DA462CS@OPIE.BGSU.EDU (04/06/91)
I had posted this to .questions a few days ago but after further reading I think this is a better newsgroup to post to. I am in the processing of setting up a 80486 machine to run UNIX, and am wondering what the various experiences of users are concerning the different vendors. At this time I can get AT&T SVR4.0 at a good price, this is my choice right now. Is there any benefit in going with the other guys: Interactive, SCO, ESIX, UHC???? Price is not a concern because personally I don't think the AT&T stuff is that expensive... I don't want to start any religious wars here, just some helpfull comments please... Thanks in advance... Michael L. Gantz DA462CS@opie.bgsu.edu
jrd@cc.usu.edu (04/07/91)
In article <9104051959.AA23768@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, DA462CS@OPIE.BGSU.EDU writes: > I had posted this to .questions a few days ago but after further > reading I think this is a better newsgroup to post to. > > I am in the processing of setting up a 80486 machine to run UNIX, > and am wondering what the various experiences of users are concerning > the different vendors. At this time I can get AT&T SVR4.0 at a good > price, this is my choice right now. Is there any benefit in going with > the other guys: Interactive, SCO, ESIX, UHC???? Price is not a concern > because personally I don't think the AT&T stuff is that expensive... I > don't want to start any religious wars here, just some helpfull comments > please... > > Thanks in advance... > Michael L. Gantz > DA462CS@opie.bgsu.edu --------------- Michael, Two pieces of free advice: 1. determine the state of device driver support for each Unix. 2. determine whether your machine will even boot that Unix. For example, most AMI Bios machines I've checked will not boot AT&T's SVR4, but a Phoenix Bios is just fine. Joe D. (I have an AT&T SVR4 systems a'building)
rwhite@nusdecs.uucp (Robert White) (04/08/91)
In a recient industry rag it was noted that AT&T has named Interactive its "Principal Publisher" for SVR4 so the AT&T release may not have a future directly from AT&T. It seems that all future SVR4 products with the AT&T seal of aproval are going to come out of Interactive. It may complicate your future upgrade plans to go with straight AT&T at this time. * AT&T (They used to be "The Phone Company) = Interactive (A wholly owned division of Kodak Corp) ! Me (an employee of neither 8-) -- Robert C. White Jr. | The degree to which a language may be Network Administrator | classified as a "living" language National University | is best expressed as the basic ratio crash!nusdecs!rwhite | of its speakers to its linguists.
yeh@cs.purdue.EDU (Wei Jen Yeh) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr6.184400.47303@cc.usu.edu>, jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: > In article <9104051959.AA23768@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, DA462CS@OPIE.BGSU.EDU writes: > > > > price, this is my choice right now. Is there any benefit in going with > > the other guys: Interactive, SCO, ESIX, UHC???? Price is not a concern > ... For > example, most AMI Bios machines I've checked will not boot AT&T's SVR4, > but a Phoenix Bios is just fine. > Joe D. (I have an AT&T SVR4 systems a'building) Dell's sVr4.0.2 runs without problems on my 386-20 with AMI bios. Wei Jen Yeh yeh@cs.purdue.edu Department of Computer Science Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana -- Wei Jen Yeh yeh@cs.purdue.edu Department of Computer Science Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana
apb@cbnewsj.att.com (Amrit Bains) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr6.184400.47303@cc.usu.edu> jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: >In article <9104051959.AA23768@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, DA462CS@OPIE.BGSU.EDU writes: >> ... deleted... >> the different vendors. At this time I can get AT&T SVR4.0 at a good >> price, this is my choice right now. Is there any benefit in going with >> the other guys: Interactive, SCO, ESIX, UHC???? Price is not a concern >> because personally I don't think the AT&T stuff is that expensive... I >> don't want to start any religious wars here, just some helpfull comments >> please... >> >> Thanks in advance... >> Michael L. Gantz >> DA462CS@opie.bgsu.edu >--------------- >Michael, > Two pieces of free advice: > 1. determine the state of device driver support for each Unix. > 2. determine whether your machine will even boot that Unix. For >example, most AMI Bios machines I've checked will not boot AT&T's SVR4, >but a Phoenix Bios is just fine. > Joe D. (I have an AT&T SVR4 systems a'building) I have an 386/25 System with an AMI BIOS I have successfully run both AT&T SVR4.0 Ver 2.0 & AT&T SVR4.0 Ver 3.0. We have several SVR4's running in the building. Amrit Bains USL abains@attunix.att.com
