larry@UUCP (Larry Williamson) (08/17/89)
SCO markets a Xenix/Unix version of Microsoft Word. The
version is 3.0.4, (according to an SCO sales rep). How does
this version of MSWord compare with MSWord 5.0?
SCO claims that it works with SCO Unix 3.2. Will it work
with any of the other versions of Unix 3.2? (ie. ISC, Bell
Tech, AT&T).
SCO's sales rep said, "We don't try our software with anyone
else's Operating System - you have to try it yourself". (Which,
to me, does not sound like the best way to sell MSWord).
We would like to use it with Interactive's 386/ix 2.0.x. Does
anyone have any experience with this product?
Thanks,
Larryjohnl@esegue.uucp (John R. Levine) (08/18/89)
In article <LARRY.89Aug17095648@focsys.UUCP> larry@UUCP (Larry Williamson) writes: >SCO markets a Xenix/Unix version of Microsoft Word. The >version is 3.0.4, (according to an SCO sales rep). How does >this version of MSWord compare with MSWord 5.0? Word 3.0 is a very obsolete version, several years old. I wouldn't get it. It's missing a lot of the nice new features like graphics import and a usable speller. Even though I prefer Word to Word Perfect, if I wanted a program for my Unix box I'd go with Word Perfect because the vendor acts a lot more like they're serious about supporting and maintaining it. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 {ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, johnl@ima.isc.com, Levine@YALE.something Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old. -The Globe
palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (08/19/89)
From article <LARRY.89Aug17095648@focsys.UUCP>, by larry@UUCP (Larry Williamson): > > SCO markets a Xenix/Unix version of Microsoft Word. The > version is 3.0.4, (according to an SCO sales rep). How does > this version of MSWord compare with MSWord 5.0? > > SCO claims that it works with SCO Unix 3.2. Will it work > with any of the other versions of Unix 3.2? (ie. ISC, Bell > Tech, AT&T). > > SCO's sales rep said, "We don't try our software with anyone > else's Operating System - you have to try it yourself". (Which, > to me, does not sound like the best way to sell MSWord). > > We would like to use it with Interactive's 386/ix 2.0.x. Does > anyone have any experience with this product? I was thinking the same thing. I was also wonder what compilier SCO is going to compile there apps packages with? If it going to be compiled with MSC that it's got to go through the 286/386 emulator and that slows things down. At least I notice it. It would be great if SCO offers packages compiled with your choice of compilier. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda (A XBBS System) 2-lines BBS: (415)623-8809 2400/1200 (415)623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200
darryl@ism780c.isc.com (Darryl Richman) (08/20/89)
Only Xenix 286 programs go through the x286emul environment emulator program. Xenix 386 programs execute natively. 286 programs vary in speed, but are often faster than under either Xenix 286 or Xenix 386 because the memory management is significantly faster under x286emul. --Darryl Richman -- Copyright (c) 1989 Darryl Richman The views expressed are the author's alone darryl@ism780c.isc.com INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.-A Kodak Company "For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (08/21/89)
darryl@ism780c.isc.com (Darryl Richman) writes: >Only Xenix 286 programs go through the x286emul environment emulator >program. Xenix 386 programs execute natively. 286 programs vary in >speed, but are often faster than under either Xenix 286 or Xenix 386 >because the memory management is significantly faster under x286emul. How is the memory management faster in emulation mode than in native 386 mode? JB -- Jonathan Bayer Intelligent Software Products, Inc. (201) 245-5922 500 Oakwood Ave. jbayer@ispi.UUCP Roselle Park, NJ 07204