Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site omen.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.lang.c,net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: venix versus xenix
Message-ID: <287@omen.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 16:50:47 EST
Article-I.D.: omen.287
Posted: Wed Jan 22 16:50:47 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:14:30 EST
References: <1135@cp1.UUCP> <209@maynard.UUCP>
Reply-To: caf@.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Organization: Omen Technology, Portland
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.unix:6911 net.lang.c:7644 net.micro.pc:6654
Summary: 

In article <209@maynard.UUCP> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes:
>> 	I am getting ready to purchase a pc version of Unix and would
>> to like to know which is the best between xenix and venix. Has anyone
>> had experience with both and can make a recommendation. Compatibility
>> with Sys V is important. Thanks!
>> -- 
>> Signed by: 
>>   aplvax!cp1!hart - aplcen!cp1!hart - umcp-cs!cp1!hart - gamma!cp1!hart
>>   umcp-cs!aplvax!cp1!hart@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
>
>I have used VENIX v2.0 (V7-based) a lot, VENIX 5.0 a little (Sys V
>based), and XENIX 3.0 (Sys III based) a little.  The choice would not
>be clear cut, except for one thing.  It's IMPOSSIBLE to find anything
>in the XENIX manuals because they're unbundled.  That means there are
	SCO SYS V Xenix has the manuals arranged the same way, but
	the man pages do not print different programs on one sheet,
	so they could be rearranged / added to / etc.  I don't like
	the Microsoft arrangement, but I've gotten used to it.
>
>Documentation aside, they're very similar.  The XENIX C compiler is
>somewhat better -- VENIX's allows only one 64K data segment (but
>unlimited code).  Last I looked, VENIX didn't come with troff (nroff
>only) while XENIX did.  VENIX has some real-time features (preemptive
>process priorities) you might find useful.  And the installation
>procedure for VENIX is much easier than for XENIX.
>
>Basically it's a wash, but if you want to have usable manuals, get VENIX.
	Not having a true blue SYS V Unix, I can't comment on the
	extent of compatibility.  I have heard that some tests in 
	the AT&T SYS V Suite cannot be run on 16 bitters hostile to
	Unix, which includes the 80286.

	Large/huge model is still rather buggy, but it is often possible
	to get a particular program to run given sufficient hacking
	time to outwit the Microsoft Cmerge compiler.  There is a possibility
	the large/huge model will be corrected before the 286 it totally
	obsolete.

	The main thing missing from SYS III/V are graphics and the ability
	to specify an arbitrary program instead of getty.

	The Xenix installation is quite straightforward.  There are
	options to control which sub-packages to install, which
	makes life easier on 20 meg systems.  Installation of the
	IBM Xenix was easy also.

	Bottom line: Xenix does work on the AT.  Is doesn't have anything
	to do with IBM's description of the AT as a "4 gigabyte virtual
	memory" system, but it is an improvement on PDP-11's assuming
	one doesn't need graphics or PDP-11 specific software.

-- 
   Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX  ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf   CIS:70715,131
   Author of Professional-YAM communications Tools for PCDOS and Unix
 Omen Technology Inc     17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231
Voice: 503-621-3406 TeleGodzilla: 621-3746 300/1200 L.sys entry for omen:
omen Any ACU 1200 1-503-621-3746 se:--se: link ord: Giznoid in:--in: uucp