Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!csl!hercules.csl.sri.com!shaker
From: shaker@dirt.cisco.com (Christopher J. Shaker)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: MSDOS 4.01 and SCO Xenix: Bad mix?
Message-ID: <SHAKER.91Jan15194106@dirt.cisco.com>
Date: 16 Jan 91 03:41:06 GMT
Sender: news@csl.sri.com (NEWS Administrator)
Distribution: comp
Organization: cisco Systems, Inc.
Lines: 38

> Subject: Re: MSDOS 4.01 and SCO Xenix: Bad mix?
> Summary: Yes it's a BAD mixed....
> Expires: 
> References: <14@medicod.UUCP> <'2V^=#^@rpi.edu> <320@bria.AIX>
> Sender: 
> Followup-To: 
> Distribution: usa
> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
> Keywords: 
> From: yee@itsgw.rpi.edu (Crimson Avenger)
> Path: yee
> 
> Well, boys and girls:  I have the answer, YES, it's a bad mixed between
> SCO Xenix/Unix and MS DOS 4.01.   First of all, I must apologized for my 
> lack of knowledge in SCO products, I spoke with the local dealer and she
> informed me that there are two packages for x386 machines.  The first is
> SCO Xenix which is at (2.3.2) for x386 and x286 machines.  The other is 
> SCO Unix (3.2.2) which is for x386 and conforms to AT&T V.  With that straight
> I asked her about MSDOS 4.01.  She got back with me in 24 hours and said
> that both products does *NOT* support 4.01 DOS.  She mentioned something about
> 4.01 uses some different disk layout scheme to achieve > 32 megabyte 
> partitions.  Only 3.3 is compatible with Xenix/Unix.  She also told me that
> DOS 4.01 will NOT be supported in the future.  Well, that's the end of the
> conversation.


Yikes. I have an ALR Business VEISA that I am/was planning to buy some form
of UNIX for. I had no idea that my MS-DOS 4.01 would cause a problem.


> My personal opinion is that it is regrettable...........  They just lost
> a sale and a customer.  
> -- Robert aka Crimson Avenger      (yee@rpi.edu or crimson_avenger@mts.rpi.edu)


Maybe mine, too.
Chris Shaker
shaker@cisco.com