bender@oobleck.Central.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) (09/18/89)
I haven't seen much activity (zero actually) on comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 is there anyone out there that's got a 310 (running xenix or rmx) that may have missed this newsgroup and wants to talk about it? I've got a 310 running xenix at home, and I'd hate to think that I'm the only person in North America doing this.... but maybe so. mike bender ------------------------------------------------------------------------ michael bender - bender@sun (can't think of a witty thing 415 336-6353 (w) 415 941-3864 (h) to put here yet) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (09/18/89)
In article <124864@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, bender@oobleck.Central.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) writes: > I haven't seen much activity (zero actually) on comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 > is there anyone out there that's got a 310 (running xenix or rmx) that > may have missed this newsgroup and wants to talk about it? I've got a > 310 running xenix at home, and I'd hate to think that I'm the only person > in North America doing this.... but maybe so. You are not the only one... We still have a number of 310's and and 310/311's running applications for scientific instruments and data acquisiton. In all cases the systems have one or more analog I/O boards made by Burr-Brown and other vendors in the Multibus cardcage. Most of the systems run XENIX, but two run RMX-86. We also bought MS-DOS from Intel, but never used it for anything. PLM-86 sucks; whatever we have written has been in C or assembly language. For various reasons which are too complex to explain here, we haven't done any new 310 applications in 1-1/2 years, though. We now use a CMOS STD bus with 16-bit processors for all analog and instrument interface, which either operate standalone or communicate with 3B2's or 386 PC's running UNIX for more complex applications. Size and cost were some of the more important reasons for the migration from the 310. Incidently, if the price were right, I could be interested in buying spare 310 systems and/or components. We are committed to keeping our systems running for a while, and the Intel prices are not exactly bargains. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp. <> UUCP {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> TEL 716/688-1231 | 716/773-1700 {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/ \uniquex!larry <> FAX 716/741-9635 | 716/773-2488 "Have you hugged your cat today?"
bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) (09/18/89)
In article <124864@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> bender@oobleck.Central.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) writes: >I haven't seen much activity (zero actually) on comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 >is there anyone out there that's got a 310 (running xenix or rmx) that >may have missed this newsgroup and wants to talk about it? I've got a >310 running xenix at home, and I'd hate to think that I'm the only person >in North America doing this.... but maybe so. > >mike bender > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >michael bender - bender@sun (can't think of a witty thing > 415 336-6353 (w) 415 941-3864 (h) to put here yet) >------------------------------------------------------------------------ I use my SO's Intel 310AP. They are pretty good for C programming and the like, but for CPU-intensive stuff they suck, like any 286 would I assume. We have an Intel iSBC 286/12 CPU board w/1MB of RAM, iSBC 040EX 4MB RAM expansion board, 2 Intel iSBC 188(56) intelligent I/O cards, Intel 214 disk controller, Archive 45MB streaming tape drive, and a Maxtor 140MB hard disk. It isn't bad for a 286, especially compared to ISA-type systems. Got an upgrade to Intel XENIX 3.5 but haven't loaded it yet. One interesting thing I found about the Intel XENIX 3.4 Development Package is that when loaded on a SCO XENIX 386 2.3.1 system, will produce much smaller, optimized 8086/80186/80286 XENIX (v5, not v3 like on the Intel box) binaries than the SCO Development package. They also execute faster. Has anybody ever gotten fixbb to actually fix a bad block and not screw up some other part of the partition in the process? I think it worked once. Anyways, please follow-up to comp.sys.intel.ipsc310... --Carmen -- Carmen Maria Hardina, Assistant System Administrator INET: islenet!manapua!carmen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!islenet!manapua!carmen -- Carmen Maria Hardina, University of Hawaii at Manoa... UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!bt455s39 ARPA: uhccux!bt455s39@nosc.MIL BITNET: bt455s39@uhccux INET: bt455s39@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU <-- It may work.
mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) (09/19/89)
The comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 conference is for discussion of Intel's ipsc hypercube computer.
