Xenix/386 and 386 clones

52 views
Skip to first unread message

J. Paul Landolt

unread,
Aug 23, 1988, 3:36:10 PM8/23/88
to
I was interested in purchaseing a 386 AT clone for the purpose of
runninf SCO Xenix/386 on it. I am currenly using Xenix/386 for the
Compaq at work.

From what a friend tells me, Xenix 386 will only run on the
Compaq and the PS/2-80, since SCO developed custom versions of Xenix
to run on these machines.

My question is: is this true? Are there 386 Clones that will
run 386 Xenix (and what are they)

Thanks

--
J. Paul Landolt | You can't turn back progress! You
BITNET: cs120077@yusol | wanna cause accidents and kill
UUCP: lan...@yunccn.UUCP : people?

Bill Kennedy

unread,
Aug 25, 1988, 1:08:17 PM8/25/88
to
In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP> lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) writes:
[ ... ]

> From what a friend tells me, Xenix 386 will only run on the
>Compaq and the PS/2-80, since SCO developed custom versions of Xenix
>to run on these machines.

There is definitely a PS/2 version, perhaps one for Compaq, I don't know.
I'm quite sure that your friend is at least partially mistaken. I run
Xenix 386 on a clone (not this machine).

> My question is: is this true? Are there 386 Clones that will
>run 386 Xenix (and what are they)

I should guess that anything based on the Micronics motherboard. That's
the one I use and it's effortless. It's a plain vanilla collection of
AT cards and the Micronics motherboard, 2Mb memory daughterboard. I
also have a Computone AT-8 intelligent serial card in it. No muss no fuss.
I would guess/bet that SCO Xenix 386 will work on many others too, I just
have not personally tried any.
--
Bill Kennedy Internet: bi...@ssbn.WLK.COM
Usenet: { killer | att | rutgers | uunet!bigtex }!ssbn!bill

William E. Davidsen Jr

unread,
Aug 25, 1988, 2:52:32 PM8/25/88
to
In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP> lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) writes:
| I was interested in purchaseing a 386 AT clone for the purpose of
| runninf SCO Xenix/386 on it. I am currenly using Xenix/386 for the
| Compaq at work.

Most of the clones on the AT bus will work. The Dell310, PC Designs
GV386 (and all clones based on the AMI motherboard, sometimes sold as
Mylex), VESTA 386 (are they still selling?), UNISYS (several models),
etc. I've only found a few that wouldn't run if they had a regular AT
type controller. The Dell and Compaq are ESDI (or at any rate, not
ST506), but they look like a standard controller.

One thing to test right after installation: use the "dump" utility to
backup to floppy. This runs two DMA channels and the CPU in one block of
memory, and has caused parity on almost half the machines I've used.
Nothing that a memory fix won't cure, but catch it while the warrantee
is good.

The old ALR with the ST506 controller worked, and I'm told the
"Flexcache" version does, but it may need the ESDI version of Xenix.
Many others work, these are just the ones I've tried in the last year
or so.

--
bill davidsen (we...@ge-crd.arpa)
{uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me

Karl Denninger

unread,
Aug 25, 1988, 4:46:58 PM8/25/88
to
In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP> lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) writes:
>I was interested in purchaseing a 386 AT clone for the purpose of
>runninf SCO Xenix/386 on it. I am currenly using Xenix/386 for the
>Compaq at work.
>
> From what a friend tells me, Xenix 386 will only run on the
>Compaq and the PS/2-80, since SCO developed custom versions of Xenix
>to run on these machines.

Absolutely false.

We handle the Televideo line, and I can assure you that SCO Xenix works fine
on the Tele-386 systems.... (in fact, it works great).

MOST other clones will also run it, but beware of any cheapening in the box
-- memory, DMA and other problems all show up fast under Xenix if you've got
any flaky components.... The only *SURE* gotcha is if your '386 chip is
lacking the double "sigma" signs on it -- then you have a 16-bit code only
version which will definately not work.

The Tele's have been rock solid reliable for us and our customers.

--
Karl Denninger (ddsw1!karl) Data: (312) 566-8912, Voice: (312) 566-8910
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"

James Van Artsdalen

unread,
Aug 25, 1988, 7:16:33 PM8/25/88
to
In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP>, lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) wrote:

> From what a friend tells me, Xenix 386 will only run on the
> Compaq and the PS/2-80, since SCO developed custom versions of Xenix
> to run on these machines.

