On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Michael Nadeau wrote:
> I've never used anything but TRSDOS on the Model II, so I can't speak to the
> relative usefulness. However, I believe that there were more Xenix
> implementations on the II/12/16/6000 line than on any other system and by a
> wide margin. Like I said, it was a popular option and well-supported by
> Tandy. The 2000 was quirky enough that a lot of software ported to it didn't
> behave as it was supposed to, and it never sold well enough for the software
> makers to care much about fixing the problems. Tandy had a hard time
> convincing software developers to support the 2000, and was rumored to have
> paid Lotus $250,000 to port 1-2-3. My guess is that Microsoft made less than
> a whole-hearted effort to port Xenix as cleanly as it could have.
>
> --Mike
>
> Michael Nadeau
> Editorial Services
> 603-893-2379
Somehow, I am inclined to question if there was a Z-80 version of Xenix
and, if not, then there was none for the Model II.
- don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige_at_earthlink.net>
> To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Xenix ?
>
>
> > >Xenix was also a popular option for the TRS-80 Model II/12/16/6000
> series.
> >
> > I couldn't remember which of the above it was available for,
> > so I didn't name a specific model. I've never used it on any of the
> > above machines myself. Was it any more usable than the version on
> > the Model 2000?
> >
> > Jeff
> > --
> > Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
> > http://www.cchaven.com
> > http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 11 2001 - 19:20:04 GMT