bender@oobleck2.Central.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) (09/19/89)
In article <806@sdrc.UUCP> mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) writes: > > >The comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 conference is for discussion of Intel's ipsc >hypercube computer. oh, I guess you're right, isn't the hypercube made up of a cube (what else) of 310's? I only scanned the product literature sheets a few years ago and I seem to remember that was it's organization. Sandy, could you e-mail me (or post to comp.sys.intel.ipsc310) with some more info on the hypercube? Do you think the comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 people would mind a side thread of discussion about the 310 itself? I don't know that it warrants a seperate newsgroup, and I don't know if comp.sys.intel is the right place to discuss it either (seems to be mostly about the 486, 586, 686, 786, 886, 986, 1086, 1186... well, you get the idea). thanks, mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------ michael bender - bender@sun (can't think of a witty thing 415 336-6353 (w) 415 941-3864 (h) to put here yet) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison) (09/19/89)
In article <4874@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) writes: > Got an upgrade to Intel XENIX 3.5 but haven't loaded it yet. Ahh, it's not worth the time & trouble incurred by having to nurse the upgrade along unless you go as far as 3.5.2, where some tools have been expanded. There's also a few new ones, but nothing necessary. > Has anybody ever gotten fixbb to actually fix a bad block and not screw up > some other part of the partition in the process? I think it worked once. We've had several problems with this utility, not the least of which is the fact that the block number is stored as an integer. Imagine what happens when you try to run 'fixbb' to exclude block #98062, for example. Yep, integer overflow, and subsequent exclusion of the wrong block (!). Intel shipped us a replacement which uses a long to store the block number (yep, it's exactly two bytes larger than the original), and informed us that it wasn't being officially shipped to anyone else. Also, 'fixbb' only works on data blocks, so if your bad block is an inode block or a cylinder group header, you're out of luck, unless o you have a CRC error--we've had quite a bit of luck writing a block of nulls atop these. We usually try this before using 'fixbb', because 'fixbb' makes the block forever inaccessible, and necessitates an 'fsck' to fix the DUP block left behind. o you have some way to save/restore the rest of the track, in which case you can re-format the track and put everything else back. > Anyways, please follow-up to comp.sys.intel.ipsc310... In article <806@sdrc.UUCP>, mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) writes: : The comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 conference is for discussion of Intel's ipsc : hypercube computer. So I followed up to comp.sys.intel . . . -- Brad Morrison (713) 274-5449 | "Ha, Ha!! I've killed the Devil! Ferranti International Controls Corporation | Now we may all do as we like." uunet!ficc!morrison morrison@ficc.uu.net | --Punch in 'The Dominion of Fancy'
mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) (09/21/89)
If your running unix on the 310 the best place for discussions would be comp.unix.i386. If xx-DOS then probably comp.sys.ibm.pc since the 310 is like a pc clone. Sandy
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/21/89)
In article <818@sdrc.UUCP> mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) writes: >If your running unix on the 310 the best place for discussions would be >comp.unix.i386. > >If xx-DOS then probably comp.sys.ibm.pc since the 310 is like a pc clone. I can't agree -- there are 310-specific issues of interest to users, especially configuration stuff which will be absolute greek to users of ordinary XT/AT/MCA bus users. Also Intel XENIX is not UNIX and does not require (or exploit) a 386. It is a 286 + Multibus based product. XENIX issues are of course appropriate for the xenix newsgroup. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) (09/23/89)
I stand (sit) corrected. Thanks, Tom.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (09/24/89)
>Also Intel XENIX is not UNIX...
