except the window for doing the switch was | astonishingly small and they would have transformed to | either a random OS vendor, or a random PC hardware | vendor, or even both_ | | I think this window was non-existent: Moore's Law at the | time was turning white boxes into workstations faster | than any time-and-money consuming custom engineering | could pay back the investment. | rbanffy wrote: | My impression is that they all built desktop | minicomputers possible thanks to CPUs like the 68K but | moved on to RISC designs when the 68K started showing its | age. I would not say the PA-RISC was open, but SPARC had | multiple sources and MIPS showed up everywhere. At that | period, the x86 was not an option - Sun tried. | rodgerd wrote: | > That said, high price killed off most of the legacy Unix | vendors/products. | | High price and the differentiation. In the 90s I was working | in publishing and publishing-adjacent companies that were | throwing out their Unix environments as quick as they could | after NT 4 was released. They were all sick of dealing with | the crap of having multiple, subtly incompatible *ix | environments to deal with: one company I worked for had Irix, | AIX, SunOS, Solaris, and both flavours of Digital's Unix | products, because various vendors had done deals with the | different vendors to ship their products on those variants. | Each came with different shells, different userlands, and all | required slightly different tweaking and tuning to maintain | operationally. | | Contrast that with the NT 4 world, where that same business | was quite happy to buy extremely expensive Alpha/NT systems | so that the same skills, tool, and so on that worked | everywhere. | rjsw wrote: | It was expensive. In 1987 I built a 386-25 with 16MB RAM and | SCSI HD that ran Interactive Systems UNIX for a lot less than | it would have cost to get a Mac II with A/UX. | jbellis wrote: | 16MB in 1987, good lord. I didn't even know that was | possible on x86 at the time. | jandrese wrote: | 16MB systems were still mainstream in _1997_! Lots of | 166Mhz and 200Mhz Pentium systems sold with 16MB of RAM | that year. | leoc wrote: | When Windows NT first came out in 1993 its 12-16MB memory | requirement was considered to be a major obstacle to | adoption, IIRC. | rjsw wrote: | That was using socketed DIL chips, 8MB on the motherboard | and another 8MB on an expansion card. I had to insert the | chips individually into the sockets. I had mis-remembered | the disks, it used ESDI not SCSI. | scruffyherder wrote: | more so the platform + the OS... I guess being in for 4k for | a base machine (probably 2k more to make it usable) 500/1000 | more isn't going to break it, but 386BSD machines while far | less usable would be a heck of a lot cheaper. | jiveturkey wrote: | Same! Thanks Jim for all your work on A/UX back in the day. You | made a huge difference. | solarmist wrote: | What is A/UX? I'm not seeing a definition. | packetslave wrote: | Right-click, "Search Google for A/UX". Wikipedia article is the | first link. | | Try harder. | scruffyherder wrote: | Apple bough a port of UniSoft SYSVr2 to the Apple platoform and | dubbed it A/UX. Version 2 onward were technically significant | as ToolBox and Finder had been ported to Unix and allowed MacOS | apps to run on top of Unix. They didn't offer process | virtualization so they could all crash eachother out. | Lammy wrote: | The A/UX Toolbox PDFs cover a lot of interesting technical | details for the curious: http://bitsavers.org/pdf/apple/mac/a | _ux/aux_2.0/030-0787-A_A... | | "/mac/sys -- This directory contains the system folders for | startup and login. The System file provided with Release 2.0 | of A/UX is almost identical in functionality to the System | file provided with Release 6.0.5 of the Macintosh system | software." | | Additionally I always thought the Gestalt Manager was a | System 7 thing and was surprised to learn it was introduced | along with system 6.0.4 and A/UX so applications could tell | if they were running on it: https://developer.apple.com/libra | ry/archive/documentation/ma... | grymoire1 wrote: | I successfully used it as a writing/typesetting (NROFF) system. | It was the cheapest Unix system I could buy, that the family | could also use (it was dual boot). It was expensive, but I used | Sun's at work, and I wanted to get as cross as I could. | webwielder2 wrote: | I 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?!" | retrac wrote: | I think it was the price more than anything. Both of the | software license (not cheap!) and also the hardware | requirements. It's something that doesn't come up much anymore | but RAM used to be one of the main limits of a personal | computer. A/UX required a high-end Mac at the time. And Macs | were already high-end PCs. And UNIX wanted a _lot_ of RAM. 16 | MB was barely comfortable in the early 90s. This was a time | when when typical entry-level Macs were still selling with 2 - | 4 MB sometimes and a full 32 MB upgrade would cost twice as | much as the base model. | | In short, basically the same reasons we didn't all run SCO UNIX | or whatever on our IBM PCs. Much the same dynamic for why the | Windows NT kernel took so long to come down to home computers | (in Windows XP finally). Even OS X's RAM requirements would | inhibit its uptake for a few years. "Real" operating systems | were too big for the small computers of the 1980s and even | early 1990s. | spijdar wrote: | Tangential to AU/X and licensing costs, I think this is why | OS X was something like a "from scratch" recreation of | NeXTSTEP instead of being a straight port. They replaced the | AT&T licensed UNIX core with a _new_ open source one derived | from the 386BSD forks (and DEC 's OSF/1 mach fork), and | replaced the display postscript WindowServer with Quartz, | both for licensing cost and performance reasons. | | At least, that's my impression from comparing NeXTSTEP and | early OS X. A lot of the "base layer" was totally replaced, | including those troublesome licensed bits. | cat199 wrote: | I had thought NeXTStep was always BSD based? | | Still might have paid the unix license; this was pre AT&T | vs USL, but, thought nextstep was basically CMU mach (which | itself was BSD+Mach) + the NextStep frameworks/ui | pasc1878 wrote: | Yes the apis eg cocoa are the openstep apis and the | terminal tools under openstep were BSD | spijdar wrote: | NeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP were based on 4.3BSD/4.4BSD(not-lite) | and required a license from AT&T to distribute. I assume | that, to be legally safe, they would have scrapped that | code entirely and replaced it with 4.4BSD lite, pulling | in code from 4.4BSD lite forks like FreeBSD and NetBSD. | asveikau wrote: | It also probably has to do with personalities, and who did | what. NeXT was the Jobs thing. So Jobs came back, and they | based things on NeXT. | pjmlp wrote: | 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. | perardi wrote: | 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. | pjmlp wrote: | Sean Parent was key on that whole process, given his role | at Adobe and Apple, hear his interviews here, | | https://adspthepodcast.com/ | pjmlp wrote: | 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. | spijdar wrote: | 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 impedance. I'm fairly | certain Rhapsody is the same, using the OSFMK kernel and | 4.4BSD "lite". | | At least, I don't think OS X Server 1.0 software would | have worked on the OpenSTEP for Enterprise stuff? | pjmlp wrote: | That much I don't recall, maybe, not sure. | hedgehog wrote: | After studying the history a bit it seems to me the reasons | were organizational more than technical. Jobs brought his team | back with him and they built on what they were familiar with. | With better management the existing nanokernel-based MacOS | could probably have been evolved similar to what MS did with | NT. | pasc1878 wrote: | Nt is not a evolution of dos. | | A similar issue you need a new kernel for protected memory | etc. | | Apple did make attempts see Taligent | hedgehog wrote: | Exactly. MS rehosted win16 apps on top of a new kernel, | ported the UI, and encouraged developers to migrate code to | win32. Apple had pieces of a similar transition with the | transition to PPC but failed to execute, maybe because they | were betting on different attempts to rewrite everything | from scratch. | pjmlp wrote: | Win16 and NT branch don't share almost anything. | | Probably the only port was Win32s, which was a subset of | Win32 backported to Win16. | | Win16 stuff runned on a VM like environment, WOW. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_on_Windows | hedgehog wrote: | I'll admit I haven't seen the NT source but from a user | perspective NT's UI (widgets, progman, etc) looked and | functioned near identically to Windows 3 so I've always | thought those bits were ported over. I'm aware most | everything under that was replaced. To my eye that was | one step in a well-executed evolution up from legacy | Windows towards the eventual convergence in XP. | temac wrote: | Yes the GUI was mostly ported from consumer Windows to | NT. First the 3.1 GUI, then 95. | icedchai wrote: | 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 | classichasclass wrote: | This is correct, but as a practical matter, since the Finder | was just another process on A/UX everything else (including X | clients, if any) could keep running. Unfortunately this would | kill all your Mac apps, including your X server if you were | running it through MacX. | hedgehog wrote: | This is true and was not easily fixable with existing | applications. They added a kernel supporting memory | protection in the move to PowerPC but it wasn't until Carbon | that apps really benefited from that. Carbon was a | transitional API between classic MacOS and OS X that made it | feasible to port apps to run on both, but conceivably they | could have done something similar without the switch to | Darwin. | icedchai wrote: | I remember A/UX... | | In the early 90's, a local university had a whole lab of Mac II's | with A/UX. Unfortunately, they didn't disable the guest account. | They also had a public dialup and were connected to the Internet. | A local "elite" BBSer figured this out, and that was how most of | the local kids got onto IRC for that summer. | monocasa wrote: | A/UX only supported m68k macs, right? | | I wonder if you could patch the m68k emulator in the later | nanokernel for PowerPC Macs to support it. Would it be legal? | Gods no. Would it be a throwback to the kind of really dirty | hacks I associate with the 90s? Absolutely. | | It looks like a decent amount of work reversing the Powermac | nanokernel has been done: | https://github.com/elliotnunn/NanoKernel | G3rn0ti wrote: | I remember watching a demonstration on a real Macintosh Quadra on | Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Phk3qVUPqw | dev_tty01 wrote: | 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 lightweight layer and | performed better than the Mac I had at home. | teakettle42 wrote: | Has anyone here ever run into a copy of MAE 3.0? | | I've been searching for over a decade now. | vt240 wrote: | If you are interested in setting it up on Solaris, you can | send me a message on Telegram or Email. | selectodude wrote: | https://www.macintoshrepository.org/32453-apple-macintosh- | ap... | teakettle42 wrote: | Oh, wow -- thanks! | racingmars wrote: | 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 | classichasclass wrote: | I really gotta get MAE working on HP-UX. I have a | PrecisionBook here which would be perfect for it. | ylee wrote: | My first year at Columbia in 1994, the university set up a | single computer lab in the engineering building | (<https://cuit.columbia.edu/computer-lab- | technologies/location...>) with them. Although they booted into | HP-UX and its Motif window manager, MAE provided Mac emulation | and, in practice, was usually used because most students were | unfamiliar with X Window, of course. | | MAE was slow and unstable in my experience unlike yours, and by | the time I graduated Macs, I believe, replaced them, which made | the lab consistent with what most of the other computer labs | had. | Lammy wrote: | > 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 can't find any solid info on it but have to imagine their | experience reimplementing Toolbox was tied into "Star Trek" | somehow as well: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project | ksherlock wrote: | https://web.archive.org/web/19980613012744/http://www.mae.ap. | .. | | MAE is 68k macintosh emulator with some OS/toolbox parts | handled with native code. | cjsplat wrote: | 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. | biggieshellz wrote: | Wow, thanks for the background here! | | 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. | Taniwha wrote: | I also worked on it at UniSoft, did maybe half the device | drivers, plus the appletalk stack, autoconfig (loadable | drivers), large screen support, console subsystem, kernel event | manager for the mac world etc. | | 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 :-) | Taniwha wrote: | PS: hi Carl :-) | walrus01 wrote: | Inflation calculator says that a workstation computer package of | hardware (PC, monitor, keyboard, mouse) selling for $5500 USD in | 1988 would be the equivalent of $12,718.67 today. | | That sort of money (except for ridiculous non-linear GPU prices | today) would build one hell of a threadripper workstation. | h2odragon wrote: | in 1988, I got the "opportunity" to buy the most expensive | computer a local whitebox shop built; which was a 286-20 with | 1MB of RAM and room for a 2nd MB on the motherboard. There were | 386-16 machines (just) out, but this was the "Xenix | workstation". With the fancy EGA monitor and card, and iirc | 40MB of disk, that came out to be just