daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) (06/30/89)
I'm interested in adding a 3.5" drive to my vanilla 386 (running SCO 2.3.1), to both read and write 3.5" disks. I've checked through the 2.3.1 release notes, but this topic appears not to be covered. Does Xenix know about 3.5" drives (ie does the 3.5" use the standard floppy driver), or must the manufacturer supply a driver? On a similar note -- does anyone know if standard Xenix binaries run on the PS/2? For that matter, do any differences between the PS/2 and standard 386's affect user software? -- Dave Hammond daveh@marob.masa.com
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (07/01/89)
In article <24AA7624.213@marob.masa.com> daveh@marob.masa.com (Dave Hammond) writes: >I'm interested in adding a 3.5" drive to my vanilla 386 (running SCO 2.3.1), >to both read and write 3.5" disks. I've checked through the 2.3.1 release >notes, but this topic appears not to be covered. > >Does Xenix know about 3.5" drives (ie does the 3.5" use the standard floppy >driver), or must the manufacturer supply a driver? > Check the HW section of the manual under FD. I have added 3.5" disks to an AT to be able to exchange disks with 3.5" IBM-80's at the same site. Your CMOS must support the drive under setup. ( I had to get a later version of the OS for the AT machine). Then just do the mknod as shown under (HW) fd. >On a similar note -- does anyone know if standard Xenix binaries run on >the PS/2? For that matter, do any differences between the PS/2 and >standard 386's affect user software? > All I did was copy the Xenix 286 stuff to the 3.5" disks and run them. The only apparent difference between the PS/2 and the standard 386 is the portion of code that talks to the hardware. If you look at a full distribution for the 386, the only disks that are marked 386/PS2 are in the runtime package. All the others are marked n86 (for any of the iNTEL chips) or k286 for the graphics package. A large part of the code is 286 "stuff" or 8086 "stuff". One comment. I moved a 286 package to the 386 side and noticed a program that took 12 hours to complete did it in 5 hours. Got the '386 version of the software and it went to 2.5. (This was a one-time only re-crunch of a fairly large data base). ((It was SUPPOSED to be one time - but --- that's how I found out the different timings. We actually went through it about 5 time - you know the old shooting at a moving target - as those who got the output suddenly set "but we also need ..." )) bill >-- >Dave Hammond >daveh@marob.masa.com -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP