Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpcupt1!hpcuhb!hpindda!vandys
From: vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Microport System V/386 install woes
Message-ID: <7030011@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 19 May 88 16:47:17 GMT
References: <1984@sugar.UUCP>
Organization: HP Technical Networks, Cupertino, Calif.
Lines: 21

/ hpindda:comp.unix.microport / pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) /  6:12 am  May 18, 1988 /
>In article <7030009@hpindda.HP.COM> vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia) writes:
>...	Let me amplify on the sentiment already coming in here.
>...If your hardware is a *true* clone, then installing Microport is
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                         		of what? A Compaq 386?
	Sorry, my XT/AT background shows, eh?  For the XT and AT, I am
of course referring to the IBM product.  For the '386, the Compaq is
indeed the closest thing I've heard of for a 'standard' (although some
versions have problems DMA'ing into that high speed memory).  IBM's
PS/2 line will eventually be worth looking at, but my experience to date
is that the market isn't accepting them with the speed that the PC
line was accepted with.  There just doesn't seem to be that feeling of
a vacuum which the PC, XT, and AT filled.
	Small aside.  SCO's '286 XENIX runs on the Compaq 386 out of the
shrink-wrap--no 32 bit, but it runs *much* faster.  I hear that Microport's
does not work.  Comments from Microport?  Did you remember to leave the
"reserved" '286 bit positions 0?

				Andy Valencia
				vandys%hpindda.UUCP@hplabs.hp.com