HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Gator Communications - Feeds-R-Us 219-289-3745 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:08:22 GMT

In comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit you write:

>	Yep.  And this is what finally made me drop Dell and go with
>	ODT2.0 for chinet.  Needed the CD-ROM mounted reliably.
>	SOSS, OS/2 and Novell as CD-ROM servers all left something
>	to be desired.  So, installed ODT, grabbed /bin/passwd, /bin/login
>	and /usr/bin/passmgmt off an old version of AT&T sysvr3
>	and removed /tcb and all the auth nonsense.  I was able to 

what is tcb?

>	re-compile the over 100 megs of stuff in /usr/local/bin with just
>	a few problems With 32 megs of memory on a 486/33, it makes a nice 

is this an EISA or ISA machine?

>	multiuser system.
>	With mountable CDROMS yet!

how many CDROMs do you have mounted at any one time (how many does
SCO support?).

Who's CD-Players and disks do you use?

I would love to have CDROMs mounted under Dell.  The question is, would
I rather run SCO with CDROMs or Dell with no CDROMs?  Actually, I'm waiting
for upgrades -- if nothing happens within the next 9 months -- who knows
what my next operating system will be?

Are you bringing in the pagesat feed into the SCO machine?  
Does news just scroll in constantly on the pagesat feed, or does
it stop/start/stop/start?

I assume your news partion is set at 65k inodes -- or are you
somehow mounting another machine (or filesystem) to enable the storage
of more news on-line?

Is everything placed directly into the in.coming directory? 

Have you done any timing to see exactly how far behind the pagesat
feed gets during peak distribution times?

>-- 
>	I am created Shiva the Destroyer; Death, the shatterer of worlds!
>	Who is this dog meat who stands before me now?
>	That's the biz, sweetheart.
>Randy Suess					 randy@chinet.chi.il.us
-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.use.com
keeper of the Gator                                   uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: dominic@skaro.genie.uottawa.ca (Dominic Richens)
Subject: Re: EISA on SCO
Originator: dominic@shamin.genie.uottawa.ca
Keywords: EISA SCO
Organization: MCRLab - University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:40:22 GMT


In article <1993Jan25.182649.17238@telesoft.com>, holder@telesoft.com (Robert L. Holder @ignite) writes:
! I am not sure whose ethernet or video to choose. I am familar
! with all the ISA choices but not EISA. I would prefer not to
! have to run ISA cards if possible. Can anyone offer a recommendation
! here as well?

Mylex (see their ad in BYTE) make and sell a range of EISA cards.  I have a
couple of Adaptec 1740 SCSI adapters, which work fine.  Also ATI should
have their EISA version of the Graphics Ultra out RSN.

-- 
!@$^&*)($#$@!@#$^&*()_+_)(*&^$#@!$^&*()_+)(*&^$#@$^&*+_(*&^$#@#^&*()&*$#@(*&+_$!
 Dominic Richens  :  dominic@shamin.genie.uottawa.ca  :  Tel. (613) 564 9911 
      MCRLab, Dept of Elec Eng, University of Ottawa, K1N 6N5, CANADA   
"You construct intricate rituals which allow you to touch the skin of other men"
                                                - Barbara Kruger
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4
From: shane@cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough)
Subject: Re: Where to get manuals for Sys 5 R: 4.0 (Was R:4.2)2
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, State U of NY at Stony Brook
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 00:59:23 GMT

ryerson.schwark (ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com) wrote:

: Here is the listing of SVR4.2 manuals, their cost, ISBN numbers
: and release dates from Prentice Hall.  If you'd like to order
: any, the single order number is 515-284-6761.  I had the list
: typed in as I received it from Prentice Hall.  I imagine those
: listed as available in January, are indeed available.  I'm
: checking on what they mean by "Special Order" for those three
: volumes.

Do you have the data for the SVR4.0 numbers as well? I assume the
phone number stays the same :-).

