Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:496 comp.unix.xenix:1981
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!peregrine!ccicpg!turnkey!jack
From: jack@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Bell Technologies UNIX/386
Message-ID: <172@turnkey.TCC.COM>
Date: 14 Apr 88 16:17:41 GMT
References: <201@xrtll.UUCP> <7254@cdin-1.uucp>
Reply-To: jack@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel)
Distribution: na
Organization: Turnkey Computer Consultants, Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 29
Keywords: 386 80386

In article <7254@cdin-1.uucp> fred@cdin-1.uucp (Fred Rump) writes:
>
>Bell uses microport unix.

This is not strictly true, the package that Bell sells is the pure
unadulterated port of SysV.3 originally done by Interactive. From there
both Interactive and Microport went on to add their own particular
"enhancements" (or bugs as the case may be :-}). For instance, you will
not find any multiscreens in the Bell package nor the [nt]roff text
processors.

>Don't particularly like their multiport. Arnet is better.

We use the Bell ICC (intelligent multiport) here under Xenix 2.2.1 and
other than being a little power hungry (which we fixed with a beefier
supply) we have had no problems. We run terminals and even binary
transfers between null-modemed systems at 38.4K without any characters
being dropped (eat your heart out Microport :-}). The ICC uses the
superior Zilog Serial Communications Controller chips instead of the
usual 8250 or even National's 16450 UART. I have heard good things
about Arnet as well but would have to have concrete examples of what
makes it "better".


-- 
Jack F. Vogel
Turnkey Computer Consultants, Costa Mesa, CA
UUCP: ...{nosc|uunet}!turnkey!jack 
Internet: jack@turnkey.TCC.COM