root@dynasys.UUCP (Super user) (09/01/89)
I run SCO Xenix on several systems and I'm thinking about getting a package
for my own system. I just want to make sure I get the right thing. So if
anyone can help me with these questions, I would appreciate it.
1) What is the difference between SCO Xenix and SCO Unix? Or what is the
difference between unix and xenix? SCO was not much help - they told me
that with unix I would have "binary compatibility" with AT+T's unix. So, what
does this mean for me. What difference does that make?
2) Can anyone recommend a version of unix/xenix for a 386 that has experience
with several different versions? In other words, should I get SCO's unix or
xenix, or someone elses unix or xenix? What's the differences here?
3) I definitely am looking the the complete package, i.e. development system
as well. Are there any differences in the development package?
4) Does anyone know about SCO's product Open Desktop that's coming out in
October (supposedly)? Is it the complete package - operating system and
development system, etc.? Or just a development system?
5) What are the price differences between the different versions of unix?
6) Is the company that makes your preferred brand of unix good about support?
I'd appreciate any help anyone can give me. Please E-Mail me at
uunet!dynasys!root instead of using the above path as the site that gives me
my newsfeed is about to be shut down for a week. Thanx again and have a good
one.
--
Jesse W. Asher
Dynasys (901) 382-1705
6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134
uunet!dynasys!rootlarry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/02/89)
In article <12@dynasys.UUCP>, root@dynasys.UUCP (Super user) writes: > 1) What is the difference between SCO Xenix and SCO Unix? Or what is the I had been running both SCO 2.3.1 and Interactive 2.02 and it appears that I will be sticking with 386/ix. SCO Xenix is their Xenix product which is less memory hungry and offers support for thousands of products that run under pure Xenix. Xenix is not Unix binary compatible. SCO Unix on the other hand will execute both Xenix and Unix binaries (likewise 386/ix) and cost more, but lacks a developers system (it currently still is not shipping) - while Interactive is shipping a complete product to support Unix V5 which will also execute Xenix binaries (I was running my Xenix Usenet binaries under 386/ix without problems and only recently recompiled the source code under the native compiler). If you are considering an OS - I would go with Interactive. You should look at their file system - it has to be the fastest in the industry. -- Larry Snyder uucp: iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!larry The Northern Star Usenet Distribution Site, Notre Dame, IN USA
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (09/04/89)
In article <14@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >In article <12@dynasys.UUCP>, root@dynasys.UUCP (Super user) writes: >> 1) What is the difference between SCO Xenix and SCO Unix? Or what is the > >I had been running both SCO 2.3.1 and Interactive 2.02 and it appears that >I will be sticking with 386/ix. SCO Xenix is their Xenix product which >is less memory hungry and offers support for thousands of products that >run under pure Xenix. Xenix is not Unix binary compatible. Nonsense. Xenix 2.3 runs all 80386 Unix COFF binaries that I have tried, including those that use shared libraries. For example, I have successfully run the Microport "vi" from their '386 release -- Xenix's reads /etc/termcap, and I wanted one that read terminfo. So I loaded uport's -- it works fine. Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. 386/ix works with Wangtek only. I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat lacking" IMHO. >SCO Unix >on the other hand will execute both Xenix and Unix binaries (likewise 386/ix) >and cost more, but lacks a developers system (it currently still is not >shipping) - while Interactive is shipping a complete product to support >Unix V5 which will also execute Xenix binaries (I was running my Xenix >Usenet binaries under 386/ix without problems and only recently recompiled >the source code under the native compiler). Unless you want to run 80286 Xenix binaries, in which case you may find out there are a couple of nasty surprises -- like SGID/SUID things don't work right. This may be fixed now, but it was definately a problem with V2.01. >If you are considering an OS - I would go with Interactive. You should >look at their file system - it has to be the fastest in the industry. Unless you count SCO Unix 3.2's ACER/Counterpoint Fast File System enhancement :-) (We don't have benchmark numbers yet, but I bet it gives 386/ix a good run for the money). Make sure you look at Interactive's support too -- in my experience (which is limited, I will admit) it's the worst in the industry. A customer of ours went against our recommendation and bought 386/ix -- and then had over eight months of finger-pointing to deal with regarding disk controller/drive compatibility problems. He got "well, it's not supported" -- this with a WD1006V controller (RLL 1:1 buffered). Their installation software (!) was badly broken and wouldn't accept defect lists properly. Now that 2.0.2 is released, it appears to be fixed -- although they never admitted it was broken in the first place! I won't buy 386/ix until they can demonstrate to us that it is working right AND that they intend to support the product. So far neither has been the case. If you put 386/ix into a commercial environment, from what we have seen, you are asking for trouble. It may be ok for the "hacker". -- 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"
bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey) (09/04/89)
In article <12@dynasys.UUCP> root@dynasys.UUCP (Super user) writes: >1) What is the difference between SCO Xenix and SCO Unix? Or what is the >2) Can anyone recommend a version of unix/xenix for a 386 that has experience >3) I definitely am looking the the complete package, i.e. development system >4) Does anyone know about SCO's product Open Desktop that's coming out in >5) What are the price differences between the different versions of unix? >6) Is the company that makes your preferred brand of unix good about support? Well, that was a mouthful of questions. After just coming back from SCO Forum 89, I will attempt to answer (As I am sure many others will). 1. SCO Unix/Xenix differences. Many. Big differences in "trusted" security, in other words, large corporations, government, etc, will be very useful. Takes more overhead in memory and disk. For now, for our typical customers, Xenix is fine. 2. I(personal opinion) highly recommend SCO products! 3. SCO has a complete development system including Microsoft "C". 4. Open Desktop is a NICE product, but does require a lot of resources as well. As more software developers are getting into the action, this will be a good platform. Will be software driven when the "typical" user will be looking at this seriously. 5. Pricing, depends on your status, end user vs reseller, etc. 6. SCO's products are supported by a large support staff (and growing). Depends on your needs. If you are an end-user, then find yourself a reliable VAR/dealer in your area that can provide the tech support that you need, if you are a dealer, then in addition to SCO, find a support oriented Super/VAR- Distributor that can serve as a first line of support. TRG in Atlanta, Microware Distributors, etc. .. There is a pamphlet available from SCO or your dealer entitled, SCO Unix vs Xenix, when to and not to. (Something like that), and will answer a lot of your questions. These answers are my opinions, as I am sure others will disagree. -- .. Computer Consulting Service .. Bob Willey .. .. P.O. Drawer 1690 .. uunet!consult!bob .. .. Easton, Maryland 21601 .. (301) 820-4670 .. ...............................................................
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/04/89)
> Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. 386/ix works with > Wangtek only. I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat > lacking" IMHO. It doesn't even work fine with the Wangtek - as there is no way to format a tape (it appears on a menu under sysadm - but doesn't work). > Unless you count SCO Unix 3.2's ACER/Counterpoint Fast File System > enhancement :-) (We don't have benchmark numbers yet, but I bet it gives > 386/ix a good run for the money). Wasn't the ACER file system the one reviewed in Unix Review against ISC? I believe so and in the review ISC's throughput is still hotter than SCO Unix. Is SCO planning on porting the ACER file system over to their Xenix products. -- Larry Snyder uucp:iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!larry The Northern Star Usenet Distribution Site, Notre Dame, IN USA
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (09/05/89)
From article <52@consult.UUCP>, by bob@consult.UUCP (Bob Willey): > In article <12@dynasys.UUCP> root@dynasys.UUCP (Super user) writes: > 1. SCO Unix/Xenix differences. Many. Big differences in "trusted" > security, in other words, large corporations, government, etc, will be > very useful. Takes more overhead in memory and disk. For now, for our > typical customers, Xenix is fine. +1 > 2. I(personal opinion) highly recommend SCO products! It must be election year. > 3. SCO has a complete development system including Microsoft "C". Big deal they said that with every release. They do have codeview which is new. By the way it's not the ultimate advantage ix users are useing VPIX or Simul-Task and running either MSC or Turbo-C to develop thier apps. > 4. Open Desktop is a NICE product, but does require a lot of resources > as well. As more software developers are getting into the action, > this will be a good platform. Will be software driven when the > "typical" user will be looking at this seriously. Ok, lets hear it from the typical user. > 5. Pricing, depends on your status, end