Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!tness7!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Xenix/386 and 386 clones
Keywords: Xenix SCO i386 386 clones compatability
Message-ID: <6956@bigtex.uucp>
Date: 26 Aug 88 05:34:49 GMT
References: <486@yunccn.UUCP> <1590@ddsw1.UUCP>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen)
Distribution: na
Organization: F.B.N. Software, Austin TX
Lines: 18

In article <1590@ddsw1.UUCP>, karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) wrote:

> [...]  The only *SURE* gotcha is if your '386 chip is
> lacking the double "sigma" signs on it -- then you have a 16-bit code only
> version which will definately not work.

Is the step D 386 part in distribution yet?  It should be if I recall
the timetable.  Even the double-sigma parts may be out of date.  Maybe
an Intel person could enlighten us as to how to tell the chips apart.

I find it interesting that Intel won't replace the chips.  There is
this thing called "implied warranty of fitness" that applies to
manufacturers in every state in the US (except maybe Louisiana): it
would appear that the older 386s fail this test of fitness for the
claimed usage (ie, mathematical processing).  Has anyone attempted
to get a part of Intel by threating to file over this?
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james     "Live Free or Die"
Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746