Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!iuvax!ndcheg!ndmath!nstar!usenet!nstar!akcs.larry
From: akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: UNIX runs DOS applications?
Message-ID: <[25792264:69.4]comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@nstar.UUCP>
Date: 3 Dec 89 13:54:29 GMT
References: <719@crash.cts.com> <1989Dec3.014701.28774@world.std.com>
Lines: 26

>pretty scary.  And they don't seem nearly as responsive to bug reports
>as they could be.  ISC has many problems but they are damned
>responsive; the current release worked just fine for me (didn't try
>serial throughput but it kicked SCO out the door with ethernet
>throughput and its network support worked out-of-the-box -- SCO
>required a hell of a lot of STREAMS configuration -- and disk
>throughput which is excellent in current releases).  The next release
>looks like it'll be even better.

Yes - I must admit the disk IO blows SCO out of the water (Xenix that is) -
I would like to hear from someone with SCO Unix comparing their file system
with the ISC one.  From experience - the ISC file system is not what I
consider fail-safe.  If one looses power, sometimes the file system gets so
messed up that the machine will not boot --.

>With documentation, on the other hand, SCO wins out over every other
>UNIX vendor I've ever seen.  They have good docs (and they're even
>going to print my sockets tutorial :-).

I agree.  The ISC documentation is bad - I mean real bad.

Also - re: support - are you getting yours from Hollis or California?
I made some comments in comp.unix.i386 about my support and must have
received 10 pieces of mail from others who were left with bad feelings after
talking to ISC Hollis.  On the other hand - I have heard that the folks in
California know the product very well.