user vs reseller, etc. So lets talk about prices. What's the end user going to pay for all this? > 6. SCO's products are supported by a large support staff (and growing). > Depends on your needs. If you are an end-user, then find yourself > a reliable VAR/dealer in your area that can provide the tech support > that you need, if you are a dealer, then in addition to SCO, find > a support oriented Super/VAR- Distributor that can serve as a first > line of support. TRG in Atlanta, Microware Distributors, etc. Where not plugging anyone are we? > .. > There is a pamphlet available from SCO or your dealer entitled, > SCO Unix vs Xenix, when to and not to. (Something like that), and > will answer a lot of your questions. > These answers are my opinions, as I am sure others will disagree. Pamphlets don't cut the mustard. Real benchmarks, successfull applications, unsuccessfull applications results is what buyers want to hear. I'm not knocking SCO's products, in my opinion they do sell a good packages. But lets get real. -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun,dasiy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200 Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX system
mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) (09/05/89)
In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >> Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. 386/ix works with >> Wangtek only. I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat >> lacking" IMHO. SCO Xenix isn't all that great at tape drive support either. Ever since I switched to 2.3.1 Xenix it takes TWO attempts at starting the tape drive. (I'm using an Archive 150 meg/QIC02 internal on my HP Vectra 386/RS20) (I also tried an Emerald controller as well as the original Archive unit) I recently called SCO support after going trough numerous checks of addresses. interrupts, etc. Their answer was "O'yeah, we do have a few problems with some tape drivers. They're on our 'list', but I'm not sure when (or if) they're going to fix them". Great!! I can't wait to tell my customers about this. Just start up your backups twice because the first time there's an allergy between the tape unit and the CPU so it requires a smooth-out-the-wrinkles false start. BTW 'tape reset' hangs the tape drive so completely that the CPU has to be rebooted. Would you trust any backups that require this type of maneuvering to make it go? Archive wasn't the only one with problems either. The rep was hard pressed to give me an answer on just one "brand" that worked correctly. Perhaps by letting "you" know what's going on some action will be taken on this. It seems like having reliable backups should require problems of this nature to be given the highest priority. Mel Shear Fleet Parts & Equipment
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (09/06/89)
In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >> Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. 386/ix works with >> Wangtek only. I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat >> lacking" IMHO. > >It doesn't even work fine with the Wangtek - as there is no way to format >a tape (it appears on a menu under sysadm - but doesn't work). But (Sputter sputter) the QIC-24 tapes (Wangtek, Everex, Archive...) don't need to be "formatted". Granted, the older 3B2 and HP tape drives which used the same media (DC600) needed to be formatted, but they weren't QIC-24! Did you perchance mean "retension"? All you need to do is use the minor device which does it for you when you open it... -John Plocher
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (09/06/89)
In article <26@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >>> Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. 386/ix works with >>> Wangtek only. I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat >>> lacking" IMHO. > >SCO Xenix isn't all that great at tape drive support either. Ever since I >switched to 2.3.1 Xenix it takes TWO attempts at starting the tape drive. >(I'm using an Archive 150 meg/QIC02 internal on my HP Vectra 386/RS20) >(I also tried an Emerald controller as well as the original Archive unit) We don't seen anything like this. We have both 60 and 150 MB archive drives in the field, with both long and short controller boards. No problems reported. Let's not even mention the Irwin 145 series, which SCO also supports. And that even works (which, given the brain-dead nature of the Irwin drives, is amazing in itself). We used one of those for several months before we got a QIC/02 unit here. >I recently called SCO support after going trough numerous checks of addresses. >interrupts, etc. Their answer was "O'yeah, we do have a few problems with >some tape drivers. They're on our 'list', but I'm not sure when (or if) >they're going to fix them". > >Great!! I can't wait to tell my customers about this. Just start up your >backups twice because the first time there's an allergy between the tape >unit and the CPU so it requires a smooth-out-the-wrinkles false start. >BTW 'tape reset' hangs the tape drive so completely that the CPU has to be >rebooted. Would you trust any backups that require this type of maneuvering >to make it go? 