Altos 686

From: Joe R. <rigdonj_at_cfl.rr.com>
Date: Fri May 14 20:01:41 2004

At 08:08 PM 5/14/04 -0500, you wrote:
>>My 586 ran _Microsoft_ Xenix as indicated all through the binaries. It
was a pretty
>>impressive box, with support for five users on dumb terminals, with an
8086 processor
>>and only 512K of RAM. Sometimes I wish I had held onto it just as
concrete evidence
>>that _Microsoft_ produced an authentic Unix port. So many people try to
hand credit
>>off to SCO. (deep hatred of Microsoft can lead to that kind of thing)
>>
>>Does your machine have a bunch of DB25 jacks on it for multiple terminals?
>>
>>I also once had an Altos 580, which was in a case identical in some
respects to the
>>586, except it was an 8080 machine with similar terminal ports, and ran
CP/M.
>
>I had several Nabu 1200's, a Canadian built machine which was also an 8086
with 512K
>of RAM - 4 serial ports. Also ran Microsoft XENIX. Actually, you could run
CP/M 86,
>QNX (a Canadian nix-alike) or Xenix - Xenix was the only one of the three
which
>required an optional external (to the CPU) memory management unit board.

   I have a pair of Tandy 6000HDs. They run MicroSloth XENIX and I've been
told that they can run CPM from one of the other TRS machines. IIRC they
use a 68000 to run XENIX but they boot on a Z-80 and that's what they run
the CPM on.

   Joe
Received on Fri May 14 2004 - 20:01:41 BST