Anybody still use SCO Xenix?
Tony Molina
Hi,
Am wondering if anybody still uses SCO Xenix (not Unix)?
I have version 2.3.2 which I'd like to upgrade but can't really justify the
cost.
Also, I need to run a Xenix version of Dataflex for some apps I run and am
worried that upgrading to a later version of SCO Xenix or especially Unix then
my Dataflex will stop working.
Can somebody point me to places on the net where I might find support
information for such an old version of Xenix? The SCO web site only seems to
mention Unix now.
If there is anybody out there using Xenix 2.3.2 (and I haven't found any
newsgroup messages making me believe there is), can you tell me if you've had
any problems running it on IDE hard drives? I've tried (and failed) to get an
80Mb Western Digital IDE drive to boot Xenix 2.3.2 after the installation
apparently went through ok. I just get a whole bunch of upside down question
marks on the screen on bootup. Strange.
Thanks in anticipation of any replies.
= Tony =
,-._|\ Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
/ Oz \ Internet: to...@melbpc.org.au
\_,--.x/
v
Optifacts Support
On Wednesday, May 08, 1996, Tony Molina wrote...
> Hi,
>
> Am wondering if anybody still uses SCO Xenix (not Unix)?
>
Lots of us. Our department support about 80-90 customers still running
Xenix. In fact, WE still run Xenix on a few of our boxes.
> Can somebody point me to places on the net where I might find support
> information for such an old version of Xenix? The SCO web site only
seems to
> mention Unix now.
>
Try comp.unix.xenix.sco in the newsgroups.
Jeff Liebermann
Tony Molina (to...@melbpc.org.au) wrote:
: Am wondering if anybody still uses SCO Xenix (not Unix)?
I service 11 customers with approximately 35 Xenix systems.
Most of them are POS (point-of-sale) and SCADA (supervisory
control and data aquisition). None have any intention of
upgradeing. One is still running Xenix 286 (not 386).
: I have version 2.3.2 which I'd like to upgrade but can't really justify the
: cost.
Upgrade decisions should be based upon what you plan to do with
the computer. If Xenix does what you want, you should stay with
Xenix. If you need NFS, more than 16MB of ram, support for current
hardware, or support for current software, you will probably need
an upgrade.
I would suggest grabbing xnx296a which will upgrade your system
to 2.3.3. There are also fixes and updates for specific hardware
issues. You can assemble a fairly close approximation of version
2.3.4 from pieces. What you cannot do is add SCSI support to the
non-GT version of Xenix 2.3.3 (which is included with 2.3.4.)
If you need scsi, you'll need 2.3.4.
: Also, I need to run a Xenix version of Dataflex for some apps I run and am
: worried that upgrading to a later version of SCO Xenix or especially Unix then
: my Dataflex will stop working.
How about a clue as to what version of Dataflex you're worried about?
All of my Xenix applications tranferred to 3.2v4.2 without too much
trouble. Directory searches in Lyrix and SCO Pro are an issue with
OSR5 (Open Server 5).
: Can somebody point me to places on the net where I might find support
: information for such an old version of Xenix? The SCO web site only seems to
: mention Unix now.
: apparently went through ok. I just get a whole bunch of upside down question
: marks on the screen on bootup. Strange.
Yep. I did this once or twice. What you did was relink the kernel
at the end of the installation. The message:
"now reboot the computer to activate the new kernel"
(or something like that) and you assumed this meant to immediately
stomp on the reset switch or cycle the power switch. Wrong.
The system has not run a "sync" command to flush its memory
to disk. Your kernel was still in memory and not written to the
disk. What you should have done was exit to the # shell prompt,
type "sync" a few times, followed by "haltsys".
If you're lucky, you may have the old kernel still on the drive.
At the boot: prompt, inscribe:
boot: xenix.old
and the old kernel will be run. Then re-link with:
cd /usr/sys/conf
./link_xenix
./hdinstall
sync
sync
reboot
and you should be ok (maybe).
Xenix uber alles.
--
# Jeff Liebermann Liebermann Design 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 408.336.2558 voice wb6ssy@ki6eh.#cenca.ca.usa wb6ssy.ampr.org 44.4.18.10
# 408.699.0483 digital_pager 73557,2074 cis [don't]
# je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us http://www.cruzio.com/~jeffl
Tony Molina
I'd be interested to hear people's experiences of running old versions of SCO
Xenix like 2.3.2 or 2.3.4 on machines faster than '386s, especially systems that
are using IDE hard drives instead of ESDI or SCSI.
So far on my 386/20 machine, 2.3.2 runs fine but various people have warned me
of "timing problems" if I try to run it on a fast '486, so I guess a Pentium
would be out of the question?
I remember in the old days having problems running Xenix on early '386
motherboards when they had just started introducing on-board caches (ALR '386)
but that's about the extent of problems I can remember.
How about the effect of using Cyrix, AMD processors instead of genuine Intel
processors?
= Tony =
Greetings from Australia!
Tony Molina
cc'd to Email & Newsgroup
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) wrote:
[snip] Thanks for that.