: Ry Schwark
: USL PR
: ry@usl.com

-Shane

--
Shane Bouslough       | #include <stddisc.h>
shane@sbcs.sunysb.edu | "Follow your bliss" - Joseph Campbell
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: lubkin@cs.rochester.edu (Saul Lubkin)
Subject: xdvi problem:  Some lines come out distorted
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:44:42 GMT

I'm having a problem with the display of xdvi.  While it generally works
well, some lines come out distorted.  Namely, they come partly "doubled up".
That is, these few lines seem to be partially printed twice, slightly offset
(vertically) from each other.  Somethines, a whole line comes out that way;
more often, part of a line.   The "doubling" is usually only partial -- that
is, part of the line is printed at one height, and part vertically offset a bit.

I'm using ISC Unix 3.0 (same problem with 2.2.1), a version of SVR3.2 for
the '386.  I've compiled with gcc, cc, and with every conceivable compile time
option -- including "-DNOTOOL", etc.  Dispalying with unshrunk fonts
("-s 1") doesn't help.  The same problem occurrs using Dell Unix SVR4.0.

I'm using MetroLink's X, X11R4 -- but, as I recall, I had the same problem
with other servers (e.g., ISC's native server).  I'm using an Orchid
ProDesigner card; but as I recall, I had the same problem with an earlier
Trident card (I think).  The monitor is an Idek Liyama; it's in SVGA
1024x768 mode, interlaced.  (But as I recall using the monitor in other
modes produces the shame problem.)

Using MetroLink's own compiled version of xdvi, under Dell Unix SVR4.0,
was no better.  (This was also compiled by MetroLink from an earlier
release of xdvi.)

This problem seems to exist only with the xdvi client.  I haven't seen
this problem with anything else -- including other TeX previewers.  So, I
suspect that it may be a bug in xdvi.  However, no one on any other platform,
to the best of my knowledge, has reporeted this peculiar problem.

Note:  This problem does not occur if one uses dvips and ghostscript to
preview dvi files.  Or, if one uses DOS and the ArborTeX previewer.

I'm perplexed.  I'd appreciate enlightenment from someone.  As I don't always
read this newsgroup, I'd appreciate email.  I'll summarize to the net when
the problem is solved.


		Sincerely yours,

		Saul Lubkin
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: shane@cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, State U of NY at Stony Brook
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:42:27 GMT

Fred Rump from home (fr@compu.com) wrote:

: >>And how does this Equinox cluster controller look?  How did they hook 200
: >>users onto their system.  I mean physically.
: 
: >boxes bolted on large pieces of plywook with a nest of wires (tie wrapped
: >of course)..
:
: Sounds like a real rube-goldberg setup and not very professional.

"Oh yeah? Well, your mother uses goto's!" Sheesh I wondered when this
was going to start sounding like a cat fight. Here it comes.

: W. Fred Rump 	office:	   fred@COMPU.COM     "A man's library is a sort of 
: 26 Warren St.   home: fr@icdi10.compu.com 	harem" - Emerson (1860) 
: Beverly, NJ. 08010                          		 
: 609-386-6846    bang:uunet!cdin-1!icdi10!fr   

-Shane

--
Shane Bouslough       | #include <stddisc.h>
shane@sbcs.sunysb.edu | "Follow your bliss" - Joseph Campbell
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1333 comp.unix.sys5.r3:413
From: dsiegel@optima.UUCP (David R Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r3
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:53:39 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit



| I would love to have CDROMs mounted under Dell.  The question is, would
| I rather run SCO with CDROMs or Dell with no CDROMs?  Actually, I'm waiting
| for upgrades -- if nothing happens within the next 9 months -- who knows
| what my next operating system will be?

what about those cdrom drivers over on dell2.dell.com in the unsupported
directory.  (I know, they're "unsupported" but do they *work*)?

has anybody out there tried 'em?  should they work for pretty much any
SCSI CDROM?

-dave

Dave Siegel
Comp Engr, UofA
Unix Systems, BioTec
President, RTD Systems and Networking, Inc.


Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: cpcahil@vti.com (Conor P. Cahill)
Subject: Re: ISC 3.2 kernel building problem.
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:08:22 GMT

mirek@unixg.ubc.ca (Miroslaw Piaseczny) writes:

># kconfig

>Enter Choice [1-3,q]: 2
>executing //etc/conf/bin/idbuild -k 3 -r /
>undefined                       first referenced
> symbol                             in file
>fdsk_ctl_init                       /etc/conf/pack.d/dsk/space.o

Sounds like you are missing, or haven't configured, the HPDD.

-- 
*** SENTINEL(tm) The ultimate Debugging Environment - email for more info ***

Conor P. Cahill              (703)430-9247            cpcahil@virtech.vti.com
Virtual Technologies, Inc.  46030 Manekin Plaza          Dulles, VA 20166 
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1335 biz.sco.general:5579 comp.unix.sys5.r3:414 comp.unix.sysv386:17909
From: adams@pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de (Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:05:27
Organization: TH-Darmstadt
	<ADAMS.93Jan23013219@PDV2.pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de>
	<C1DCED.D19@ddsw1.mcs.com> <2B640EE0.675B@tct.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de
In-reply-to: chip@tct.com's message of Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:01:36 GMT

To: 
In article <2B640EE0.675B@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>   According to karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger):
>   >Certainly, [PC clones] have the installed base now.  But these
>   >"installed" systems do not play well together, they're unstable (ask
>   >any DOS user) and to get away from that is just too damn expensive.

As DEC was able to build a binary compiler VAX executables to alpha,
same should be possible for a less complex architecture like 386.
How about jsut to compile your 386-Windows-3.1 excutables into 
R4000-IRIX-X-executables? Impossible? ...would not bet !

>   It's DOS and Windows that are unstable, not the hardware architecture.
>   Contrast UNIX on a PC clone: it keeps going, and going, and going...

NO! 
Besides the problems with Intel CPUs, just remembering the
problems aorund B5/B6 and C0/C1 stepping of 80386, 
DMA/Floating Point Exception/Cache_miss_fill of 80486,
beside the problems given by current glue chip sets, you should remember:

The AT bus was NEVER designed for HIGH PERFORMANCE system, but
cheap. It lacks a well thought timing [ yes, please refer to the 
standard, some address lines are to be latches/decoded, before they
are even generated].

The bus lacks well defined specifications of electrical impedance, no
adequate [ at actual impedance, guessing around 130 Ohm] termination
is even suggested. This would have required more powerful drivers on
both the add on cards and mother board.

This makes the implementation of the ISA bus sensitive against small
shifts in timing and phase (dispersion[correct t.t ??)  of signals.
(Sure, you did never see a PC going south, just by adding one card
more, did you? IRQ-, DMA- and address conflicts excluded prior.) 

Here around are two similiar equipped 386-PCs with ISA bus,
one 386-25sx, the other a 386-33dx. The DX does not even like
to boot the Linux-0.99-p4 kernel, the SX is running since
appearance. So much about comatibility....

>   "Goes away from DOS" ... to systems that support DOS applications,
>   like OS/2 and Windows and modern UNIX VP/ix or DOS Merge or SoftPC.
>   Those real people-use-'em DOS apps won't disappear for a decade or so.

Why? They are now substituted with programs having similiar user interface
(lock and feel), will be able to handle the old data, but 
nothing more. 

Why should any system addministrator like the hassle with
extended and expanded (or was it just expected) memory,
lack of user and process isolation(viri ...). Tell me why?


best, adams
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Hanse Networking e. V., Hamburg, Germany
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:19:03 GMT

larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

>The Sparc Classic will run all Sparc software?

SPARC Classis can only run Solaris 2. That means, that most of
the old Software will not run for a time (freeware espcially).

And note, that a SPARC 2 or SPARC classic is much slower than a
66MHz-486 on interger-operations.

-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de>, WAVEDATA, Norderstedt, Germany
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:06:39 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <C1BJLB.4Mq@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>In article <C1BDIs.Evn@trauma.rn.com> larry@trauma.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>
>>The bottom line is with Dell it truely is plug and play.
>
>The only thing really missing from Dell is CDROM support.  Is there
>a 3rd party add-on if that is needed later?
>
>Les Mikesell
> les@chinet.chi.il.us

I'd be surprised if Chantel doesn't have this available. I ought to call
them and check.

