Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!agate!eos!ames!pacbell!att-ih!gargoyle!ddsw1!igloo!learn
From: learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Is uPort/286 worth the trouble?
Message-ID: <532@igloo.UUCP>
Date: 9 Apr 88 02:30:46 GMT
References: <878@nuchat.UUCP> <524@igloo.UUCP> <799@koko.UUCP>
Organization: igloo, Northbrook, IL
Lines: 32
Keywords: 286, bugs, save some bucks

In article <799@koko.UUCP>, foobar@koko.UUCP (John Fruetel) writes:

> Is anybody else running Microport on one of these "Far East" specials?

Igloo runs on just such a beast.
 
> How much memory is recommended for running the beast?  I mean to run it
> _effectively_, not just to get by. 

Igloo survived for a long time with 2 megs ram, but the speedup was
quite noticable when we expanded to 5.5 megs. This is in a 2 line
call in configuration, but don't call during UUCP transfers. Before
upgrades including a new getty, a 9600 telebit, and a new uport sio driver,
the second line had to be blocked to preclude barfing the uucp. Now, it 
just commands the system to such an extent that you ( 2nd line caller ) 
can't get anything accomplished. I don't want to hear from anyone about
'your hardware problems, we experience no problems with our box' as I've
put a '286 xenix aboard the same hardware and run a comparison test, with
superior (actually acceptable) results running xenix. Why don't I switch ?
I only have the bare xenix (runtime) and not only can I not recompile
everything we've added in a reasonable timeframe, but there would be a
relicensing fee for some parts of the software we run here (in addition
to purchasing the balance of the xenix software.)
 
> Frankly, it the thing really is a dog, I'll spend the extra money for
> SCO Xenix.  If it's just as good, well then, I'll save some bucks and
> buy Microport.
 
A year ago, it howled, presently, Bow Wow. If you've time to wait, it
should get better.

Bill Vajk                                             learn@igloo