mab@mtx5c.UUCP (Michael Brochstein) (05/20/86)
I am considering the purchase of an IBM AT for program development using C. The target environment will also be AT's as well as other Xenix based supermicros. I need information from someone who is currently using a PC/IX (or other version of Xenix) based AT . My questions are about PC/IX, its development utlities, and the speed of an AT running multi-user under PC/IX. Thank you, -- Michael Brochstein AT&T Information Systems, Middletown, NJ ihnp4!mtx5d!mtx5c!mab (201) 957-1764
mellon@mit-prep.ARPA (Ted Lemon) (05/24/86)
From: mab@mtx5c.UUCP (Michael Brochstein) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Date: 20 May 86 18:21:38 GMT Distribution: net > I am considering the purchase of an IBM AT for program > development using C. The target environment will also be AT's as well > as other Xenix based supermicros. I need information from someone who > is currently using a PC/IX (or other version of Xenix) based AT . My > questions are about PC/IX, its development utlities, and the speed of > an AT running multi-user under PC/IX. First of all, PC/IX is not the same product as Xenix. PC/IX does not run in protected mode, and is thus not a good idea when you are using an AT, although I hear it does work on the AT. I am using SCO system V. It works very nicely - I haven't noticed any slowness compared with MS-DOS, in fact quite the opposite. I suspect that the layout of the hard disk directories is better. I don't run more than two users at a time (me and me), however, so I don't know how it would stand up in that case. The utilities that come with Xenix are complete UNIX, along with some MS-DOS related stuff. The only notable lack is that there is no on-line database for man(1). The MS-DOS utilities allow you to read and write from an MS-DOS partition on your hard disk drive, or on a floppy. You can also compile and link for an 8086 based MS-DOS system, generating an actual MS-DOS .EXE file. Pretty nifty. If I didn't have so much invested in MS-DOS already, I would be using Xenix exclusively. _MelloN_ -- Ted Lemon Project GNU of the Free Software Foundation UUCP: {}!mit-eddie!mit-prep!mellon INTERNET: mellon@prep.ai.mit.edu ORGANIZATION: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 1000 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA +1 (617) 876-3296 Also: New Media Graphics Corporation 279 Cambridge St., Burlington, MA 01803 HOME: 18 Kennedy Drive, North Chelmsford, Massachusetts
herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) (05/25/86)
In article <737@mtx5c.UUCP> mab@mtx5c.UUCP (Michael Brochstein) writes: > I am considering the purchase of an IBM AT for program development >using C. The target environment will also be AT's as well as other >Xenix based supermicros. I need information from someone who is currently >using a PC/IX (or other version of Xenix) based AT . My questions are about >PC/IX, its development utlities, and the speed of an AT running multi-user >under PC/IX. PC/IX and Xenix are unix sys3 clones but are otherwise different beasts. Xenix is by Microsoft/SCO. PC/IX is by Interactive Systems Corporation. Herb Chong... I'm still user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... VNET,BITNET,NETNORTH,EARN: HERBIE AT YKTVMH UUCP: {allegra|cbosgd|cmcl2|decvax|ihnp4|seismo}!philabs!polaris!herbie CSNET: herbie.yktvmh@ibm-sj.csnet ARPA: herbie@ibm-sj.arpa, herbie%yktvmh.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu ======================================================================== DISCLAIMER: what you just read was produced by pouring lukewarm tea for 42 seconds onto 9 people chained to 6 Ouiji boards.
root@ucsfcca.UUCP (05/28/86)
> > ... I need information from someone who is currently > using a PC/IX (or other version of Xenix) based AT . My questions are about > PC/IX, its development utlities, and the speed of an AT running multi-user > under PC/IX. > PC/IX is not a version of Xenix. It is a System III based port to the PC/XT and a version was done for the PC/AT but I understand that IBM decided to market Xenix for the AT instead. The last I heard there was a release 2 of Xenix for the AT. Thos Sumner (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!ucsfcca.UCSF!thos)
rwwetmore@watmath.UUCP (Ross Wetmore [ICR]) (05/28/86)
In article <543@polaris.UUCP> herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) writes: > >PC/IX and Xenix are unix sys3 clones but are otherwise different beasts. >Xenix is by Microsoft/SCO. PC/IX is by Interactive Systems Corporation. > It is true that the only version of XENIX distributed by IBM is SYS III, but MicroSoft/SCO are distributing the SYS V version. Someday the people at Big Blue will catch on ...
syncro@looking.UUCP (Tom Haapanen) (05/28/86)
In article <543@polaris.UUCP> herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) writes: >> I am considering the purchase of an IBM AT for program development >>using C. The target environment will also be AT's as well as other >>Xenix based supermicros. I need information from someone who is currently >>using a PC/IX (or other version of Xenix) based AT . My questions are about >>PC/IX, its development utlities, and the speed of an AT running multi-user >>under PC/IX. >PC/IX and Xenix are unix sys3 clones but are otherwise different beasts. >Xenix is by Microsoft/SCO. PC/IX is by Interactive Systems Corporation. Ummm, that used to be true. Now, what we have is: PC/IX, IBM Xenix System III SCO Xenix 5, IBM Xenix 2.0 System V IBM Xenix is an IBM-ized version of SCO Xenix with a higher price tag. Xenix was developed by Microsoft for micros, and ported to the PC, AT and others by SCO (Santa Cruz Operation Inc.). So, SCO is probably the best source to get Xenix. PC/IX is NOT a version of Xenix; rather, it is a port of UNIX Sys3 to PC (and to VM, as VM/IX) by Interactive Systems (I think). It has generated a LOT of negative feedback from users, and is missing Sys5 features, and essentials such as csh and vi. UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T Bell Labs. XENIX is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. -- \tom haapanen looking glass software ltd. syncro@looking.UUCP waterloo, ontario, canada watmath!looking!syncro (519) 884-7473 "These opinions are solely mine, although even I would like to deny them..."