-
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1371 biz.sco.general:5663 comp.unix.sys5.r3:442 comp.unix.sysv386:17932
From: dlparker@dlpinc00.rn.com (David L. Parker)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Automated Data Management Services
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:09:28 GMT

In article <ADAMS.93Jan25230527@PDV2.pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de> adams@pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de (Adams) writes:
>
>Why should any system addministrator like the hassle with
>extended and expanded (or was it just expected) memory,
>

Don't forget expended.
-- 
Dave Parker           -          uucp:  dlparker%dlpinc00@gator.rn.com
Automated Data Management Services
Pleasant Hill, MO 64080-1331   -   (816) 987-5167/5218 voice/fax
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: guy@Auspex.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:39:31 GMT
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara

>If someone were to ship
>a RISC platform with an intact V.4 (instead of BSD) I'd be more
>inclined.

Depends on your definition of "intact", but the person to whose article
you're following up spoke of "low-cost SPARC-based systems", and the
vendor of the most recently announced "low-cost SPARC-based systems"
that I've seen supports *only* their SVR4-based release; the biggest
difference between it and a vanilla SVR4.0 appears to be that they don't
use DWARF as the debugger symbol table format (they may switch when
DWARF 2.0 comes out) - the systems administration stuff looks pretty
much like vanilla SVR4, at least at the command-line level, although
they did their own whizzo GUIoid stuff.

Of course, a lot of their customer base is *complaining* that they're
only offering their SVR4-based OS on the SPARCclassic and SPARCstation
LX....

 >....most V.4 will handle net source with only minor
 >changes at the makefile level. Not all, I agree, but when I got my
 >first V.4 I ported about 60 apps in a weekend, and most of the fixes
 >were genuinely non-portable code which was found with the compiler, not
 >the debugger.

Some of the credit for that probably goes to the aforementioned vendor
of RISC platforms with SVR4, and their deal with AT&T (you know, the
deal that got the folks who formed OSF all riled up...).

(It's somewhat ironic that the criticisms were largely "uh-oh, Sun and
AT&T are teaming up to crush the UNIX marketplace and make it all
SPARC"; well, AT&T never built the SPARC machines they were thinking of
doing, and, while SVR4 could conceivably put most of the UNIX
marketplace behind one particular architecture, that architecture may
come from a Silicon Valley company other than Sun - which might explain
why Sun's doing a version of Solaris for the most popular flavor of
machine built from that architecture....)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:57:09 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to adams@pdv2.fmr.maschinenbau.th-darmstadt.de (Adams):
>In article <2B6010B6.14DF3@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> > Sun can't amortize SPARC development costs like the PC clone makers can.
>
>Why? Chip development was done by Cypress, Logitec, TI, NEC or Fujitsu
>[unsure] etc., but outside of SUN. SUN told them just specifications.

CPU development isn't the point.  It's the rest of the computer that
counts.  Of all computer markets, only the PC clone market has driven
the creation of whole-motherboard chip sets, such as by OPTi and
Chips&Technologies.  And common peripheral boards for the ISA bus are
so cheap you can practically give them away.

>>   PC UNIX rides that wave of good and cheap hardware, 
>Current cheap PC hardware does not seem to match current challenge very
>well. Why do you think do Local Bus etc occur concurrently to GUIs?

You've missed the point.  The PC clone market is so large, and they
payoff for price/performance improvement is so good, it is
economically feasible to throw dollars at re-engineering the
architecture when its age starts to show -- and such re-engineering
does not sacrifice software compatibility.  Local bus video is one
result of this process; it has breathed new life into PC clones used
for graphics-intensive applications (and/or with GUIs).

>At least here in Europe, one can prove, that workstations based
>on PC will be tremedously more expensive than one based on SPARC.

If that's true, perhaps the process of exporting the computers, with
tariffs etc, throws prices off.