'Tape reset' hangs the drive? Then you definately have problems or your driver/board isn't configured right. I use "tape reset" all the time, and it has never hung a drive or controller, or a machine (with the exception of when our 60MB QIC/02 controller really did die, then it hung the entire system! Can't blame SCO for that one, however, the controller was smoked.) >Archive wasn't the only one with problems either. The rep was hard pressed >to give me an answer on just one "brand" that worked correctly. Well, Wangtek, Archive VP series, and the older SC499-based units (long Archive controller boards) all work without any "false starts" in our systems, with both the Televideo (which we used to sell) and our current line of clones (Legend). Believe me, we'd hear it if this kind of problem occurred with our customers; they're "office people" and when there is an error message, or a (horror) hung process we get a phone call! We're running 2.3.2 and 2.2.3 (one instance), as are our customers. Perhaps you need an update. 2.3.1 (one) did have problems, but not that kind (that I remember anyway). It would, if memory was fragemented too much, return a "system too busy" message (this was one that really pissed me off). 2.3.2 seems to have fixed that one. >Perhaps by letting "you" know what's going on some action will be taken on this. >It seems like having reliable backups should require problems of this nature >to be given the highest priority. Our backups are highly reliable. In fact, with the ecc tape devices ("erct0") we haven't had a single bad tape yet on read-back -- and we quite often do need to restore the things (a result of playing with partition tables, driver development :-), etc. 386/ix, on the other hand, recently was unable to restore a tape that was made a few hours prior on 2.0.1; this was with a 60MB Wangtek. Our customer was not amused. There is no "ecc" tape device on 386/ix. -- 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"
thurm@shorty.CS.WISC.EDU (Matthew Thurmaier) (09/06/89)
In article <26@fleet.UUCP> mel sheers writes: In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > SCO Xenix isn't all that great at tape drive support either. Ever since I > switched to 2.3.1 Xenix it takes TWO attempts at starting the tape drive. > (I'm using an Archive 150 meg/QIC02 internal on my HP Vectra 386/RS20) > (I also tried an Emerald controller as well as the original Archive unit) > > I recently called SCO support after going trough numerous checks of addresses. > interrupts, etc. Their answer was "O'yeah, we do have a few problems with > some tape drivers. They're on our 'list', but I'm not sure when (or if) > they're going to fix them". > > Great!! I can't wait to tell my customers about this. Just start up your > backups twice because the first time there's an allergy between the tape > unit and the CPU so it requires a smooth-out-the-wrinkles false start. > BTW 'tape reset' hangs the tape drive so completely that the CPU has to be > rebooted. Would you trust any backups that require this type of maneuvering > to make it go? > > Archive wasn't the only one with problems either. The rep was hard pressed > to give me an answer on just one "brand" that worked correctly. > Mel, Let me start with a disclaimer: I DON'T SELL PRODUCT! By SCO rules, I am considered an INDEPENDENT training center, that means I train and consult, not sell. I ALWAYS tell my students that I have seen lots of tape drives, the ONLY ONE I KNOW WORKS IS _____________. This particular tape drive and controller combination has worked for me from 2.1.1 on a 286 through 2.3.1 on a 386. I left the name of the drive/controller manufacturer blank because I am NOT endoursing ANYBODY's product. If you want to know the name of something that ALWAYS WORKS, drop me an e-mail message and I'll tell you what ALWAYS WORKS. That goes for anyone else on the net. I also tell my students what doesn't work, or works poorly. These I will share with you: IRWIN IS UNRELIABLE. I wouldn't trust a saved rogue game to them. Also, while maynard mainstreams reportedly work great novell servers, they haven't gotten the hang of getting them to work with xenix/unix yet. Again, I hope this information is helpful to you and others on the net. Sincerely, matthew. Snail Mail: E Mail: Matthew J. Thurmaier ...!{allegra,harvard,seismo}!shorty!matt The Computer Classroom matt@shorty.wisc.edu 6701 Seybold Road, Ste. 122 Madison, WI 53719 (608) 271-2171 "why am I ALWAYS going somewhere?" >>-matt-->
root@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/06/89)
In article <124172@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) writes: > >It doesn't even work fine with the Wangtek - as there is no way to format > >a tape (it appears on a menu under sysadm - but doesn't work). > > But (Sputter sputter) the QIC-24 tapes (Wangtek, Everex, Archive...) don't > need to be "formatted". Granted, the older 3B2 and HP tape drives which used the > same media (DC600) needed to be formatted, but they weren't QIC-24! > > Did you perchance mean "retension"? All you need to do is use the minor device > which does it for you when you open it... > Nope (and yes). Format of 1/4 inch tapes is on the 386/ix menu - but doesn't work and advises the user that his tapes are defective and should be replaced with a new one.. After doing futher research - the scripts are defective - and if one does a raw copy using cpio and piping the output to the tape all is well. Another 386/ix glitch. I am finding more of them as time goes by.
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (09/06/89)
In article <1989Sep5.213627.13558@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >In article <26@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >> >>SCO Xenix isn't all that great at tape drive support either. Ever since I >>switched to 2.3.1 Xenix it takes TWO attempts at starting the tape drive. >>(I'm using an Archive 150 meg/QIC02 internal on my HP Vectra 386/RS20) >>(I also tried an Emerald controller as well as the original Archive unit) > >We don't seen anything like this. We have both 60 and 150 MB archive drives >in the field, with both long and short controller boards. No problems >reported. > >Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) I'll second Karl on this one. I've had less problems with SCO tape support in 286 and 386 systems than in competing 386 systems. I've used both an Archive and Everex controller just by doing mkdev tape and using the defaults. It's fairly fast and seems reliable. If you are having problems like you describe you should probably try a different set of hardware. I.e. does the problem disappear if you replace the controller or drive? Does it disappear if you install the controller and drive on a different 386 system? Different type of 386 system? It's most likely that you have a either a bad tape system or an interaction with it and the 386 you are using. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (09/06/89)
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <1989Sep5.213627.13558@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >I've used both an Archive and Everex controller just by doing mkdev tape and >using the defaults. The new everex controllers are not supported by SCO as yet (as of 2.3.2). I (and my customer) found this out the hard way. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Intelligent Software Products, Inc. (201) 245-5922 500 Oakwood Ave. jbayer@ispi.COM Roselle Park, NJ 07204
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (09/06/89)
In article <8293@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thurm@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Thurmaier) writes: > >I also tell my students what doesn't work, or works poorly. These I will >share with you: IRWIN IS UNRELIABLE. I wouldn't trust a saved rogue game >to them. Also, while maynard mainstreams reportedly work great novell servers, >they haven't gotten the hang of getting them to work with xenix/unix yet. I have had success with the Maynard units. They install right, first time every time. And run right. The only thing I have found is that sometimes it didn't like to take the tar command the first time. So I just made a scripts that issued "mtape reset" as the first line, sleep a few seconds, and then generate the tar command. Users fire it off by logging in as "tape". Perhaps you could explain to me/the-net what their problems are. I am using them under 2.2.3 on '286 machines, and 2.2.3 on IBM 80's. Now one item in defense of Irwin. They have always had the best magician demonstrating their product at trade shows. :-) -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
bob@wyse.wyse.com (Bob McGowen Wyse Technology Training) (09/07/89)
In article <124172@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes: >In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: ---deleted--- >>It doesn't even work fine with the Wangtek - as there is no way to format ---deleted--- >But (Sputter sputter) the QIC-24 tapes (Wangtek, Everex, Archive...) don't >need to be "formatted". ... ---deleted--- Well, a little personnal experience. The tapes do NOT need to be pre-formatted but you MUST put something on the tape before you can read it. The "formatting" occurrs as you write, if you want to think of it that way. Bob McGowan (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...) Customer Education, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA ..!uunet!wyse!bob bob@wyse.com
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (09/07/89)
In article <94@nstar.UUCP> root@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
->Nope (and yes). Format of 1/4 inch tapes is on the 386/ix
->menu - but doesn't work and advises the user that his tapes
->are defective and should be replaced with a new one..
