Mono VGA In Xenix

[Brian Chapman]

fred at cdin-1.UUCP (Fred Rump) writes:

>rogerk at sco.COM (Roger Knopf 5502) writes:

>>We still make bug fixes for Xenix. If enough
>>customers ask for it, we may even add a feature or two.

>>This is driven _totally_ by demand from the marketplace.

>OK, then why don't we start by giving us support for a monochrome VGA monitor?
>These are less expensive than color but the resolution is much better then 
>ordinary mono screens.

The official SCO posting a while back said:
	"At this point, SCO has committed to actively support
	SCO XENIX 386 until at least the end of 1991, and we
	will support SCO XENIX 286 indefinitely.
	Furthermore, we will extend our support beyond those
	dates if customer demand warrants it."

Xenix sales are still quite strong.


Monochrome support is on the way.

Monochrome support comes in several levels:
1) Does it work for text multiscreens?		Yes always has.
2) Does it work for mono EGA graphics?		Yes always has.
3) Does it work for VGA color modes?		Yes, for PS/2 Xenix in
						    the current UFM.  AT/GT
						    support in the next UFM
						    that is in beta now.
4) Does it set up a proper gray scale		No, but will be in the
   palette for the color mode automaticly	    next release of UFM.

I get to take the blame for fixes 3 & 4 being necessary.

When I got the first VGA's at SCO.  I looked in the BIOS
manual and saw that most of the modes said "color monitors
only" so I restricted monochrome monitors to only mono text
[ the only modes that have the HW capability for underlining BTW ]
and mono EGA compatible graphics modes, just like the manual
said I should.   If the manual said it was out of spec. to run
a color mode on a monochrome monitor I was not prepared to
question it.

After a while it became apparent that monochrome monitors
could do all the same frequencies as the color monitors and
X windows needed it.  So we added it to the driver, which was
in the Unix source by then.  And people (the Xenix support staff)
demanded the driver for a Xenix supplement as well.

Believe it or not the support staff is on your side!

Not only did they demand and get feature from Unix
installed in Xenix but bug fix #4 above was spec'ed
by the Xenix support staff to meet the needs of
Ronald Florence (w/ CGI) and  the demands voiced
by the netnews community.

Now a few words about Unix vs. Xenix.

Disclaimer:  THE FOLLOWING IS THE PERSON OPINION OF
	ONE SCO SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMER (ME)
	AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY SCO.

The Unix development staff used to be the Xenix
development staff.  I really do know how you feel!
It takes a lot of time, blood, sweat and tears, to
make a product as good as Xenix 2.3.  So,  why freeze
it and start over with something else?

The reason SCO went to Unix was *not* to obsolete
Xenix,  but because some of SCO largest customers
demanded that we add Unix to our product line.
Have you ever heard the argument "But Xenix isn't
Unix"?	  (Grrrrrr).

Well, I think 3.2v2 is, at last, as good as Xenix and
I'm proud of it!  But I run Xenix at home,  same as
you.  Why?  Because I can't afford the kind of machine
Unix 3.2 is supposed run on.

In My Humble Opinion, as long as the price of computer
equipment keeps 8Mb RAM, 300 Mb Disk systems as second
tier systems (third tier?) people will keep buying lots
of Xenix.

The above is my opinion, but it is stated SCO *policy*
that as long a people buy lots of Xenix we will support it.

-- 
Brian Chapman		uunet!sco!chapman
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!