Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!attctc!mjbtn!usource!frankb
From: frankb@usource.UUCP (Frank Bicknell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Xenix and Archive Tape Drives (was: Xenix vs. Unix?)
Message-ID: <233@usource.UUCP>
Date: 7 Sep 89 16:03:01 GMT
References: <12@dynasys.UUCP> <14@nstar.UUCP> <1989Sep3.222437.25599@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <34@nstar.UUCP> <26@fleet.UUCP>
Reply-To: frankb@usource.SARASOTA.FL.US (Frank Bicknell)
Distribution: usa
Organization: UniSource, Inc. -- Sarasota, FL
Lines: 21

In article <26@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes:
>In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>> Xenix also works with nearly everyone's tape drives. ...
>
> SCO Xenix isn't all that great at tape drive support either.
> Ever since I switched to 2.3.1 Xenix it takes TWO attempts at
> starting the tape drive.  (I'm using an Archive 150 meg/QIC02
> internal on my HP Vectra 386/RS20) 

Strange... we have a client who has been using an Archive 150M
tape with 2.3.1 for a year or so without any such problems as
you describe.  Are there any interrupt/address nonsense
conflicts?  We set ours up such that the board is set for INT 2,
then lie to the software and tell it INT 25 (decimal).  This
frees up 3,4,5,7, and others just in case.  All other parameters
in the software (driver) setup remain default.  Works great; you
might give it a try.
-- 
Frank Bicknell
UniSource; 1405 Main St, Ste 709; Sarasota, FL 34236
attctc!usource!frankb || frankb@usource.SARASOTA.FL.US