mike@bria.AIX (Mike Stefanik/78125) (01/07/91)
yee@aix02.aix.rpi.edu (Lester W Yee) writes: >HELP!!! I just spoke with a SCO pre-sales technical representative and >he indicated that MSDOS 4.01 and SCO Xenix are incompatible with each other. >I was talking with the rep about SCO sys rel 3.2.2 and told me that it would >only build the kernel correctly with DOS 3.3. Now, my problem is that the >computer came with DOS 4.01 and I have no way of go back down to 3.3. Anyway, >it looks like I can't use the product. I also doubt I can use a previous >SCO rel either.. ARGG!!! Has anybody installed SCO Xenix using 4.01??? Are you talking about DOS and XENIX using different partitions, or what? If you just want XENIX on your machine, simply delete the DOS partition and install XENIX. If you want to share the disk between the two operating systems, I couldn't see why not ... the "would only build the kernel correctly with DOS 3.3" sounds a bit ridiculous ... >Also, why is Xenix filename limited to 14 characters in length? That is not >much better than DOS 11 characters, worst than OS/2 which is suppose to >support 256 characters filename. The sales rep was mentioning something about >conforming to Posix standards.. What are Posix standards? [...] POSIX conformance means that the operating system in question conforms to a set of standards on how operation systems should "behave"; note that POSIX is not an implementation standard ... it doesn't matter how you do it, just so long as you do. I agree that 14 characters are a little light (32 would be a nice number), but since UNIX allows both upper and lowercase in filenames, it allows more variations than does DOS. The reason for the limitation is that directory entries are fixed-length records in a file, and long filenames would end up wasting alot of disk blocks. The BSD variable-length directory record structure allows much longer filenames, and uses the space more efficiently. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Stefanik, Systems Engineer (JOAT), Briareus Corporation UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike "If it was hard to code, it should be harder to use!"
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (01/09/91)
yee@aix02.aix.rpi.edu (Lester W Yee) writes: >HELP!!! I just spoke with a SCO pre-sales technical representative and >he indicated that MSDOS 4.01 and SCO Xenix are incompatible with each other. >I was talking with the rep about SCO sys rel 3.2.2 and told me that it would >only build the kernel correctly with DOS 3.3. Now, my problem is that the >computer came with DOS 4.01 and I have no way of go back down to 3.3. Anyway, >it looks like I can't use the product. I also doubt I can use a previous >SCO rel either.. ARGG!!! Has anybody installed SCO Xenix using 4.01??? Well, I'm running XENIX 286 rel 2.2.1 with DOS on other partitions. What I ended up doing, is setting up a DOS 3.1 partition about 1 meg in size, installed system, etc., then set up another partition under 4.01, also with system, etc. for programs like format to use. In the config.sys file in the first partition I INSTALled assign (no options), among the usu. other things, and then ran E:AUTOEXEC.BAT from C:AUTOEXEC.BAT. In my E:AUTOEXEC.BAT I JOINed E:\BOOT to C:, and then ASSIGNed C=E to avoid the funny drive specs. I have been using this for a couple of years and have had very little trouble. -e.b. ============================================================================== Eric Berggren | "Round and round the while() loop goes; Computer Science/Eng. | Whether it stops," Turing says, berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | "nobody knows."
donegan@stanton.UUCP (Steven P. Donegan) (01/09/91)
My desktop system is running dual partitions - one with DOS 4.01 and one with Xenix 286. The key problem that I found was that the DOS partition could not be larger than the original 32 meg DOS 3.3 limit. Other than that it works just fine for me.
shaker@dirt.cisco.com (Christopher J. Shaker) (01/16/91)
> Subject: Re: MSDOS 4.01 and SCO Xenix: Bad mix? > Summary: Yes it's a BAD mixed.... > Expires: > References: <14@medicod.UUCP> <'2V^=#^@rpi.edu> <320@bria.AIX> > Sender: > Followup-To: > Distribution: usa > Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY > Keywords: > From: yee@itsgw.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger) > Path: yee > > Well, boys and girls: I have the answer, YES, it's a bad mixed between > SCO Xenix/Unix and MS DOS 4.01. First of all, I must apologized for my > lack of knowledge in SCO products, I spoke with the local dealer and she > informed me that there are two packages for x386 machines. The first is > SCO Xenix which is at (2.3.2) for x386 and x286 machines. The other is > SCO Unix (3.2.2) which is for x386 and conforms to AT&T V. With that straight > I asked her about MSDOS 4.01. She got back with me in 24 hours and said > that both products does *NOT* support 4.01 DOS. She mentioned something about > 4.01 uses some different disk layout scheme to achieve > 32 megabyte > partitions. Only 3.3 is compatible with Xenix/Unix. She also told me that > DOS 4.01 will NOT be supported in the future. Well, that's the end of the > conversation. Yikes. I have an ALR Business VEISA that I am/was planning to buy some form of UNIX for. I had no idea that my MS-DOS 4.01 would cause a problem. > My personal opinion is that it is regrettable........... They just lost > a sale and a customer. > -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu) Maybe mine, too. Chris Shaker shaker@cisco.com
ian@polari.UUCP (ian searle) (01/17/91)
I am writing this from a SCO UNIX sysVr3.2 system that shares a 150 meg ESDI disk with DOS 4.01 !!, but the DOS partition is < 32 meg (NOT ext). Ian Searle (uw-beaver!sumax!polari!ian)