Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:7728 comp.unix.i386:533
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!sce!xicom!alex
From: alex@xicom.uucp (Alex Laney)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Xenix vs. Unix?
Message-ID: <1989Sep22.004512.13482@xicom.uucp>
Date: 22 Sep 89 00:45:12 GMT
References: <12@dynasys.UUCP> <14@nstar.UUCP> <1989Sep3.222437.25599@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <34@nstar.UUCP> <26@fleet.UUCP>
Reply-To: alex@xicom.UUCP (Alex Laney)
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 28

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.  386/ix works with
>>> Wangtek only.  I could go on; the hardware support on 386/ix is "somewhat
>>> lacking" IMHO.
>
>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) 
>(I also tried an Emerald controller as well as the original Archive unit)
>

This may be the Archive device driver. I am running Unix 3.2 with a device
driver they supplied that was really for Unix 3.0. (It was fun creating the
new device driver files for it)

Anyway, I get the same behaviour. Now, when I run with RFS enabled, the
device driver fails with a "not enough memory" error. It runs fine under
single-user mode, but does this two tries kind of mode often.

The Unix 3.2 I'm running on this box is Interactive 2.0.1, so I think it
is Archive's device driver.


-- 
Alex Laney, Xicom Group, National Semiconductor, Ottawa, Canada (613) 728-9099
uunet!mitel!sce!xicom!alex (alex@xicom.uucp)     Fax: (613) 728-1134
"You save time, increase the amount of work done and it is easy."