Xref: utzoo comp.unix.i386:2883 comp.unix.xenix:10021
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!aplcen!haven!udel!sbcs!bnlux0!adelphi!promark!mark
From: mark@promark.UUCP (Mark J. DeFilippis)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: which way to go
Summary: There are other factors...
Message-ID: <2269@promark.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 90 04:53:31 GMT
References: <156@mnopltd.UUCP>
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Promark Data Concepts, Garden City, NY
Lines: 29

In article <156@mnopltd.UUCP>, neal@mnopltd.UUCP writes:
> ->	..........
> ->Does anyone have any comments about which will be the best way to go as far as
> I will attempt to paraphrase statements made by the National Sales Manager, 
> Dealer Sales, for SCO at a presentation last night for the Atlanta Unix Users
> Group:
> 
> 	If you do not need the features of SCO Unix, primarily Open Desktop, 
> 	B2 security, etc there is no reason to upgrade.  Xenix STILL outsells
> 	SCO Unix 3 to 1!   Xenix will be supported for many years to come.  It

There are other factors to consider.  For instance NFS will not
be available for SCO XENIX.  NFS will onlyu be available for
the SCO UNIX product.  :-(
NFS alone for some could be a major reason to upgrade.

I see as another factor the problem of getting device drivers for many 3rd
party board makers such as intelligent multi-port boards, intelligent I/O
controllers.  I have been unable to nail down several of them on availibility
of device drivers for their products for SCO UNIX.  SCO generally has a
track record of moving quickly to market, whereas many of these
vendors (I leave nameless here as to not generate defense articles of
individual encounters) are slow to port their drivers.

-- 
Mark J. DeFilippis
SA @ Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adelphi University, Garden City, NY 11530                   (516) 663-1170
UUCP:	 philabs!sbcs!bnlux0!adelphi!markd