davec@shared.uucp (Dave Close) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr6.184400.47303@cc.usu.edu> jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: > Two pieces of free advice: >... > 2. determine whether your machine will even boot that Unix. For >example, most AMI Bios machines I've checked will not boot AT&T's SVR4, >but a Phoenix Bios is just fine. My Northgate Elegance 386 boots Intel SVr4 fine with the AMI BIOS. -- Dave Close Shared Financial Systems Dallas davec@shared.com vmail +1 214 458 3850 uunet!shared!davec fax +1 214 458 3876 My comments are my opinions and may not be shared by Shared.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (04/14/91)
In article <1991Apr6.184400.47303@cc.usu.edu> jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: | 2. determine whether your machine will even boot that Unix. For | example, most AMI Bios machines I've checked will not boot AT&T's SVR4, | but a Phoenix Bios is just fine. With AMI BIOS I am 3 for 3 using Dell V.4, 2 for 2 using Intel. That seems to indicate a certain lack of a general problem, although there may be individual cases. Also, the BIOS may have nothing to do with the problem, there are lots of other hardware limitations. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr13.034245.13047@shared.uucp> davec@shared.uucp (Dave Close) writes: >In article <1991Apr6.184400.47303@cc.usu.edu> jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: >> Two pieces of free advice: >>... >> 2. determine whether your machine will even boot that Unix. For >>example, most AMI Bios machines I've checked will not boot AT&T's SVR4, >>but a Phoenix Bios is just fine. > >My Northgate Elegance 386 boots Intel SVr4 fine with the AMI BIOS. I think jrd has it bass ackwards. SVr4 doesn't like shadowed BIOS. Phoenix doesn't allow you to turn off BIOS shadowing in the set-up program, while AMI does. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) (04/17/91)
In article <9104152217.20@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >I think jrd has it bass ackwards. SVr4 doesn't like shadowed BIOS. Phoenix >doesn't allow you to turn off BIOS shadowing in the set-up program, while >AMI does. No problems here with my AMI Voyager 486/33 and its shadowed BIOS and SVR4. Never needed to turn shadowing off... -scott
duc@mport.COM (Richard Ducoty) (04/18/91)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >In article (Dave Close) writes: >>In article jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: >>> 2. determine whether your machine will even boot that Unix. For >>>example, most AMI Bios machines I've checked will not boot AT&T's SVR4, >>>but a Phoenix Bios is just fine. >>My Northgate Elegance 386 boots Intel SVr4 fine with the AMI BIOS. >I think jrd has it bass ackwards. SVr4 doesn't like shadowed BIOS. Phoenix >doesn't allow you to turn off BIOS shadowing in the setup program, AMI does. ===== I run Phoenix BIOS on my Mylex MXA-33 / Microport SVR4 with no problems. My Phoenix BIOS allows me to turn off shadowing. There are quite a few versions and revs of Phoenix, AMI, et.al BIOSii (pl?) ... Richard Richard Ducoty \\\\\\\ Microport Inc. (.)(.) root@mport.com voice=> (408) 438-8649 > duc@mport.com fax=> (408) 438-7560 - uunet!mport!duc " militiae species amor est "
jon@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Jon Gefaell) (04/19/91)
>I have an 386/25 System with an AMI BIOS I have successfully run both >AT&T SVR4.0 Ver 2.0 & AT&T SVR4.0 Ver 3.0. We have several SVR4's running in >the building. > I also am running AT&T SVR4.0 3.0 on AMI BIOS. -- ____ \ / \/ The pleasure of satisfying a savage instinct, undomesticated by the ego, is uncomparably much more intense than one of satisfying a tamed instinct. The reason is becoming the enemy that prevents us from a lot of possibilities of pleasure. S. Freud
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (04/19/91)
In article <1183@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >In article <9104152217.20@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >>I think jrd has it bass ackwards. SVr4 doesn't like shadowed BIOS. Phoenix >>doesn't allow you to turn off BIOS shadowing in the set-up program, while >>AMI does. > >No problems here with my AMI Voyager 486/33 and its shadowed BIOS and >SVR4. Never needed to turn shadowing off... There are two possibilities here: 1. It was hardware specific to Micronics 386/33 motherboards. 2. I saw this in early SVR2 sources. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