Not true. Xenix runs on the PC's Ltd machines, and probably most any
other 386 clone. There's nothing different about the Compaq from the
others - I can't see what a unique Compaq version would be based on.
--
James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die"
Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746

id for use with uunet/usenet

unread,
Aug 25, 1988, 9:28:28 PM8/25/88
to
In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP>, lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) writes:
> I was interested in purchaseing a 386 AT clone for the purpose of
> From what a friend tells me, Xenix 386 will only run on the
> Compaq and the PS/2-80, since SCO developed custom versions of Xenix
> to run on these machines.
>
> My question is: is this true? Are there 386 Clones that will
> run 386 Xenix (and what are they)

SCO has a versions of Xenix 386 for regular AT 386s and the PS/2 386s.
Any clone which is a true clone will work.

Jonathan Bayer

James Van Artsdalen

unread,
Aug 26, 1988, 1:34:49 AM8/26/88
to
In article <15...@ddsw1.UUCP>, ka...@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) wrote:

> [...] The only *SURE* gotcha is if your '386 chip is


> lacking the double "sigma" signs on it -- then you have a 16-bit code only
> version which will definately not work.

Is the step D 386 part in distribution yet? It should be if I recall
the timetable. Even the double-sigma parts may be out of date. Maybe
an Intel person could enlighten us as to how to tell the chips apart.

I find it interesting that Intel won't replace the chips. There is
this thing called "implied warranty of fitness" that applies to
manufacturers in every state in the US (except maybe Louisiana): it
would appear that the older 386s fail this test of fitness for the
claimed usage (ie, mathematical processing). Has anyone attempted
to get a part of Intel by threating to file over this?

Joe Bob Willie

unread,
Aug 26, 1988, 12:57:44 PM8/26/88
to
In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP> lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) writes:
> My question is: is this true? Are there 386 Clones that will
>run 386 Xenix (and what are they)

i was also somewhat confused about a year ago by the marketing hype
from sco. they seemed to imply that 386 xenix was only running on the
ps/2, which was followed by the compaq ads.

sco xenix 386 runs on just about any at/386 machine. i run it on a wyse
model 3216, i've heard of it running on NEC machines.

there is a special version for the compaq, i believe this is because of
the cache. the wyse has 0 wait state memory so it doesn't need a cache
or a special version.
--
j...@rpp386.uucp (The Beach Bum at The Big "D" Home for Wayward Hackers)

"ANSI C: Just say no"
-- Me.

Michel R. Johnston

unread,
Aug 26, 1988, 3:01:58 PM8/26/88
to
In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP> lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) writes:
> My question is: is this true? Are there 386 Clones that will
>run 386 Xenix (and what are they)
>

I would be interested in hearing about this myself. It seems that the clone
manufacturers have been quick to come out with these machines (386'ers).
Now I don't know about you but if I am going to shell out between 2-3 grand
for a barebones 386 machine it better darn well run *NIX well.


+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Michael R. Johnston | @NET: mi...@cpmain.uucp, mi...@dasys1.uucp |
| Franchise Data Spec | UUCP: {cmcl2!phri!, uunet} dasys1!cpmain!mikej |
| Career Employment Svc.| philabs!mergvax!cpmain!mikej |
| Westbury, NY | PHONE:516-285-7730 DISCLAIMER:"I didn't say it!"|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Michael R. Johnston | @NET: mi...@cpmain.uucp, mi...@dasys1.uucp |
| Franchise Data Spec | UUCP: {cmcl2!phri!, uunet} dasys1!cpmain!mikej |
| Career Employment Svc.| philabs!mergvax!cpmain!mikej |
| Westbury, NY | PHONE:516-285-7730 DISCLAIMER:"I didn't say it!"|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

Joe Bob Willie

unread,
Aug 26, 1988, 7:00:18 PM8/26/88
to
In article <69...@bigtex.uucp> ja...@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
>Is the step D 386 part in distribution yet? It should be if I recall
>the timetable. Even the double-sigma parts may be out of date. Maybe
>an Intel person could enlighten us as to how to tell the chips apart.
>
>I find it interesting that Intel won't replace the chips. There is
>this thing called "implied warranty of fitness" that applies to
>manufacturers in every state in the US (except maybe Louisiana): it
>would appear that the older 386s fail this test of fitness for the
>claimed usage (ie, mathematical processing). Has anyone attempted
>to get a part of Intel by threating to file over this?