Most other systems derived from UNIX aren't, in the strict legal sense,
UNIX, but so what? Better reasons for discussing it in "comp.unix.xenix"
rather than "comp.unix.i386" are that 1) it's not specifically a 386
UNIX and 2) "comp.unix.xenix" is probably better focused on Xenix
issues than "comp.unix.i386" is.tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/24/89)
In article <2484@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >>Also Intel XENIX is not UNIX... > >Most other systems derived from UNIX aren't, in the strict legal sense, >UNIX, but so what? So not much, except Intel XENIX has nothing to do with *386* UNIX which was the original suggestion. It was not my intention to fan the general is-Xenix-Unix flames. There are two kinds of problems that can crop up on an Intel 310 XENIX box: the ones that are caused by the 310 being such a weird beast, and the ones caused by XENIX being such a weird beast regardless of platform. What I am suggesting is that if it's a 310 question it belongs here; if it's a XENIX question it belongs in c.u.x. If the questioner isn't sure, crosspost. -- "Nature loves a vacuum. Digital \O@/ Tom Neff doesn't." -- DEC sales letter /@O\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
bender@oobleck.Central.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) (09/24/89)
Wow! I didn't know my one simple question about if there are any people running XENIX on a 310 would generate so much debate about which group it belongs in! Is there enough interest to try to get a newsgroup specific to 310 XENIX? The xenix newsgroup is mostly concerned with SCO and Interactive XENIX running on AT's and 386's, and this newsgroup seems mostly interested in disseminating the latest product announcements from INTEL about the X86 processor. Let me know (via email to: bender@sun) if you would be interested in another newsgroup devoted to INTEL XENIX on a 310 (or 320). Then there's always the question about INTEL UNIX... mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------ michael bender - bender@sun (can't think of a witty thing 415 336-6353 (w) 415 941-3864 (h) to put here yet) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/27/89)
In article <124935@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, bender@oobleck2.Central.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) writes: > side thread of discussion about the 310 itself? I don't know that it > warrants a seperate newsgroup, and I don't know if comp.sys.intel is > the right place to discuss it either (seems to be mostly about the 486, > 586, 686, 786, 886, 986, 1086, 1186... well, you get the idea). I think comp.sys.intel is the best place to discuss the 310. comp.unix.xenix seems to be mainly for folks running one of the system-V based xenixes on IBM-clones. Sigh. Crossposting to comp.unix.xenix might be an idea, though. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/27/89)
In article <818@sdrc.UUCP>, mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) writes: > If your running unix on the 310 the best place for discussions would be > comp.unix.i386. The 310 is a 286 machine. And it generally comes with a System-III-based version of Xenix or with RMX-86. > If xx-DOS then probably comp.sys.ibm.pc since the 310 is like a pc clone. And it doesn't run xx-dos at all, it's got a multibus. Are you confusing the 310 with the 302? -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/27/89)
In article <6321@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> If xx-DOS then probably comp.sys.ibm.pc since the 310 is like a pc clone. > >And it doesn't run xx-dos at all, it's got a multibus. > >Are you confusing the 310 with the 302? Actually in the bad old days there was an MS-DOS (*not* PC-DOS) for the 310. Generic MS-DOS doesn't need any part of the XT/AT bus, it only needs to be able to provide the INT 21H services. A concrete example was the old GRiD Compass portable which had an 80C86 based non-PC motherboard and an OEM version of MS-DOS. (Among other things this beast flew in the Space Shuttle middeck for experiment support, until the recent upgrade to Gridcase 386's.) Unfortunately the market decided this was a useless distinction, MS-DOS now equals PC-DOS and Intel doesn't support DOS on the 310. It does look as if the other fellow was thinking of a 302, though. I wish we could corral some folks who actually know an Intel chassis from a jukebox and get some discussion going in here. :-) -- "DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT blow the hatch!" /)\ Tom Neff "Roger....hatch blown!" \(/ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) (09/27/89)
In article <6321@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <818@sdrc.UUCP>, mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) writes: >> If xx-DOS then probably comp.sys.ibm.pc since the 310 is like a pc clone. > >And it doesn't run xx-dos at all, it's got a multibus. The Intel 310 does run Intel MS-DOS, V2.x and supports mixed DOS/XENIX partitions. That is why Intel XENIX is one of the few System III-based operating systems to feature dosxx commands. (i.e. doscp, dosdir, etc.) -- Carmen Hardina, Assistant System Administrator INET: islenet!manapua!carmen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!islenet!manapua!carmen
bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) (09/27/89)
In article <14739@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >It does look as if the other fellow was thinking of a 302, though. >I wish we could corral some folks who actually know an Intel chassis >from a jukebox and get some discussion going in here. :-) I tried, but I happened to mention following-up to a different newsgroup at the end of my original reply and the rest is history.... Has anyone had any luck with Sperry/Intel NFS via OpenNet/Ethernet? --Carmen -- Carmen Hardina, Assistant System Administrator INET: islenet!manapua!carmen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!islenet!manapua!carmen