->
->After doing futher research - the scripts are defective - and
->if one does a raw copy using cpio and piping the output to the
->tape all is well.
->
->Another 386/ix glitch. I am finding more of them as time
->goes by.
Following your saga of switching from SCO to Interactive one gets the feeling
that you jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
Others have reported that 386/ix seems fine for hackers but not yet ready for
prime time commercial use. We used to hear similar sentiments about that other
Unix systems vendor.
With all the glitches and problems would a Larry Snyder sell his ix systems
(let's assume you're a VAR for a moment) all over the USA and be able to
support them without following the chapter 11 route?
The real question: would a VAR have the fortitude to switch rather than fight
a little with SCO?
It seems that customer support is the big question mark that we live or die
by. To quote some anonymous fairy: "A bird in hand is worth two in the
bush."
Further reports will be eagerly absorbed.
fr
--
This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news.
26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schillerfr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (09/07/89)
In article <315@bilver.UUCP> bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes: >In article <8293@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thurm@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Matthew Thurmaier) writes: -> ->I have had success with the Maynard units. They install right, first time ->every time. And run right. The only thing I have found is that sometimes it ->didn't like to take the tar command the first time. So I just made a scripts ->that issued "mtape reset" as the first line, sleep a few seconds, and then ->generate the tar command. Users fire it off by logging in as "tape". ->Perhaps you could explain to me/the-net what their problems are. I am using ->them under 2.2.3 on '286 machines, and 2.2.3 on IBM 80's. How can they run "right" when you have to issue work-arounds to make the work at all? Another netter just reported how he has to issue two tar commands to get his tape to work. He complained about how this is somehow SCO's fault. The net responded by reporting all is well with SCO's tape drivers, but faulting Irwin and Maynard for being flaky. You only confirmed that. fr -- This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller
paine@rust.dec.com (Willy Paine) (09/08/89)
I have read many message about Xenix vs. Unix? I used to run Xenix/386 and I have installed many Xenix and some 386/ix. I am very happy with 386/ix, even I spend alot of time waiting and patience getting tech support. I am totally deaf so I have to find someone to call in voice, get FAX number or email. Without using voice phone calls, Interactive Tech Support is much better than SCO while SCO might be better if there is voice phone. I am told that SCO will refuse to help you unless you pay 75 dollars for tech support. I find that getting the latest version of drivers are from third party or hardware manufacturer NOT from SCO or Interactive because some of driver are already out of date. I had alot of trouble with Wyse multi-port board installing in Xenix/386 last year and I found out that driver that comes with SCO is for Xenix/AT NOT 386!!! SCO could not keep track of drivers at all so it is better to call 3rd party. I got drivers from Archive Tape and Digiboard for my 386/xi without any cost at all. They are more friendily than either SCO or Interactive. I have heard that several are switching to SCO from 386/ix, just because there is more drivers but SCO will not make the system easier. I have consulted many Unix rookies and I do find that their expectation are very high that SCO's drivers would be just as easy as to install MS-DOS but it is not true at all. They don't even know that they are getting better support from third party than SCO or Interactive. I am not Unix Wizard (I am not qualified to post comp.unix.wizard <grin>) but I have over seven years of Unix experience (mostly large system) and getting hardware to work is my NO. 1 headache. I have told unix rookies that they should be prepared for several months on installing any unix machine before it becomes stable. Making regular backup is very important and I do both tape and floppy disk backup!! Also beware that you should not buy any used or old hardwares like tape drives because the chance on getting driver is not so good. This applies both in both SCO and 386/ix. Recently I tried to install old DigiBoard in 386/xi and tech support does not have one for either newest system at all. I have no comments on choosing SCO or 386/ix but each has its own advantage. SCO has more formal support while 386/ix (System V) is easier to accept public domains program than SCO. This is my own opinion. Have fun with Un*x.... willy uunet!apex!nwnexus!seaeast!willyp or willyp@seaeast.wa.com p.s. I am speaking for my own hobby not for corporation......