about $5,000. | [deleted] | Cthulhu_ wrote: | It'd be hard to use that sort of money for a consumer-purpose | PC; maybe a higher end server, but then you likely end up with | a blade form factor. | kryptiskt wrote: | If you go and spec up a HP Z workstation or Dell's comparable | offering you can blow through it in no time. Just starting | with putting in a TB of RAM will cost a fair bit. | da_chicken wrote: | > _It 'd be hard to use that sort of money for a consumer- | purpose PC; maybe a higher end server, but then you likely | end up with a blade form factor._ | | No, not at all. This isn't a workstation. It's a | _Workstation_. It 's not even a struggle to beat $12k. | | A Mac Pro starts at $6k. You can add a 28 core Xeon for +$7k. | 1.5 TB of memory is +$25k. Twin Radeons with 64 GB of video | ram is another +$10k. 8TB of storage is another +$2.5k. | You've picked CPU, RAM, graphics, and storage and you're | already over $50k. That's no software. No display. Just the | tower, a power cable, a mouse, a keyboard, and MacOS. | | If you go to Dell and check out their Data Science | Workstations, it's not difficult to configure one for over a | quarter of a million dollars. Triple graphics cards, 6 TB of | memory, dual 28-core processors. In a tower computer. | dylan604 wrote: | >the equivalent of $12,718.67 | | so a moderately equipped modern MacPro. | lsllc wrote: | Did you include the $699 wheels in that? | | https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MX572ZM/A/apple-mac- | pro-w... | fzzzy wrote: | Where we're going, we don't need wheels. | itomato wrote: | ...without a UNIX license. | jdblair wrote: | 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 machine with a hard drive on your LAN. | | Apple could have succeeded in the workstation space, but they | were a consumer focused company. | | https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/16/business/low-priced-work-... | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | In '87 name brand 386's were going for $4500. The Mac premium | wasn't quite so outrageous considering it came with a superior | color display when most PCs were still doddering about with EGA | and Hercules mono. | [deleted] | philwelch wrote: | 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. | Chazprime wrote: | > I don't even think the Macintosh II was all that unpopular | with Mac users | | I think the Mac II & IIx were a little slow on the sales | front, but from what I remember the smaller IIcx and IIci | were much more popular. | classichasclass wrote: | We had a lab full of IIcis when I was an undergrad. They're | still my favourite 68K Mac because they stack, they're easy | to work on and disassemble, and they can do a fair bit. | Just make sure you get it recapped. My "Lisp machine" is a | IIci with a 50MHz Daystar accelerator and a MacIvory. | sneak wrote: | The IIcx was my first computer. It wasn't completely | 32-bit-clean for some reason, and needed special software | ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODE32 ) to run apps that | expected a 32 bit memory space. I'd have preferred an | IIci. :) | | I also had a Mac II around the same time. I still have | both of the machines, although I haven't tried booting | either in 15+ years. | jacobsenscott wrote: | University of Wisconsin Eau Claire CS class of '98 raise your | hands! We had a lab full of A/UX workstations. It is where I | learned C++, shell, etc. They were fantastic machines. | dhosek wrote: | While I was in college, I was the device drivers editor for | _TUGboat_ and trying to track all the combinations of OS and | output device for TeX DVI drivers brought a lot of borderline | operating systems into my awareness. As I recall, there was a TeX | port for A /UX. There were also, so many Unix variants, that I | ended up having to combine them into a single Unix column in the | table and then in the detailed listings, indicate which Unix | flavor(s) were supported. Nowadays, when, for all practical | purposes, any desktop system will either be Windows, MacOS or | Linux, things are considerably simpler. | Cockbrand wrote: | So, has anyone gotten this to run in a Mac emulator on the Amiga? | kstrauser wrote: | Beat me to it. Shapeshifter was a nearly perfect Mac emulator | that ran full-speed on Amigas. Given that you could buy an | Amiga with a 68060 CPU, which never made it to Mac, you could | make the argument that the fastest 68K Mac ever built was an | Amiga. | amyjess wrote: | Because A/UX requires an MMU, that means the only emulator that | can run it is Shoebill. | leoc wrote: | This 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-apple.com/le-big-mac-apple/ (Google | Translate: | https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https:/... ) | is the best intro that I'm aware of, though there are some | additional, important bits of information in Steven Levy's | _Insanely Great_ ch. 9 ( | https://books.google.ie/books?id=Y6ZQAAAAMAAJ&dq=insanely+gr... ) | and the Isaacson bio's ch. 13 ( | https://books.google.ie/books?id=JT6FCgAAQBAJ&printsec=front... | ). TFA links to some of these, but it missed some of the | information in them. (Unfortunately the Adventure-Apple piece | needs one big caveat, that it mostly doesn't cite any sources.) | | There's also yet _another_ whole strand of Macintosh-adjacent | Unix in the Network Server products: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsVAdrdkyoA . | | Some key points from these: | | * I have little idea how well-founded Apple's detailed legal | complaints were, but the overall claim that "Jobs had done | research for a next generation product and taken the key staff, | namely Page from Apple to make it reality" is almost surely | absolutely right, and NeXT was conceived an attempt to do Big Mac | outside Apple using the Big Mac team from Apple. One thing that | TFA and the LowEndMac miss is that Jobs, apparently, wasn't the | instigator: according to Isaacson, Rich Page and other Big Mac | people contacted _him_ and begged him to launch a new company | when Big Mac was cancelled. (ISTR seeing this confirmed | elsewhere, too, but I don 't recall where atm.) | | * TFA says that "[a]ll that I can find of the Big Mac project is | this insanely low resolution image" showing some hardware and a | screenshot of the GUI, but it links to an article which features | this glamour shot of what was apparently an industrial design for | Big Mac: https://i0.wp.com/www.aventure-apple.com/wp- | content/uploads/... . (And this _is_ cited: it 's apparently from | the Appledesign book https://www.worldcat.org/title/appledesign- | the-work-of-the-a... .) The resemblance to the original G3 iMac | from over a decade later is obvious. Beyond appearances, some | other hardware similarities include a lack of internal expansion | slots (according to Levy's book, Jobs maintained his opposition | to "slots" through his departure from Apple) and a focus on | external expandability instead: the G3 iMac was an early adopter | of USB, while Big Mac apparently had Apple Desktop Bus. In fact, | according to the Adventure-Apple piece ADB was originally | developed for Big Mac under the name of Front Desk Bus (though as | usual I see no reference to substantiate this). The single most | obvious divergence is that Big Mac couldn't display colour, | though no doubt this is because of an underlying similarity: the | Big Mac project was trying to hit a roughly G3-iMac-like price | point in the mid-'80s. | | <pinwheel /> | leoc wrote: | * 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) that | influence in the famous clip from the 1995 _Triumph of the | Nerds_ "lost" interview where he talked about not understanding | the importance of PARC's networking or OO work originally | https://www.bhooshan.com/2017/12/07/quotes-steve-jobs-lost-i... | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHaTRWRj8G0 . Furthermore Alan | Kay had just joined Apple in 1984 https://www.quora.com/What- | was-Alan-Kays-experience-like-wor... . But there were plenty of | other, very immediate possible inspirations for Big Mac in the | commercial workstation market. There was high-end stuff like | Apollo/Domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo/Domain or | Lisp machines, but above all there was Sun. By 1983 the Sun-2 | workstations had proven that you could already get a real Unix | running on a desktop machine, using the same m68k architecture | family as the Mac, that you could put a PARCish GUI on top of | it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunView and that you could | make money selling it. And on the other hand Sun's high prices | and gimcrack user experience would have bred confidence that | Apple could do much better, at least with a couple more years | for prices to decline. I can't think of anything to confirm | that Sun was an influence, but it more or less has to have | been. | | * What about the networking, though? (Apart from all other | possible inspirations, Sun was already trumpeting that "the | network is the computer" by this time.) There's no mention | anywhere of any network port on any Big Mac prototype, and it | seems reasonable to assume that Big Mac was intended to have no | integrated networking hardware. But I don't think this | indicates