Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:1352 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10876
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!spdcc!dyer
From: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Get a Wyse 80386 box w/SCO Xenix?
Message-ID: <594@spdcc.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 88 02:23:02 GMT
References: <139@amcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer)
Distribution: na
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Lines: 22
Keywords: wyse 3216 80386 xenix SCO

Well, it sounds like a very nice system.  In my experience 2 or so Progress
users run fine on a 286 Xenix system (of course really heavy database crunching
might be slow), so I'd guess it would run just fine on an equivalent 386 system.
I've only run Progress 286 under Xenix 286 and 386; haven't tried Progress for
the 386 (if it's even ready yet.)

Are the Wyse comm boards "dumb" or "smart"?  If you're ultimately looking
to support many users at 9600 baud, you'll want to offload as much
interrupt processing as you can.

I only have experience with Q-Office (Q+) on a supermini, the Gould 9050,
and Quadratron's reputation across the net in general.  Let's just say that
the 9050 could barely support 25 Q-Office users, and it wasn't the fault
of the CPU or the OS.  The product was SLOW, and would make a Cray resemble
an 8080.  Now, Quadratron has been talking about various improvements, but
I have no experience with them, nor know anything about the state of the
Xenix version.  Caveat wordprocessor.  Now, since a 386 is close to a 9050
in raw CPU speed, perhaps it will nevertheless be able to do what you want.
-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.harvard.edu
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {ihnp4,harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!dyer