Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!sauron!nncrcae!wescott From: wescott@Columbia.NCR.COM (Mike Wescott) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ncr Subject: Re: SVR4 Keywords: Local SE, never Message-ID: <1990Dec12.160138.17285@nncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM> Date: 12 Dec 90 16:01:38 GMT References: <18360@letni.UUCP> Sender: @nncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM Organization: E&M-Columbia, NCR Corp, W Columbia, SC Lines: 23 In article nolan@iti.org (Mike Nolan) writes: > According to the 'usually reliable' inside sources, NCR had already succeeded > in porting enough of SVR4 to the 68k machines that they had working prototypes > of their recently announced Cooperation software package running last spring. I think that overstates the condition of that development effort, especially given the quality of the SysVr4 sources at that time. > It is my understanding that the decision NOT to release SVR4 on 68k machines > is a marketing decision, not an engineering one. Actually, it was a bit of both. Given a scarcity of engineering resources an a need to get to market early with a new product. > (By contrast, the decision > not to release the 88k systems was based on engineering results. According > to at least one source, NCR built about 50 of the 88k machines, but the 80486 > machines ran rings around them in performance comparisons.) Nope. -- -Mike Wescott mike.wescott@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM