Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!pacbell!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: ESDI controller recommendations
Summary: Ok, MCA too.... (mea culpa)
Message-ID: <1989Sep9.023152.5264@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 9 Sep 89 02:31:52 GMT
References: <121@mdi386.UUCP> <1474@wb3ffv.ampr.org> <4843@looking.on.ca> <1989Sep2.023511.24943@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <68@calcite.UUCP> <1989Sep4.024559.13279@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <2296@infmx.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL
Lines: 29

In article <2296@infmx.UUCP> aland@infmx.UUCP (alan denney) writes:
>In article <1989Sep4.024559.13279@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>...
>>The people here, who read and post to this group, are working with and
>>talking about ISA 80386 machines.  That means AT bus.  Like it or not,
>
>Says who?  
>
>Since when is the charter of this group limited to ISA?  
>Are you telling us that MCA-based (Micro Channel) machines don't belong
>here?  Remember, ISC is shipping their current 2.0.2 release for MCA
>bus also.  Do you want MCA people kicked out into a separate newsgroup?

No, not at all.  I was referring to ideas of (symmetrical) multiprocessor 
monsters which aren't related.  I should have qualified my statement
further.  Of course MCA systems are applicable; they are also 80386 based,
and are a considerable force in the market.

(SCO is shipping their release for the MCA bus too.  There isn't much
difference really, outside of a few low-level hardware interface details).

Now as to my opinion of the _real_ reasons for the MCA bus.... but that's
not relavent here, nor is it likely to bring anything other than heat :-)

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"