>Do not forget, that clone makers start to focus on SPARC meanwhile.

You mean they're beginning to consider diversifying, in addition to
maintaining the continuously profitable PC clone industry.

>Window NT is targeted to processors like Mips R3000/R4000 and DEC/alpha.

And the 486.

>Next versions of OS/2 will be based on a mciro kernel, and IBM sees
>OS/2 just as one step into distributed computing (DCE) and propose
>their PowerRisc therefor.

OS/2, microkernel or no, will run on the 486 for the forseeable future.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Xref: sparky comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:1332 comp.unix.sys5.r3:412 comp.unix.sysv386:17908
From: dsiegel@optima.UUCP (David R Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r3,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:37:30 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit

From article <1993Jan25.162221.8282@crd.ge.com>, by davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen):

>   If the rumors coming out of Intel are correct, the FP performance will
> be very good, perhaps SPECfp in the 50-70 range. Of course if the rumors

/nod  they're saying 80-100 MIPS


> | As the world goes away from DOS to other choices the chip becomes less
> | important.  Even NT will (supposedly) run on other platforms.  The <intent>
> | if you remember, was to run on the MIPS R4000 (before MIPS got bought; who
> | knows what SGI will do with this)

>   Have you heard anything to make you think this might change? I've read
> stories of NT on R4000 and Alpha chips, so I assume the it's still going
> that way.

Both SGI and DEC have machines in the wings ready to go.  They're still waiting
for NT to be released, though...  I don't know much about the architecture
of the SGI other than it'll be running an R4000, but the DEC's alpha will be
on an EISA bus.


> this. The software is still considerably cheaper for PC base, and that
> keeps system cost down.

not to mention the fact that it's still cheaper to swap the 486 motherboard
for a P5 than it is to go out and dump $5K min. for a SPARC 10.


-dave

Dave Siegel
Comp Engr, UofA
Unix Systems, BioTec
President, RTD Systems and Networking, Inc.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,biz.sco.general,comp.unix.sys5.r3
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: PC Unix/Xenix vendors
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:57:18 GMT

In <1993Jan27.152657.11295@sbcs.sunysb.edu> shane@cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough) writes:

:The reason people keep asking Fred about what's in the SCO base release
:is not because they want to show him that it lacks features (which he
:seems to perpetually defend by pointing at his user base), but to show
:him the same features plus more can be had for the same price. This is
:not a technical issue, it's a value issue. This thread will never die
:unless people realize this.

Price shouldn't really be the issue for most business applications.
The most important factor to me is the viability of the company
supplying the systems.  I choose SCO in 1988, not for technical
or price reasons, but because they seemed to have a handle on
marketing and would probably survive.  At that time, the primary
competition was Interactive and Microport.  It's in my interest
to have my suppliers stay in business, and they cannot do that
without making a profit on their products (look at the airlines
if you want an excellent example of stupid pricing).

I can take a Xenix system I sold in 1988 (version 2.2.4) and upgrade
it via SCO to the current 2.3.4 for $125.00 or to the full ODT 2.0
Server system for about $1,700.  Can I do that with Microport?
SunSoft isn't real friendly to people who bought Interactive
before they did.

SCO chooses not to be on the bleeding edge of Unix because their
customer base needs reliability with reasonable performance.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
From: crosson@cam.nist.gov (Robert Crosson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: EISA on SCO
Keywords: EISA SCO
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:41:59 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1993Jan25.182649.17238@telesoft.com>, holder@telesoft.com (Robert L. Holder @ignite) writes:
|> ! I am not sure whose ethernet or video to choose. I am familar
|> ! with all the ISA choices but not EISA. I would prefer not to
|> ! have to run ISA cards if possible. Can anyone offer a recommendation
|> ! here as well?

The February, 1993, edition of Unix World has an article
"Should Your Next Unix Workstation Be a PC?" in
which they evaluated eight PCs running Unix.  Five of the
systems were EISA bus systems, and they tested at least
SCO and SVR4.2 on them.

Bob Crosson
crosson@cam.nist.gov
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4