that networking was unimportant to the Big Mac | vision. Jobs put plenty of emphasis on networking in his | February 1985 Playboy interview | https://allaboutstevejobs.com/verbatim/interviews/playboy_19... | , and he seems to have been very much on board with (and likely | involved with?) Apple's efforts to roll out a LAN offering in | 1984 and 1985 https://www.macgui.com/news/article.php?t=491 . I | think the most likely explanation was that, like the non-colour | screen, this was a cost-driven decision. In 1985 integrated | networking would have been expensive and useless to most modem | users, and vice versa, while many users weren't yet ready to | pay for either LAN or dial-up hardware. And of course | networking hadn't yet really converged on (not-quite-)RJ45 | Ethernet--Apple itself had only just _started_ pushing | AppleTalk!--so even for LAN users there was a good chance that | any integrated LAN hardware would be an expensive waste. | | * That just leaves the PARC-influenced "object-oriented" | element which later showed up on the NeXT in the form of | Objective C and the NeXT APIs. Had Big Mac's software already | taken some steps in this kind of direction? Or was it an | ambition for later, or simply not on the roadmap at all yet? I | have no idea. | | <pinwheel /> | leoc wrote: | * "Milwaukee" wasn't Big Mac, even though (if Levy is | correct) it _was_ also sometimes referred to as "Little Big | Mac". As Aventure-Apple states (and Levy confirms), it was a | rival (or at least completely indepdendent) effort. _Insanely | Great_ says that it was a grassroots initiative by engineer | Mike Dhuey focussed on creating a version-2 Macintosh with | internal expansion slots. (And it wasn 't even the only other | project working on a successor Mac in the time between the | release of the original and Jobs' firing.) Jobs likely didn't | even know it existed, as it was hidden from him to prevent | him from killing it. At some point (according to Levy) this | meshed with Jean-Louis Gassee's vision of a high-end | Macintosh line which would give power users the things they | liked about the PC. He went so far as to get "OPEN MAC" | number plate for his car, where 'open' in this case referred | to slots. _Insanely Great_ _seems_ to suggest that Gassee had | this ambition even before he heard about Milwaukee /Little | Big Mac, but it's not competely clear on that point. In any | case, after Jobs was gone and Gassee had been given the | reins, he killed off Big Mac and Milwaukee was allowed to | become Macintosh II. | | * 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_ Gassee '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 Gassee 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. | alkz wrote: | Around 15 years ago I got my hands on a quadra 700 and managed to | install A/UX on it. I don't remember the details but i really | struggled to find an external SCSI CDROM drive compatible with | the OS, if memory serves me well there were just like 2/3 | specific drives supported by the installer. In the end I probably | used a SUN one which looked like a mini pizza box sparcstation. | | Taking also in account that that version of A/UX ran only on the | quadra 700/800/950, it's probably one of the OS with less | hardware support around | | The OS itself was so simple, it didn't even use init scripts to | start its services, but everything was (re)spawned by | /etc/inittab like /bin/getty; this was so clever I started doing | it with all the services I wanted to automatically restart on my | other linux servers | jonpurdy wrote: | For those interested, Shoebill* is an emulator designed | specifically to run A/UX and it's works very well! | | * https://github.com/pruten/Shoebill | scruffyherder wrote: | also Qemu is mainlining Quadra 800 support for 3.0.1 | | https://www.emaculation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11326 | | On a test of compiling about 4MB of source code, Qemu is 7x | faster than Shoebill! | hadlock wrote: | I can't remember if Apple themselves hosted AUX or not on their | website, alongside System 6 and 7.5, or if you could get them, | ahem, from other locations. | | Anyways, 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 | pjmlp wrote: | The only time I saw it live was in 1994 at the old Lisbon | Computer Expo. | | It seemed an interesting experiment for the about 15 minutes I | was allowed to play with it. | | Never saw it again other than in computer magazines articles. | sneak wrote: | Does anyone have a .zip or something of an emulator with this all | up and running? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-20 23:01 UTC)