Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!mjbtn!usource!frankb
From: frankb@usource.UUCP (Frank Bicknell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix and Archive Tape Drives (was: Xenix vs. Unix?)
Message-ID: <235@usource.UUCP>
Date: 13 Sep 89 14:26:30 GMT
References: <233@usource.UUCP> <1217@mitisft.Convergent.COM>
Reply-To: frankb@usource.SARASOTA.FL.US (Frank Bicknell)
Distribution: usa
Organization: UniSource, Inc. -- Sarasota, FL
Lines: 25

In article <1217@mitisft.Convergent.COM> dold@mitisft.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold) writes:
+in article <233@usource.UUCP>, frankb@usource.UUCP (Frank Bicknell) says:
+|>In article <34@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes:
+
+|> 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
+
+My Everex 386/20 with Archive 150 MB and ? SCSI adapter also takes 
+two tries, with absolute consistency.
+XENIX/386 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.?

Hmm.... could it be the CPU speed?  Ours are 16MHz... I think
both of the "broken" ones are 20MHz (at least I think
HP...386/RS20 means it's 20MHz).  Anybody else have any broken
20MHz or working 16MHz varieties?
-- 
Frank Bicknell
UniSource; 1405 Main St, Ste 709; Sarasota, FL 34236
attctc!usource!frankb || frankb@usource.SARASOTA.FL.US