>I would suggest grabbing xnx296a which will upgrade your system
>to 2.3.3. There are also fixes and updates for specific hardware
>issues. You can assemble a fairly close approximation of version
Excellent. Do you know if any of these patches are available over the Internet
via ftp or must they be purchased?
[ ..]
>How about a clue as to what version of Dataflex you're worried about?
I knew somebody would ask me that :-)
I need to boot Xenix and run Dataflex to get the exact version so I'll post that
once I've done that. (crossing my fingers it boots this time).
[ snip ]
>Yep. I did this once or twice. What you did was relink the kernel
[ excellent advice snipped]
> reboot
>and you should be ok (maybe).
Thank you very much for this advice Jeff. I've printed out this message and will
try your suggestion as soon as I log off and swap hard drives.
Cheers mate,
= Tony =
Tony Molina
>je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) wrote:
>>How about a clue as to what version of Dataflex you're worried about?
>
>I knew somebody would ask me that :-)
>
>I need to boot Xenix and run Dataflex to get the exact version so I'll post that
>once I've done that. (crossing my fingers it boots this time).
Ok, got it now.
Dataflex version 2.3b.
For anybody just getting into this thread, I'd like to hear from anybody who has
run this old version of Dataflex successfully (or not) on later versions of
Xenix than 2.3.2 (should be ok I think) but more importantly, SCO Unix V.
Thanks,
Tony Molina
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us (Jeff Liebermann) wrote:
>: apparently went through ok. I just get a whole bunch of upside down question
>: marks on the screen on bootup. Strange.
>
>Yep. I did this once or twice. What you did was relink the kernel
>at the end of the installation. The message:
[ ..]
G'day Jeff. I thought you might be interested to hear what I discovered was the
problem in the end.
After loading the first install disk (N1), when prompted to reboot for the first
time, I wasn't get the boot: prompt to let me continue the install. It would
just hang with sometimes some unusual characters on the screen.
After changing various things on my system and repeating the installations, it
turns out I had my 486/100 motherboard bios settings set slightly faster than
its default "auto config" and so the Xenix installation wasn't completing
correctly at the end of the N1 disk.
Set bios settings (Award bios) back to "auto config" and repeated the install
and now the install went right through ok and the whole system runs fine.
As an experiment, I set the bios settings back faster after the install
completed and Xenix continued to run fine after that. I'd keep it running in
"auto config" mode just to be sure though.
I also had the chance to try Xenix 2.3.2 and Dataflex 2.3b on a friend's very
fast and optimised '486 (150Mhz) with PCI IDE 850Mb drive etc, and this also
worked fine. Very fast too, especially reindexing Dataflex files.
Thanks for your help.
Cheers
tony
Dave Close
to...@melbpc.org.au (Tony Molina) writes:
>I'd be interested to hear people's experiences of running old versions
>of SCO Xenix like 2.3.2 or 2.3.4 on machines faster than '386s,
>especially systems that are using IDE hard drives instead of ESDI or
>SCSI.
>So far on my 386/20 machine, 2.3.2 runs fine but various people have
>warned me of "timing problems" if I try to run it on a fast '486, so I
>guess a Pentium would be out of the question?
2.3.4 may be old but it's the most recent version of Xenix. It seems to
run fine on a 486 and I've never had any trouble with IDE drives on any
machine. But I can't make parallel io work properly on a Pentium; there's
obviously a timing problem causing a printer to drop characters. Every
other thing I tried on a Pentium seemed to work fine but the parallel io
was a show-stopper so I gave it up.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting
da...@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without
dhc...@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke
Grant Walters
Tony Molina wrote:
> Dataflex version 2.3b.
>
> For anybody just getting into this thread, I'd like to hear from anybody who has
> run this old version of Dataflex successfully (or not) on later versions of
> Xenix than 2.3.2 (should be ok I think) but more importantly, SCO Unix V.
I have probably a dozen sites in New Zealand that use dataflex 2.3b. The Accounting package CBA
(New Zealand original also available in Australia) is written in this version. The clients a re
running SCO Unix 3.2v2.0, 3.2v4.0, 3.2v4.1, 3.2v4.2 and OS5.0
--
Regards
Grant Walters, Ministry Of Commerce, Computer Services
P O Box 1473, Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Phone: 64-4-4720030, Fax: 64-4-4742817, E-Mail: gra...@moc.govt.nz
Jose Luis Rodriguez Garcia
> I'd be interested to hear people's experiences of running old versions of SCO
> Xenix like 2.3.2 or 2.3.4 on machines faster than '386s, especially systems that
> are using IDE hard drives instead of ESDI or SCSI.
>
> So far on my 386/20 machine, 2.3.2 runs fine but various people have warned me
> of "timing problems" if I try to run it on a fast '486, so I guess a Pentium
> would be out of the question?
>
> motherboards when they had just started introducing on-board caches (ALR '386)
> but that's about the extent of problems I can remember.
>
> How about the effect of using Cyrix, AMD processors instead of genuine Intel
> processors?
Greetings
Jose Luis
jo...@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es