graham@hpwin052.HP.COM (Graham McMahon) (10/08/90)
I am trying to help a friend install version V2.2.1 onto a 386SX. This system is configured with 1 Meg. RAM & 40 Meg. disc. The boot floppy causes the system to hang in the install process when attempting to run badtrk (i.e. caps LOCK does not light indicator). If badtrk is skipped then the system installs but running awk or df (even with illegal options - e.g. df -z) cause the system to hang. Yet vi,sort,ld,du,more,bc etc etc all run. Also /xenix incorrectly indicates that this processor has a math coprocessor. This same software is loadable on a 386 standard with 2 Meg. RAM & 40 Meg. disc. Any suggestions would be gratefully accepted.
david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) (10/14/90)
In article <11320001@hpwin052.HP.COM>, graham@hpwin052.HP.COM (Graham McMahon) writes: > I am trying to help a friend install version V2.2.1 onto a 386SX. > This system is configured with 1 Meg. RAM & 40 Meg. disc. I think 1 MB of RAM may be sub-optimal even for Xenix, but adding the brain-damaged SX chip is even worse. Also, isn't this somewhat of an ancient version? Add them all together, you got trouble. Also, you don't got enough RAM to run anything more than ls without swapping. Get another meg! >This same software is loadable on a 386 standard with 2 Meg. RAM & 40 Meg. disc See what I mean? It's not the software per se. -- David Fiedler {ames,mrspoc,pyramid,hoptoad}!infopro!david USMail:InfoPro Systems, PO Box 220 Rescue CA 95672 Phone:916/677-5870 FAX:-5873 ---> UNIX Video Quarterly: We put the UNIX industry in focus for you. <---
frank@rsoft.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter) (10/15/90)
In article <336@infopro.UUCP> david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) writes: > >I think 1 MB of RAM may be sub-optimal even for Xenix, but adding the >brain-damaged SX chip is even worse. Also, isn't this somewhat of an >ancient version? Actually the 80386SX is a newer chip than the 80386DX, but that is hardly relevant. The chips are identical WRT software. The differences are in the hardware interface. Flame retardant: I don't mean to imply that an SX is as fast or as desirable for unix as a DX, only that there should be no "Compatibility" problems. -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Frank I. Reiter UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!frank Reiter Software Inc. frank@rsoft.bc.ca, a2@mindlink.UUCP Surrey, British Columbia BBS: Mind Link @ (604)576-1214, login as Guest
rogerk@sco.COM (Roger Knopf 5502) (10/20/90)
In article <336@infopro.UUCP> david@infopro.UUCP (David Fiedler) writes: >In article <11320001@hpwin052.HP.COM>, graham@hpwin052.HP.COM (Graham McMahon) writes: >> I am trying to help a friend install version V2.2.1 onto a 386SX. >> This system is configured with 1 Meg. RAM & 40 Meg. disc. Old age is getting to me - in my first response to this I overlooked some of the important facts - like the version number. You don't say what machine you are putting this on but I remember we put support for at least the Compaq SX machine into release 2.2.3. This may be applicable to all SX machines. Not a guarantee, just a dim remembrance. -- Roger Knopf "Alas, poor Schoenberg; whose SCO Consulting Services aesthetic is perhaps too fine to be uunet!sco!rogerk or rogerk@sco.com caught in the gross colander of mass 408-425-7222 (voice) 408-458-4227 (fax) appreciation." --Karl P. Henning
ljg@ecosoft.uucp (Lowell J. Gray) (10/24/90)
I've had the badtrk hang problem on my 386SX running XENIX/286 v2.2.3,
and I figured out the solution. It was due to my cheap Taiwanese HD
controller which was adequate for DOS, but not XENIX. To fix the problem
you can do one of two things:
1) increase your interleave factor (say, 1:1 -> 3:1) to reduce the
throughput demand on your controller
2) buy a decent caching HD controller
If you get a better controller, you get the advantage of higher performance
too. I went from a cheapo MFM to a nice RLL for $135. It increased my
disk capacity by 50%, speeded things up and my machine hasn't crashed since.
(But don't go RLL unless your disk is RLL vendor-certified.)
I hope this works for you.
- Lowell
--
Lowell J. Gray UUCP: {cfi.com,uunet}!ecosoft!ljg
EcoSoft, Inc. tel: +1 508 651 8722
13 Priscilla Path, Wayland, MA 01778 USA
-davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (11/15/90)
In article <11203@scorn.sco.COM> rogerk (Roger Knopf 5502) writes: | You don't say what machine you are putting this on but I remember | we put support for at least the Compaq SX machine into release | 2.2.3. This may be applicable to all SX machines. Not a guarantee, | just a dim remembrance. Okay, I have to ask... there was a big discussion of how to tell an SX from a DX, and no one came up with anything which would work with all combinations of cache, etc. Now if it's that hard to tell the diference, just what did SCO do to "support" Compaq's SX, unless it's seriously non-AT style. I've run old versions of Xenix/386 and even ancient version of x/286 on an SX, and never had a problem, even with bizarre no-name clones. When I tested systems for the "cheap-ix" project, I found that anything which looked like a clone to infoplus and fastback (the old one) would run SCO Xenix or ODT. Of course to run ODT you need a motherboard which holds a bushel and a peck of memory, but that's another story. Xenix ran pretty happily in 2MB. | -- | Roger Knopf "Alas, poor Schoenberg; whose | SCO Consulting Services aesthetic is perhaps too fine to be | uunet!sco!rogerk or rogerk@sco.com caught in the gross colander of mass | 408-425-7222 (voice) 408-458-4227 (fax) appreciation." --Karl P. Henning -- 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
paulz@sco.COM (W. Paul Zola) (11/20/90)
In article <2302@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: }In article <11203@scorn.sco.COM> rogerk (Roger Knopf 5502) writes: } }| You don't say what machine you are putting this on but I remember }| we put support for at least the Compaq SX machine into release }| 2.2.3. This may be applicable to all SX machines. Not a guarantee, }| just a dim remembrance. } } Okay, I have to ask... there was a big discussion of how to tell an SX }from a DX, and no one came up with anything which would work with all }combinations of cache, etc. } } Now if it's that hard to tell the diference, just what did SCO do to }"support" Compaq's SX, unless it's seriously non-AT style. I've run old }versions of Xenix/386 and even ancient version of x/286 on an SX, and }never had a problem, even with bizarre no-name clones. [deleted] The problem with the Compaq "Panther" P9 386sx had, as I recall, something to do with the motherboard design, rather than with the fact that it used a 386sx chip. In other words, this issue (and the fix) were specific to that particular model of Compaq rather than to 386sx chips in general. To the best of my knowledge, there are no generic issues with running any SCO '386 product on a 386sx chip. Of course, there may be problems with a particular manufacturer's motherboard, just as there are problems with motherboards using 386dx chips. I hope this clears things up. -paulz - Paul Zola Software Support Engineer paulz@sco.COM We only know in theory what we are doing. - Kate Bush DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself, and not for SCO.