i was of the impression intel replaced all of the 32 bit multiply bug
chips (or offered to) when they admitted there was a bug in the
silicon. so it would appear that intel is willing to replace some
chips which they sold as being non-defective.

i heard that the 16-bit-only 386's were sold as 16 bit only parts to
cut-rate hardware houses for use in clones that were never intended
to run native 386 code. if this is the case, the beef is with the
system builder, not intel. if the system is built with a 16 bit only
part and advertised as a 32 bit system, i would venture a deceptive
advertising or deceptive trade practices suit is in order.

as for lousisiana and its strange laws, you might have better
protection in louisiana than the rest of the country. there is a
legal thingy in louisiana called "demand performance" which means
that once you have paid for something and they have accepted the
money, they have to make it work or give you back your money. this
also extends any implied or limited warrantees to last forever if
the manufacturer knew about the problem when purchased the goods.

Louis Schmittroth

unread,
Aug 26, 1988, 9:06:12 PM8/26/88
to
In article <15...@ddsw1.UUCP>, ka...@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes:
> In article <4...@yunccn.UUCP> lan...@yunccn.UUCP (J. Paul Landolt) writes:
>
> We handle the Televideo line, and I can assure you that SCO Xenix works fine
> on the Tele-386 systems.... (in fact, it works great).
>
I also run Xenix 386 on the Tele-386 and it has been rock solid. I
have only the 2MB board and run two or three users very nicely on
SCO FoxBase+. Recommended.

--

Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions.
Computer Science
Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louis

se...@techsup.uucp

unread,
Aug 27, 1988, 12:38:00 AM8/27/88
to

just an additional contribution to the fray...

SCO Xenix 386 also works rather well on the Tandy 4000. In fact,
(unless V2.3 supports it, I've no documentation which would indicate
one way or the other), if you want to run an SCSI hard drive, you
would need to buy the OS (V2.2.4 SCO) from Tandy.

Only unusual item I can think of is that you need a minimum of
2 meg installed to install the system (otherwise you panic during
installation).

(just a minor footnote....)

valerie see .... techsup!qat!valsee

Jim Morton

unread,
Aug 31, 1988, 11:42:59 AM8/31/88
to
> > My question is: is this true? Are there 386 Clones that will
> >run 386 Xenix (and what are they)
> i was also somewhat confused about a year ago by the marketing hype
> from sco. they seemed to imply that 386 xenix was only running on the
> ps/2, which was followed by the compaq ads.

There has been so much confusion over this I thought I would just type in
the info from the 2.2 Xenix release notes. The versions are:
386AT - for industry standard 386 machines with AT bus
386PS - for PS/2 model 80 and compatibles
386AT ESDI - for industry standard 386 machines with AT bus and
SMS OMTI 8620 and 8627 disk controllers

The 386AT version has been used successfully on the following machines:
ACER 1100 Corvus 331
Compaq 386 Compaq 386/20
ITT 386 Mitsubishi PC-386
Noble 386 Olivetti M380
Tandy 4000 TI System 1300
Wyse 386 Zenith 386
Intel Inboard/386 in Intel-supported 286 based machine

Note that I am just quoting the 2.2.2 release notes here, I personally
have used 386 Xenix in many other machines, these are just the ones
SCO lists. The 2.3 release notes list MANY more, as well as including
a new SCSI version.

--
Jim Morton, APPLiX Inc., Westboro, MA
UUCP: ...harvard!m2c!applix!jim
j...@applix.m2c.org

Chip Rosenthal

unread,
Sep 1, 1988, 9:05:38 AM9/1/88
to
In article <11...@steinmetz.ge.com> davi...@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
> One thing to test right after installation: use the "dump" utility to
>backup to floppy. This runs two DMA channels and the CPU in one block of
>memory, and has caused parity on almost half the machines I've used.
>Nothing that a memory fix won't cure, but catch it while the warrantee
>is good.

My favorite is to run several pathalias processes. A good trick is to
make a seperate copy of the executable for each process so that the text
isn't shared. I located a paging panic error in my new 386 system with
this. However, trying to explain this to the DOSheads at the store who
sold me the system has been a barrel of fun.
--
Chip Rosenthal ch...@vector.UUCP | I've been a wizard since my childhood.
Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-0486 | And I've earned some respect for my art.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages