greenstr@cst.prl.philips.nl (Roland Greenstreet) (11/08/89)
I have two questions :-
1. Is there a FULL unix system avaliable for the pc ( 386DX machine)
which is simualar to Berkley unix on the Sun systems? If so I would
appreciate any remarks on it and where it is available from , UK
outlet if possible.
2. I have been using the Phonix bios in my machine for a few years without
any compatability problems. I am about to buy a new motherboard with an
AMI bios. Has anybody come accross any problems with the AMI bios? Is it
better than the Phonix? and can the AMI bios be replaced , if I don't like
it , with the Phonix directly?
Thanks in advance for your comments
R.J.Greenstreetmadd@world.std.com (jim frost) (11/09/89)
greenstr@cst.prl.philips.nl (Roland Greenstreet) writes: >1. Is there a FULL unix system avaliable for the pc ( 386DX machine) > which is simualar to Berkley unix on the Sun systems? If so I would > appreciate any remarks on it and where it is available from , UK > outlet if possible. Yes, it's SunOS. Currently you cannot get SunOS except for the 386i, so it's probably not useful to you. SysVR4 will be much more BSDish but will not be out for some time yet. I hear talk of a BSD 386 port and a Mach port, but so far as I know these are vaporware. Currently System V is it for PCs, which is too bad. >2. I have been using the Phonix bios in my machine for a few years without > any compatability problems. I am about to buy a new motherboard with an > AMI bios. Has anybody come accross any problems with the AMI bios? I had it in my machine and it worked fine. I'm not a good test, though, since all the BIOS was used for was to boot UNIX. jim frost software tool & die "The World" Public Access Unix for the '90s madd@std.com +1 617-739-WRLD 24hrs {3,12,24}00bps
jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) (11/10/89)
greenstr@cst.prl.philips.nl (Roland Greenstreet) writes: >I have two questions :- >1. Is there a FULL unix system avaliable for the pc ( 386DX machine) > which is simualar to Berkley unix on the Sun systems? If so I would > appreciate any remarks on it and where it is available from , UK > outlet if possible. >2. I have been using the Phonix bios in my machine for a few years without > any compatability problems. I am about to buy a new motherboard with an > AMI bios. Has anybody come accross any problems with the AMI bios? Is it > better than the Phonix? and can the AMI bios be replaced , if I don't like > it , with the Phonix directly? >Thanks in advance for your comments >R.J.Greenstreet - - I'm not enough of a UN*X whiz to answer the first. To the second, though, if you want to run UN*X then you are best to stay with Phoenix BIOS. I'm told that you can't run it with AMI or Award. We (Convergent/Unisys) remove the Award BIOS from the CPUs we buy and replace them with Phoenix for this reason. " I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me. Said I, 'But Joe, you're ten years dead.' 'I never died' said he. " Jerry ( jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM ) -----
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/10/89)
In article <1429@starfish.Convergent.COM>, jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: > I'm not enough of a UN*X whiz to answer the first. To the second, > though, if you want to run UN*X then you are best to stay with Phoenix > BIOS. I'm told that you can't run it with AMI or Award. We > (Convergent/Unisys) remove the Award BIOS from the CPUs we buy and > replace them with Phoenix for this reason. I have run three different 386 unixes (386/ix, Bell Tech, and SCO Xenix 2.3.2) on systems with AMI BIOSs, so your source was wrong (for at least these systems). -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
wtr@moss.ATT.COM (3673,ATTT) (11/10/89)
In article <1429@starfish.Convergent.COM> jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: >greenstr@cst.prl.philips.nl (Roland Greenstreet) writes: >>I have two questions :- >>1. Is there a FULL unix system avaliable for the pc ( 386DX machine) Please stop posting this subject to the unix-pc.general newsgroup. That newsgroup is for discussion on the AT&T 3B1 computer (aka. the "Unix-PC"). It is not for the discussion of other micro-based unixes. (The 3B1 uses an mc68010, not an intel processor) thanks, -bill -- ===================================================================== Bill Rankin email address: att!moss!wtr was: Bell Labs, Whippany NJ att!bromo!wtr now: AT&T Federal Systems, Burlington NC (919) 228 3673 (cornet 291)
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (11/11/89)
