home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.questions:13834 alt.folklore.computers:16640
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,alt.folklore.computers
- Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!sugar!peter
- From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
- Subject: Re: Whence Unix? (was Re: IS UNIX DEAD?) (New Thread?)
- Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:44:02 GMT
- Message-ID: <By5xpG.Dvq@NeoSoft.com>
- References: <hT8BrAbBBh107h@lorc.UUCP> <1992Nov20.183900.16110@bilver.uucp> <9211212055.50@rmkhome.UUCP>
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <9211212055.50@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
- > >The *IX variants up to that time had a real problem running on an 8086
- > >chip. I wouldn't say it was slow, but the only other computer that I
- > >saw that was slower was turned off.
-
- That's interesting, considering that for most real applications Xenix was
- a lot faster than MS-DOS: the disk I/O was faster, the screen I/O was faster,
- and the system as a whole was more robust and reliable. Unfortunately, in a
- time when 5 MB hard drives were still being sold, you pretty much required
- half of the 10 MB drive in an XT for the O/S and swap, and if you added the
- compiler you only had 1-2 MB free. That's what really killed it.
-
- > >Microsoft's Xenix efforts were for Tandy on their 68000
- > >based machines.
-
- With a 6MB (not 5MB) winchester. The biggest problem they had was crummy
- mechanical design: here you had an all-in-one computer that rebooted when
- you hit it on the side. Putting a piece of foam tape over one of the circuit
- boards to stop it rubbing against the one next to it (hadn't RS ever heard
- of standoffs?) fixed that.
- --
- Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
- `-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tΣnΣΣn?
- 'U`
- Tarjoilija, tΣmΣ ateria elΣΣ vielΣ.
-