Tandy order number for the Adaptec

[Tom Yager]

In article <774 at robechq.UUCP>, eli at robechq.UUCP ( Robec Horsham  PM) writes:
> >In article <196500028 at trsvax> uhclem at trsvax.UUCP writes:
> >
> >On another note, is anyone running SCO Unix?  Does it support SCSI?
> >
> Page 11 of the release notes for SCO UNIX 3.2 says that it
> supports the AHA-154X SCSI.
> 
> I have not tried it myself.
> 
> -- 
> ****************************************************
> Eli Levine           Robec Distributors
>                      rutgers!bpa!temvax!robechq!eli
> ****************************************************

With regard to SCO UNIX System V and Adaptec SCSI:

I have tried it myself, and it does work. Between the revamped filesystem
and the brand-new device drivers, it's one hell of a system compared to
Xenix.

I don't know if SCO is doing anything with regard to upgrades, but I'd
be hard-pressed to find a reason to keep using Xenix (other than $$, which
can be pretty compelling) now that SCO has brought out their 3.2 release.

I've used it with the AHA-1540A and AHA-1542A controllers. The only obvious
difference is that the 1542A has an on-board floppy controller. It does
work quite well, but don't try to use the CDC Wren III drive with it. For
me, this device would not work at all, coughing up unusual controller
errors. The same drive works perfectly under DOS and ISC's 386/ix.
This is the most serious flaw I could find with their SCSI handling.

Everything you love about Xenix is there: the Microsoft C compiler, the
BSD commands, the on-line manual pages. Only this time, SCO has sweetened
the pot with Codeview (if you don't know what that is, ask someone), an
early attempt at POSIX compliance, and (alleged) C2-level security. If
you'd like to buy my copy of Xenix 2.3, you're welcome to it; as far as
I'm concerned, Xenix is dead. The best of it has been moved into a more
robust, more portable platform: System V, release 3.2. I don't speak for
SCO, and they may not wish to have the sheet pulled over Xenix so soon,
so I advise you to take my preaching with a grain of salt. There may be
advantages to sticking with Xenix that I've not seen. So far, the only
obvious ones are the (aforementioned) cost, and the more efficient
floating-point libraries.

Also, when I speak of the demise of Xenix, I mean only the 80386 version.
The other releases will, I'm sure, stay around as long as Intel continues
to sell the lesser processors.

If anyone has a compelling (technical) reason for staying with Xenix, I'd
be interested to hear it. That's not the snooty challenge it seems to be;
I really want to know how the community feels about the changes taking
place at SCO.

If you'd like to know more about SCO UNIX System V, drop me a line.

(ty)

-- 
+--Tom Yager, freelance technical writer-----------------------------------+
|  ARPA: tyager%maxx at m2c.m2c.org (preferred) -or- tyager at apollo.com        | 
|  I speak only for myself     "Are we blind to the truth, or assigned to  |
+--believe it? Only the wise will know."-----------------------------------+