dts@cullvax.UUCP (Daniel T Senie) (05/30/86)
> In article <543@polaris.UUCP> herbie@polaris.UUCP (Herb Chong) writes: > > > >PC/IX and Xenix are unix sys3 clones but are otherwise different beasts. > >Xenix is by Microsoft/SCO. PC/IX is by Interactive Systems Corporation. > > > It is true that the only version of XENIX distributed by IBM is SYS III, > but MicroSoft/SCO are distributing the SYS V version. Someday the people > at Big Blue will catch on ... Do you folk read trade journals? IBM announced XENIX 2.0 a few months ago. It is equivalent to Microsoft XENIX 5.0. This is System V Rel. 2 compatible. IBM stopped supporting PC/IX as of December 1985. I used the AT version: It doesn't work with an EGA and uses real mode. IBM is offering an upgrade from PC/IX to XENIX 2.0. They are no longer selling PC/IX. I am currently using the SCO/XENIX V.2. SCO does NOT have their act together. They give you phone support for only one month and then will only entertain requests in writing. For the in writing support, it's about $100 a year. Phone support runs MUCH higher. SCO just sent me an update patch to the base system, a beta release of the compiler, and still has some open questions of mine. Some programs fail to compile with internal errors in the compiler. We still have a copy of PC/IX here. I think I'm going to trade it in for XENIX 2.0 from IBM. Maybe It'll be better. One additional note: the binders for the manuals for SCO/XENIX have this habit of falling apart. I'd switch to IBM just to get better binders... -- Daniel T. Senie TEL.: (617) 329-7700 x3168 Cullinet Software, Inc. UUCP: seismo!mit-eddie!cullvax!dts 400 Blue Hill Drive ARPA: cullvax!dts@eddie.mit.edu Westwood, MA 02090-2198
jrc@hpcnof.UUCP (06/02/86)
I have heard some version of UNIX for PCs limit programs to 64K of data and
64K of code --- the S (small) memory model. Any truth to this rumor?
Jim Conrad
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!hplabs!hpcnof!j_conradbc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/02/86)
> >PC/IX and Xenix are unix sys3 clones but are otherwise different beasts. > >Xenix is by Microsoft/SCO. PC/IX is by Interactive Systems Corporation. > > > It is true that the only version of XENIX distributed by IBM is SYS III, > but MicroSoft/SCO are distributing the SYS V version. Someday the people > at Big Blue will catch on ... A couple of *months* ago, I saw an IBM Product Announcement that indicated that the new IBM version of Xenix was System V based. Since I don't use it, I don't know the version number or when it {became,will become} available. -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (06/04/86)
In article <342@cullvax.UUCP> dts@cullvax.UUCP (Daniel T Senie) writes: > >IBM is offering an upgrade from PC/IX to XENIX 2.0. They are no longer >selling PC/IX. I am currently using the SCO/XENIX V.2. SCO does NOT have >their act together. They give you phone support for only one month and >then will only entertain requests in writing. For the in writing support, >it's about $100 a year. Phone support runs MUCH higher. Yes, there are (still) bugs in SCO SYS V Xenix. The 286 is essentially hostile to Unix, and I haven't seen a 286 based timesharing system that isn't crippled by *today's* standards. Only Intel thinks the 286 is in the same league as 32 bit machines, and they have been rather silent on the subject since they introdiced the 386. As Gates himself put it, the 386 is the chip the 286 should have been. There are also some hardware cretinisms in the PC-AT that make it hard to write a reliable and efficient I/O system. A 386 "compatible" motherboard won't fix those problems. >SCO just sent me an update patch to the base system, a beta release of >the compiler, and still has some open questions of mine. Some programs >fail to compile with internal errors in the compiler. SCO gets the compiler upgrades fairly quickly from Microsoft. If Microsoft ever gets a correct 286 C compiler, SCO won't be far behind. >We still have a copy of PC/IX here. I think I'm going to trade it in for >XENIX 2.0 from IBM. Maybe It'll be better. If your beef with SCO is bug fixing response, you'd better talk to some IBM Xenix users about that subject ... >One additional note: the binders for the manuals for SCO/XENIX have this >habit of falling apart. I'd switch to IBM just to get better binders... I don't particularly care for SCO's binders, but I haven't had any fall apart. I have cut notches in the top of the spines so I can use a finger to pull them out of their boxes without a big fight. > Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Author of Professional-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 TeleGodzilla: 621-3746 300/1200 L.sys entry for omen: omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp omen!/usr/spool/uucppublic/FILES lists all uucp-able files, updated hourly