root@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (09/08/89)
In article <8909072155.AA03053@decwrl.dec.com>, paine@rust.dec.com (Willy Paine) writes: > is voice phone. I am told that SCO will refuse to help you unless you > pay 75 dollars for tech support. Let ms know if you get private mail on this comment. SCO does read this newsgroup since I receive a couple of messages from sco each day both from the marketing and the development sides as well. I recently switched from 386/ix back to the latest SCO (2.3.2) and I must say that 2.3.2 has corrected problems that I had in 2.3.1. It is still to early to tell (I've only been running 2.3.2 for about 12 hours) if everything is working, but the news if flowing on all three modems and the Wyse terminals are working just fine. > I find that getting the latest version of drivers are from third party > or hardware manufacturer NOT from SCO or Interactive because some of > driver are already out of date. I had alot of trouble with Wyse > multi-port board installing in Xenix/386 last year and I found out that > driver that comes with SCO is for Xenix/AT NOT 386!!! SCO could not > keep track of drivers at all so it is better to call 3rd party. I got > drivers from Archive Tape and Digiboard for my 386/xi without any cost > at all. They are more friendily than either SCO or Interactive. You do have a valid point - but in most cases the drivers distributed with SCO will work - and it is easier to ship something that works in 95% of all cases - and advise customers that they should contact the vendor for the latest driver in case of problems.. Where can one obtain a copy of Magpie?
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (09/10/89)
In article <413@icdi10.UUCP> fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) writes: ->In article <315@bilver.UUCP> bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes: >->I have had success with the Maynard units. They install right, first time >->every time. And run right. The only thing I have found is that sometimes it >->didn't like to take the tar command the first time. .... >How can they run "right" when you have to issue work-arounds to make the work >at all? >Another netter just reported how he has to issue two tar commands to get his >tape to work. He complained about how this is somehow SCO's fault. The net >responded by reporting all is well with SCO's tape drivers, but faulting Irwin >and Maynard for being flaky. You only confirmed that. I don't consider issuing a reset to the tape control being flaky, but maybe you do. I did have the experience of where you had to issue the tar command twice, but doing a reset of the controller as part of the normal sequence doesn't seem that much of a workaround. If you reset the controller before you use it works every time. It almost seems like a logical thing to do. Since all the users are fairly naive, everything is scripted for them. To backup they type "tape" at the login, and the script does mtape reset, passes the proper parameters to ctar, and continues until done. I have worked with so much equipment in the past that required major workarounds that I just didn't think this as much of a problem. It's really minor compared to some of the kludges I saw. Now a question regarding the other tapes. Since the only other tapes I have worked around were some Archives (that felt slow), and some on some AT&T 3B2's (that WERE SSLLOOWWW!!), is the 2 to 2.3 meg/min on the Maynard's on 16mhz 386's a fair/ok/good performance. No smileys, this IS a serious question! bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
tuck@iris.ucdavis.edu (Devon Tuck) (09/12/89)
I recently received a Xenix driver for my Maynard "Maynstream" tape backup system, and it appears that Maynard has chosen a name for a low-level interrupt which is identical to one in Excelan's "Xenix Lan Workplace." Maynard has taken responsibility for correcting the problem, and may get around to fixing it one of these months, but in the meantime... You must create two versions of the Xenix kernel: one with networking and no archival caps, and the other with the Maynstream driver, and no networking. At the "boot:" prompt, enter the name of your "archiving" kernel, or just press return to get the networked kernel. Devon Tuck (tuck@iris.ucdavis.edu)
