Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsb.cb.att.com!dvc From: dvc@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (david.a.vancleef) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: SCO Unix 3.2v2.0 + Micropolis 1325 hard disk? Message-ID: <1991May17.134046.26810@cbfsb.att.com> Date: 17 May 91 13:40:46 GMT References: Sender: news@cbfsb.att.com Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 23 In article libove@libove.det.dec.com (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: >generic 386sx clone running SCO Unix v3.2v2.0 >Micropolis 1325 68(?)MB MFM hard drive >the Micropolis disk is actually repackaged as a DEC RD53 > >The questions become: >Is there something different about this drive because it was >resold by DEC as an RD53? >Does SCO Unix v3.2v2.0 have a problem with drives that are >not directly supported by the BIOS (though the BIOS in this >box does have this user configurable support mode)? >Is there something about a Micropolis 1325 disk that causes >problems, for SCO Unix or whatever else? I was using a similar hardware configuration, except running off of AT&T SVR3.2.2, and encountered no problem. The system was a 386-25, AMI bios, and the drive was also a cast-off RD53, aka 1325, running as the second drive in the system. My suspicions would lie towards the manufacturer/vintage of your BIOS or the SCO UNIX. ------- David A. Van Cleef AT&T Bell Laboratories internet: dvc@hrmso.att.com Red Hill Facility, Middletown, NJ uucp-land: ...!att!hrmso!dvc +1 908 615 4906