Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!kd4nc!n4hgf!wht
From: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Xenix *is* Unix (WAS Re: ^3 What ....... Dell UNIX V.4)
Message-ID: <244@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US>
Date: 26 Nov 90 18:02:55 GMT
References: <1990Nov17.225432.17394@pegasus.com> <2330@sixhub.UUCP> <1990Nov21.232102.26005@pegasus.com> <1990Nov23.080906.24510@robobar.co.uk> <1990Nov23.184635.2568@nstar.rn.com> <2390@sixhub.UUCP>
Reply-To: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker)
Organization: Amateur Radio Station N4HGF
Lines: 28

In article <2390@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <1990Nov23.184635.2568@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>
>| I disagree.  Xenix is good for installations with limited resources 
>| (286, 386sx or 16 mhz 386 with a couple megs of ram and MFM or RLL
>
>  In what way is needing fewer resources a drawback?

Bill, you are so right.  XENIX bashers should realize, IMHO, they
are still playing the cards dealt by IBM when they released the
System III fiasco, surely trying to give *ix a bad name in the
pedestrian market.  SCO XENIX is the most righteous thing going
when you consider:

 o installed base
 o cost
 o device support
 o feature
 o resource requirements
 
XENIX/386 sucks a lot of performance out of any platform it is on.

UNIX 3.2 and ODT benefit GREATLY from the XENIX trip; ya gotta have more
box, for sure, (and bux :-), but ya get more too.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US
ANSI C should have been named D, or Son of C