Bill Pechter wrote:
>
> > Roger Merchberger wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO, a <$1000 loaded home machine is *not* supposed to outperform a >$4000
> > > business machine. Oh, and Ward could prolly answer this: Was there a
> > > version of Xenix available for an IBM / Clone? I know there was one for
> > > the Tandy 2000, but that's the only version I've ever seen. How far did
> > > M$'s licensing go with that OS?
> >
> > SCO's first release of Xenix was for an XT with 512K or more RAM. It
> > was a dog, Xenix for the X86 series didn't hit its stride until the AT
> > and the 80286.
>
> I've got a copy of Xenix-86 and it was pretty solid on the AT&T
I didn't say it was unstable, I said it was a dog, as in dog-slow on
a 4.77MHz 8088. Despite some criticisms I have about the video
interface, the AT&T (Olivetti) 6300 was vastly superior to the XT.
And the 6300+ may have been the most stable 80286 box ever built,
especially with AT&T Unix on it, even running that first generation
DOSMerge product.
--
Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram_at_cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/>
WARNING: The Attorney General has determined that Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms can be hazardous to your health -- and get away with it.
Received on Sat Jan 02 1999 - 09:40:52 GMT