Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!umigw!mthvax!max
From: max@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Max Southall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: Xenix upgrade 'ufm' - is it worth installing?
Keywords: ufm 2.3.3
Message-ID: <1990Oct23.055303.5977@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 90 05:53:03 GMT
References: <1990Oct22.211758.921@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
Lines: 15

In sympathy with alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us:

We had a similar problem with BIOS incompatibilities here. What I did was
take the sources for a 286 bilingual BIOS we had developed, modified the
initialization code and added some stuff for the 386 support chipset, and
after a few fights with the documentation, the correct incantation was
achieved and it's been off and running. The nice thing is that now it
reboots Ok if there's a power failure (Florida is the lightning strike
and outage capital of America) as the CMOS checks are more robust to
recovery after that sort of thing. So why did AMI die? Still don't know,
but homegrown works Real Well Now.

--
Max Southall - max@mamia.UUCP
"Rationality's failure is its dependance on human reasoning."