jrd@cc.usu.edu (04/23/91)
In article <9104182047.25@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > In article <1183@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >>In article <9104152217.20@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >>>I think jrd has it bass ackwards. SVr4 doesn't like shadowed BIOS. Phoenix >>>doesn't allow you to turn off BIOS shadowing in the set-up program, while >>>AMI does. >> >>No problems here with my AMI Voyager 486/33 and its shadowed BIOS and >>SVR4. Never needed to turn shadowing off... > > There are two possibilities here: > > 1. It was hardware specific to Micronics 386/33 motherboards. > > 2. I saw this in early SVR2 sources. > > Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP ----------------- Hmmm. Ok fellas. First I'll be happy to be all wet now and then if some progress is made simultaneously. But my observations have been many AMI machines won't survive creation of the initial Unix RAM disk from the boot floppy. But many Phoenix ROM systems will. Nothing to do with shadowing, at least not in the obvious ways because I've tried the variations. Playing with the A20 line adjustments of AMI Bios's did not help either. So, I presume there are some pretty vast differences concerning the fast ways of getting into protected mode (setting up the system as a RAM disk one) that the Intel written RAM disk software can't cope with. That's a Beware item for new buyers. Another item I mentioned was to be very cautious about the promised support for peripherals, such as disk drives, tape drives, Ethernet boards, and the like. I am tearing my hair out now over a SCSI disk problem where the same brand controller (WD 7000 FASST2) as AT&T uses is rejected by AT&T SVR4.02.1. Stealing AT&T's rendition of the board next shows Unix to reject my CDC drive (Seagate's ident of ST4766N, CDC's 94191-766). Naturally none of this is mentioned in the AT&T docs. I have some hints on all this but nothing I can mention in public. And I feel that AT&T is not necessarily unique in this regard (just what SCSI system does DELL use? Not a word in print that I've seen). My feeling is the Unix vendors are destroying their own market by hiding the true systems components requirments. The "buy Unix, now" hyperbole is a little out of hand, particularly if one wants to assemble "equivalent" pieces rather than purchasing a turnkey system at triple the real price. It's expensive and not much fun writing drivers for all and sundry peripherals so I appreciate their inability to support everything on the market. But candidness is needed somewhere in the purchasing chain. Ok, interesting comments on this might shed light on the situation. Please let off steam by direct mail to jrd@cc.usu.edu and in turn I'll not consume network bandwidth pouring out my troubles. Btw, I do appreciate the couple of people who are helping me sort out the above by offline msgs. Joe D.
rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) (04/26/91)
jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: [various serious hardware hassles deleted] > My feeling is the Unix vendors are destroying their own market by > hiding the true systems components requirments. The "buy Unix, now" hyperbole > is a little out of hand, particularly if one wants to assemble "equivalent" > pieces rather than purchasing a turnkey system at triple the real price... I see the problem more at the hardware manufacturers. Their attitude, all too often, is "if it doesn't fail on DOS, it works just fine." It's very hard for the UNIX world to be able to second-guess all the ways hardware vendors can botch a design, such that DOS won't find the botch but UNIX will. The magic word "equivalent" hides a lot (as I suspect jrd realizes all too well after his [mis]adventures). -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...While you were reading this, Motif grew by another kilobyte.
tim@dell.co.uk (Tim Wright) (04/26/91)
In <1991Apr22.175643.47521@cc.usu.edu> jrd@cc.usu.edu writes: >In article <9104182047.25@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: [Comments about AT&T and WD7000 deleted] >but nothing I can mention in public. And I feel that AT&T is not necessarily >unique in this regard (just what SCSI system does DELL use? Not a word in >print that I've seen). We support the Adaptec 1542x (where x=whatever) and hence the 1740 in compatability mode and the Dell Drive Array. Certainly in the UK, the Adaptec seems the most common SCSI card. Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp., Bracknell | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Berkshire, UK, RG12 1RW. Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast - Red Dwarf