bender@oobleck.Central.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) (09/27/89)
well, since I started the 310 discussion several weeks ago, I guess it's time I posted something. I've been keeping all the responses concerning the 310 and which newsgroup it belongs in, and the top two contenders are (no surprise) comp.sys.intel and comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 I'd like to suggest that we move the 310 discussion to ipsc310, assuming there are not too many complaints from the hypercube people (remember, the hypercube used 310's). I'll describe what I do with my 310 and maybe that will get some discussion going (other than which newsgroups it belongs in). I've got a 310 with a 286/10 (6 MhZ 80286), 1-1/2 Mb RAM (010CX and 012CX), 544A (4-port serial controller with an 8085 on-board), 186/78A (INTEL's VDI graphics board, running now with 640 X 480 16 color resolution and with an iSBX354 dual serial card, one channel for the Honeywell LYNX trackball and one for the Keytronics VT100-style keyboard), i215G wini controller with i218 5-1/4" floppy drive (360K and 720K), i217 cart tape controller with tape drive (for those ever-fun "backups", I had the look the word up in the dictonary, I don't use it often enough) and an iSXM552S ethernet controller, which I use to connect up to a PC-LINK II ethernet card in my PC, so I can use the XENIX system as a file server for the PC. I've also managed to collect some assorted multibus boards (bubble memory, prototyping, etc...) and some bitbus boards that I've used osver the years on various projects. I've written several device drivers for XENIX 3.4/3.5.2, most notably the 186/78A graphics board driver, since INTEL didn't have a version of the driver that ran on the version of XENIX I was running. I've also had the *interesting* experience of using the PROM debugger while XENIX was temporarily halted (by pressing the green I button) to play around with device registers and things like that in the course of debugging drivers. Symbolic kernal debugger? Sure, if you consider FE73C9 to be a symbol. I've also written and ported a lot of code (the standards like JOVE/EMACS/ (un)compress) and have a really neat piece of software that I wrote after giving up in frustration trying to get "screen" (PD multi-screen program) to port, that's a multi-screen window manager. Please excuse what may sound like bragging, I just want to get some discussion going with other people that have enriched their gutter language vocabulary when XENIX crashes or a tty process hangs at 3AM!! mike p.s. yes, I also ran MS-DOS 2.1 on the 310 for a while, and contemplated wiring in a CGA board to one of my empty multibus prototype cards, but thought better of it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ michael bender - bender@sun (can't think of a witty thing 415 336-6353 (w) 415 941-3864 (h) to put here yet) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
kunkee@ficc.uu.net (randy kunkee XNX MGR) (10/07/89)
In article <4935@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) writes: > In article <14739@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > : > Has anyone had any luck with Sperry/Intel NFS via OpenNet/Ethernet? > NFS and OpenNET each reach to level 7 of the ISO networking layers so I'm not sure what you mean by your question. OpenNET works fine. We are using it both in 310s via SBC552 boards as well as on PCLINKII. What do you mean by "Sperry/Intel NFS"? -- Randy Kunkee Ferranti International Controls Corporation 12808 W. Airport Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 UUCP: uunet!ficc!kunkee ph: (713) 274-5132
bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) (10/07/89)
In article <6447@ficc.uu.net> kunkee@ficc.uu.net (randy kunkee XNX MGR) writes: >In article <4935@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) writes: >> In article <14739@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >> : >> Has anyone had any luck with Sperry/Intel NFS via OpenNet/Ethernet? >> > >NFS and OpenNET each reach to level 7 of the ISO networking layers so >I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Well, OpenNET does support distributed file systems (NFS) among Sperry/Intel host on an Ethernet LAN. What I should have said was, has anyone had much trouble installing this OpenNET configuration, it wasn't as easy as I thought. I helped a friend of mine do it. >OpenNET works fine. We are using it both in 310s via SBC552 boards >as well as on PCLINKII. What do you mean by "Sperry/Intel NFS"? Unisys supports OpenNET running on their hardware under military contracts. The Army especially has bought tons of Intel and Unisys UNIX boxes. --Carmen -- Carmen Hardina, Assistant System Administrator INET: islenet!manapua!carmen@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!islenet!manapua!carmen
kunkee@ficc.uu.net (Randy Kunkee) (10/12/89)
In article <5047@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, bt455s39@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carmen Hardina) writes: > ... > Unisys supports OpenNET running on their hardware under military contracts. > The Army especially has bought tons of Intel and Unisys UNIX boxes. > ... I've heard this is true, but apparently Unisys charged pretty outrageous amounts of money to do it and they can't sell it to the public for less. Does anybody know any more about this? Carmen, which "Unisys" Unix boxes are you talking about? The 5000 series (including Arix), the 6000 series (including Sequent), or the 7000 series? -- Randy Kunkee Ferranti International Controls Corporation 12808 W. Airport Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 UUCP: uunet!ficc!kunkee ph: (713) 274-5132