Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!csun!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: 486 computers and Unix
Keywords: 486 386 unix sco intel
Message-ID: <1991Jan12.071441.17612@kithrup.COM>
Date: 12 Jan 91 07:14:41 GMT
References: <712@nox.se> <264@bigfoot.first.gmd.de>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 30

In article <712@nox.se>, peter@nox.se (Peter Levin) writes:
|> Can it be that the vendors just don't give
|> infomation about the problem, because it could hurt sales?  I don't 
|> want to think it works that way, but perharps...

I have seen something like 25 different brands of '486 machines running some
version of UNIX (a few at work, a few at trade shows, a few at people's
houses, a few at some other companies I've been to).

From what I've seen, most of these machines ran unix a lot easier than
kithrup (a nice, normal '386) did at first, when I'd misconfigured the
various parameters (shadow ram, in this case).

The original message made some reference to Intel; I suspect Intel doesn't
want to go through another fiasco as it did with early versions of the '386
(where they weren't capable of multiplication in 32-bit mode, or somesuch).

All of the unix vendors I've seen have had a list of vendors and hardware
they have tested and, therefore, know work with their product; if a piece of
hardware is not on that list, it does not mean it won't work, it just means
the vendor has not tested it.  (Usually because the vendor does not have one
of pieces of hardware in question.)

There is no (fnord) conspiracy out to (fnord) delude you (fnord).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.