Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!cwjcc!hal!ncoast!mikes
From: mikes@ncoast.UUCP (Mike Squires)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Reasonable minimum disk capacities for sco xenix
Summary: Early PS2/80's are allegedly a problem
Keywords: PS 2/80 386/386 interface bug
Message-ID: <13326@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jan 89 05:42:18 GMT
References: <7064@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <8689@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: mikes@ncoast.UUCP (Mike Squires)
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh
Lines: 16

In article <8689@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <7064@xanth.cs.odu.edu> paterra@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Frank C. Paterra) writes:
>}
>}Hi there Netlanders!!
>}
>}My company (after much prodding from me) has decided that we should use
>}our 16mhz, IBM PS/2 Model 80 as a xenix system.  Currently we have one
>}77 meg drive and 2 meg of ram.  The system will have to support ~10
>}users, but most of the time ~6 will be using it concurrently and the
>}major application will be Microsoft Word.  Now that I got the company
>}to sign up to it I have some concerns.
>}
One article reviewing systems subsceptible to the 386/387 interface bugsaid
that the PS 2/80 early production was especially likely to crash.  This is
apparently fixed by getting a D-step 386 or by buying Bell Technologies
patch board that fits under the 386.