Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen
From: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 8086 Unix, was Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <3676@sixhub.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 91 03:24:51 GMT
References: <1991Apr7.033635.18412@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr9.150055.13705@cbfsb.att.com> <1991Apr9.234724.24830@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr10.035331.12694@iecc.cambridge.ma.us>
Reply-To: davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen)
Distribution: na
Organization: *IX Public Access UNIX, Schenectady NY
Lines: 24

In article <1991Apr10.035331.12694@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:

| Ah, how soon they forget.  There were several perfectly OK versions of
| Unix for the 8086.  IBM sold PC/IX, which was a pretty straight port of
| Sys III as well as Xenix.  I worked on PC/IX and can testify that it was a
| real no kidding Unix system running on an ordinary 640K PC/XT with a 10MB
| disk.

  But he said SysV. I heard him.

| it at $900.  But it was quite reliable, people reported that it'd stay up
| for months at a time running canned applications with uucp in the
| background.

  We still run it on at least two machines at work. However, reliable I
question, since there's a bug caused by a counter wrapping around every
13 months if it's not rebooted ;-)

  Yes, there is. Yes we found it.
-- 
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
    sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
    moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me