curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) (06/23/91)
I'm currently running SCO Xenix 2.3.2 on a 12 MHz 286 machine. I need more CPU power, so I want to upgrade my motherboard. Now, there are 25 MHz 286 motherboards available, but I'll probably be selling this system eventually and buying a workstation, so I was thinking that it might be a better idea to get a 25 MHz 386DX, which would hold more of its value. I talked to a friend who ran 286 Xenix on a 386 motherboard and he said that he had a problem with compress that would cause the system to crash, and had to upgrade to 386 Xenix right away. I don't have the money to do this at the moment, and I'd rather not spend the money at all if I can avoid it. Has anybody else out there run a 286 Xenix on a 386? Are there any differences between the 286 and the 386 (and their associated support circuitry) that should cause problems? Dare I try this? I'm redirecting followups to comp.unix.xenix.sco. cjs -- "I suspect the principle difference between us is that I spend a lot of time walking around the tree trying to find the best way to shake it while you are more concerned with whether an axe or a chainsaw is more appropriate for cutting the tree down" --Stephen Smoliar, to Eliot Handelman
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (06/23/91)
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: > Has anybody else out there run a 286 Xenix on a 386? Are there any > differences between the 286 and the 386 (and their associated support > circuitry) that should cause problems? Dare I try this? ibmpcug.co.uk ran SCO Xenix 286 2.2.1 on a Comapq Deskpro 386/16 for quite a long time. I ran news on it (SCO's binaries, including their port of compress, which you can still get binaries of from SCO) so no hassles. There should be no problems running 286 Xenix on a 386. I certainly had no problems at all. But the 386 software is so much better, I upgraded as soon as I could :-) -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
bryan@well.sf.ca.us (Bryan Higgins) (06/24/91)
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >I'm currently running SCO Xenix 2.3.2 on a 12 MHz 286 machine. I need >more CPU power, so I want to upgrade my motherboard. ... >I talked to a friend who ran 286 Xenix on a 386 motherboard and he >said that he had a problem with compress that would cause the system >to crash ... >Has anybody else out there run a 286 Xenix on a 386? Are there any Yes, I do. I do it to develop a product which ultimately runs on DOS on a 286. I assume you have a good reason, too. It's slow, about half as fast as it would be if you ran 386 Xenix on the same machine. The linker is *very* slow. I get the feeling that it's not supported any more by SCO. The problems I've noted: csh crashes using the `...` construct sometimes. 'Make' has trouble with great big makefiles (I had to split one in two). sdb has some problems (but it does on 386 Xenix, too). But it all works well enough to be useful. It's something I endure.
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun23.063114.26890@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: >I talked to a friend who ran 286 Xenix on a 386 motherboard and he >said that he had a problem with compress that would cause the system >to crash, and had to upgrade to 386 Xenix right away. I don't have >the money to do this at the moment, and I'd rather not spend the money >at all if I can avoid it. Talk to your friend again, emphasizing your money problems and holding a carton of blank, formatted diskettes in your hand. Perhaps he will offer to buy them from you for enough for you to be able to afford a new Xenix 386 licence when you have already got Xenix 286. Or perhaps the two of you may be able to think of some other solution. >"I suspect the principle difference between us is that I spend a lot of time >walking around the tree trying to find the best way to shake it while you are >more concerned with whether an axe or a chainsaw is more appropriate for cutting >the tree down" --Stephen Smoliar, to Eliot Handelman Also read your own signature and think about the many different possible approaches to solving a problem :-) -- Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server) Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (06/27/91)
Funny, I ran xenix/286 for a year before xenix/386 was available in a solid enough form to trust. Had no such problems with it. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) GE Corp R&D Center, Information Systems Operation, tech support group Moderator comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 386-users digest.