>----- >Response 1 of 1 (6709) by jerry at starfish.Convergent.COM on Fri 10 Nov 89 >11:38 >[Gerald Hawkins] >(30 lines) > >I'm not enough of a UN*X whiz to answer the first. To the second, >though, if you want to run UN*X then you are best to stay with Phoenix >BIOS. I'm told that you can't run it with AMI or Award. We >(Convergent/Unisys) remove the Award BIOS from the CPUs we buy and >replace them with Phoenix for this reason. Nonsense. The BIOS is only involved in booting the system. Once it is booted, Unix runs without the BIOS at all. We sell systems, with AMI BIOSes, and they work fine with Xenix and Unix. No problems reported so far, and I don't expect any in the future. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
rob@disk.UUCP (Rob Miracle) (11/13/89)
In article <1429@starfish.Convergent.COM>, jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: >greenstr@cst.prl.philips.nl (Roland Greenstreet) writes: >>I have two questions :- >>2. I have been using the Phonix bios in my machine for a few years without >> any compatability problems. I am about to buy a new motherboard with an >> AMI bios. Has anybody come accross any problems with the AMI bios? Is it >> better than the Phonix? and can the AMI bios be replaced , if I don't like >> it , with the Phonix directly? > I'm not enough of a UN*X whiz to answer the first. To the second, > though, if you want to run UN*X then you are best to stay with Phoenix > BIOS. I'm told that you can't run it with AMI or Award. We [deleted] Well we are running an AMI bios machine and have had 0 BIOS problems with either Microport or Interactive Unix. This machine and my friends who are using the same clones at work (they have several clones with AMI and Unix) and have no compatibility problems. I personally have AMI bios (same clone) under DOS on my 386 at home and I have no compatiblity problems. The setup utilities are quite nice. As far as which is better? well that is hard to say. Pheonix is by far more respected because it is used by many brand-name clones (AT&T and such) but AMI is gaining ground quickly. Rob -- * Rob Miracle * ...uunet!ukma!corpane!disk!rob * * Disk Inc. (502)968-5401 - 5406 * Discaimer: I don't claim any of my actions * "Revenge is a dish best served cold. It is very cold in space" -- Ancient Klingon Proverb
chan@eeserv (Andrew Chan) (11/13/89)
In article <1429@starfish.Convergent.COM> jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: >I'm not enough of a UN*X whiz to answer the first. To the second, >though, if you want to run UN*X then you are best to stay with Phoenix >BIOS. I'm told that you can't run it with AMI or Award. We >(Convergent/Unisys) remove the Award BIOS from the CPUs we buy and >replace them with Phoenix for this reason. > We have Unisys 386 using Award BIOS running SCO 386 Xenix V v.2.2.2 okay. I myself have an 286 with AMI BIOS and running SCO 286 Xenix V again okay.
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (11/20/89)
In article <694@disk.UUCP>, rob@disk.UUCP (Rob Miracle) writes: > In article <1429@starfish.Convergent.COM>, jerry@starfish.Convergent.COM (Gerald Hawkins) writes: > >greenstr@cst.prl.philips.nl (Roland Greenstreet) writes: > >>I have two questions :- > >>2. I have been using the Phonix bios in my machine for a few years without > >> any compatability problems. I am about to buy a new motherboard with an I have heard of problems in multitasking environments relating to the cache on the motherboard, but I think this can be defeated on most systems. Perhaps someone with a little first hand experience would care to elaborate more. My info is second hand. -- Barton A. Fisk | UUCP: {attctc,texbell}vector!holston!barton PO Box 1781 | (PSEUDO) DOMAIN: barton@holston.UUCP Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ---------------------------------------- 318-439-5984 | "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"-JC
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/21/89)
In article <5641@holston.UUCP> barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) writes: | I have heard of problems in multitasking environments relating | to the cache on the motherboard, but I think this can be defeated | on most systems. | | Perhaps someone with a little first hand experience would care | to elaborate more. My info is second hand. Since you ask... I have run four versions of UNIX of 386 machines with cache, from AMI, Dell, and Micronics. I have never seen a problem such as you describe. Cache runs on physical addresses, so context switching isn't a problem. I have heard rumors that certain controllers which write directly to memory on the bus may cause problems if the cache is not marked correctly, but that's not a multitasking problem since it could happen under DOS as well. I've never had a chance to determine if the fault is in the design of the cache or the controller. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon