[comp.sys.att] Another experience with FIXDISK2.0 for UNIXpc

rmfowler@texrex.uucp (Rex Fowler) (11/09/90)

A few weeks ago there was a discussion about problems obtaining FIXDISX 2.0
for the UNIX pc from AT&T.  Well, let me tell you what I dealt with when I 
tried to get the FIXDISK 2.0.

I called the hotline support number listed in the FAQ list by Lenny Tropiano.
When I reached a human, I asked for the FIXDISK 2.0 for the UNIX pc.  The
guy on the other end put me on hold for 5 minutes to go talk to an "engineer".
When he returned he said "Oh, you must mean the 1020 fix, there's no such
thing as a 2.0".

Well, we debated a little longer (20 minutes) before he went to check with 
the engineer again.  This time he said "Yeah, the 1020 fix brings the OS up 
to 3.51, but there's no such thing as 3.51a or m or anything like that.  
The 1020 was the last fix ever issued  and it will bring you up to 3.51"  
But I already have 3.51. I installed directly from the distribution floppies, 
NOT from a patch disk!  "Then you already have the latest version."

By now I was not only confused I was getting a little angry.  I asked if I
could talk to the "engineer" which he responded with no.  But, he took
down my name, serial # of 3b1, phone #, etc and would have one of the 
engineers call me back as "an act of goodwill" and wouldn't cost me anything.
Maybe I should have asked them to "put it in writing" :^)

I'll be anxious to talk to an engineer to see what's going on.  I realize
I can get the FIXDISK2.0 from osu or even easier, I could get it from someone
local.  I thought trying to get it from AT&T would be a little more 
interesting...I was right.

Does anybody know what the 1020 fix might be?  Perhaps all fixes begin
with "10" and the second part represents the "2.0" ??  

To be continued...

-- 
Rex Fowler <rmfowler%texrex@cirr.com>
UUCP:  egsner!texrex!rmfowler

wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) (11/12/90)

In article <1990Nov9.033746.1605@texrex.uucp> rmfowler@texrex.uucp (Rex Fowler) writes:
>
>A few weeks ago there was a discussion about problems obtaining FIXDISX 2.0
>for the UNIX pc from AT&T.  Well, let me tell you what I dealt with when I 
>tried to get the FIXDISK 2.0. ....

Well, AT&T was 1/2 right. The code number on the 3.51 fixdisk is
1020.  That gets you the 3.51m kernel and other assorted goodies.

I whipped out my copy of the the Fixdisk that I requested from the
Hotline (1-800-922-0354) this spring and sure enough that is the
label:

"          A T & T
        Unix (tm)  PC
    v 3.51 Fix Disl r 2.0

    Fix 1020       1 of 2  "


The second disk is the same, except it is "2 of 2."


The return address on the disk mailer is:


AT&T
Software Coordinator
601 Allendale Rd.
King of Prussia, PA  19406


A couple of readers in netland as well as myself had problems with
bad sectors on the distribution diskettes, so you might as well ftp
the archive from osu anyway.

I had problems with poor serial port performance with the 3.51m
kernel, though I did like the metermaid display and improved screen
blanker being able to be unblanked even with non-typing keys.  All
the patches to the other programs seemed backwards compatible to
the standard 3.51 kernel, so I kept those.

I never had the problem, but several other people had problems with
stranage lock files being left around that prevented correct booting
into the multiuser run level with the 3.51m kernel.  I'm not sure
what the consensus on the cause of that was.

==Bill==


-- 
Bill Mayhew      NEOUCOM Computer Services Department
Rootstown, OH  44272-9995  USA    phone: 216-325-2511
wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu   ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm
via internet: (140.220.001.001)

dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (11/13/90)

In article <1990Nov12.041705.27425@uhura.neoucom.EDU>, wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) writes:
> I had problems with poor serial port performance with the 3.51m
> kernel, though I did like the metermaid display and improved screen
> blanker being able to be unblanked even with non-typing keys.
> 
You know, I heard about this problem before and I think someone posted a binary
patch to fix the problem.  My problem is I forgot whether I applied the patch
or not.  Anyone out there have any ideas on how I can see if I applied that 
patch?  Thanks!!

DAS
-- 
David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA

UUCP:  ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave     INTERNET:  dave@das13.snide.com