I had three IBM 9000s (hal, sal, and pal, of course) running Xenix.
The hardware was solid gold for reliability and ran unattended for
months at a remote site. Xenix was also rock solid, and I could
depend on it to send me daily emails with status, etc., of the site.
Dave
Lawrence Walker wrote:
>
> I have an excellent book on Xenix "Understanding Xenix" by Paul Weinberg
> and James Groff put out by Que in 85. It goes into details about computer
> systems and Unix history. Apparently MS was working on Xenix before they
> developed DOS. It also lists the various versions of Unix and mentions an
> earlier version of Unix for PC/ATs by Interactive Systems called PC/IX introed
> in Jan 84. The book lists the vendors who offered Xenix.
>
> Vendor System
>
> Altos Altos 586
> Altos 986
> Apple Lisa
> Durango Poppy ll
> Encore MPU-8000
> General Automation Zebra 2000
> IBM IBM PC/AT
> System 9000
> Intel Intel 286/280
> Tandy/RS TRS-80 M.16
> Spectrix Spectrix 10
> Visual Technology Visual 2000
>
> They also describe it as a 16/32 bit system. It offered the choice of 3 Shells.
> The Bourne, the C, and an unique Xenix shell - the visual shell.
>
> Lawrence
>
> > >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
> >
>
> Reply to:
> lgwalker_at_mts.net
--
David C. Jenner
djenner_at_earthlink.net
Received on Mon Nov 12 2001 - 13:07:48 GMT