Submission for comp-unix-microport

[UNIX-UNIX Cp]

Path: tolerant!voder!apple!rutgers!att!ulysses!andante!alice!debra
From: debra at alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: differences in Xenix and the rest
Message-ID: <8705 at alice.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jan 89 18:21:57 GMT
References: <9049 at cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Reply-To: debra at alice.UUCP ()
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs
Lines: 27

In article <9049 at cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> tim at cit-vax.UUCP (Timothy L. Kay) writes:
>I am in the market for a Unix for a 386.  I was considering Microport,
>but I have heard many bad things, and now they have raised their
>prices....
>
>1.  Now that SVR3.2 is out (with the Xenix merged stuff), is SCO Xenix
>just another derivation from the same sources?

Thank God no! It is still SCO Xenix, but it has been somewhat extended
to be able to run 386-Unix binaries. It is supposed to become more SVID
compliant too I believe.

>2.  Is the Xenix that Microsoft is selling just a repackaging of SCO
>Xenix?  Are they up to date?

I don't know exactly what Microsoft is selling nowadays. They did the
initial port to the Intel architecture, and many companies have bought
that version and added machine-specific things. (Altos-Xenix, IBM-PC
Xenix...) SCO does all the XT, AT and 386-AT stuff, added virtual
consoles, and more stuff. They have the most up to date version for AT's,
PS/2's and 386-AT's at all times.

Paul.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------
|debra at research.att.com   | uunet!research!debra     |
------------------------------------------------------