thurm@shorty.CS.WISC.EDU (Matthew Thurmaier) (09/12/89)
In article <315@bilver.UUCP> (Bill Vermillion) writes: > I have had success with the Maynard units. They install right, first time > every time. And run right. The only thing I have found is that sometimes it > didn't like to take the tar command the first time. So I just made a scripts > that issued "mtape reset" as the first line, sleep a few seconds, and then > generate the tar command. Users fire it off by logging in as "tape". > Perhaps you could explain to me/the-net what their problems are. I am using > them under 2.2.3 on '286 machines, and 2.2.3 on IBM 80's. > > Now one item in defense of Irwin. They have always had the best magician > demonstrating their product at trade shows. :-) > -- > Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill > : bill@bilver.UUCP > > Bill, I appreciate your humor. However, I have yet to get a maynard drive to work on a system with a digiboard 8-port smart mux. Granted I never called their support, their problems seemed to be too much of a hassle for me to deal with at the time. They had already earned themselves a bad rep. w/ me when they admitted (after 6 months of phoning their support people) FINALLY that their driver interfeared with the Excellan driver in a xenix machine and that therefore we couldn't use their drive and xenix-net / Excellan products simultaneously. GREAT. Also, NO ONE should have to do a reset of their tape drive every time they use it. That is not WORKING in my book. But if it works for you... great. Matthew. Snail Mail: E Mail: Matthew J. Thurmaier ...!{allegra,harvard,seismo}!shorty!matt The Computer Classroom matt@shorty.cs.wisc.edu 6701 Seybold Road, Ste. 122 Madison, WI 53719 (608) 271-2171 "why am I ALWAYS going somewhere?" >>-matt-->
tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) (09/13/89)
In article <5302@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, tuck@iris.ucdavis.edu (Devon Tuck) writes:
) ... it appears that Maynard has chosen a name for a low-level
) interrupt which is identical to one in [ ... ] ... You must
) create two versions of the Xenix kernel: one with networking and no
) archival caps, and the other with the Maynstream driver,
An alternative is to use a little program to rename the symbols in
one or the other of the driver files. We originally hacked up such
a program because we needed to make libraries for different compilers
less incompatible.
Once you have edited the symbol names in the object files, edit the
master config file or c.c and list the new names for the edited driver.
Desperate pleas via e-mail, please.
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!tanner
or... {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida}!ki4pv!cdis-1!tanneralex@xicom.uucp (Alex Laney) (09/22/89)
In article <26@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >>> Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. 386/ix works with >>> Wangtek only. I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat >>> lacking" IMHO. > >SCO Xenix isn't all that great at tape drive support either. Ever since I >switched to 2.3.1 Xenix it takes TWO attempts at starting the tape drive. >(I'm using an Archive 150 meg/QIC02 internal on my HP Vectra 386/RS20) >(I also tried an Emerald controller as well as the original Archive unit) > This may be the Archive device driver. I am running Unix 3.2 with a device driver they supplied that was really for Unix 3.0. (It was fun creating the new device driver files for it) Anyway, I get the same behaviour. Now, when I run with RFS enabled, the device driver fails with a "not enough memory" error. It runs fine under single-user mode, but does this two tries kind of mode often. The Unix 3.2 I'm running on this box is Interactive 2.0.1, so I think it is Archive's device driver. -- Alex Laney, Xicom Group, National Semiconductor, Ottawa, Canada (613) 728-9099 uunet!mitel!sce!xicom!alex (alex@xicom.uucp) Fax: (613) 728-1134 "You save time, increase the amount of work done and it is easy."