12 Nov
2001
12 Nov
'01
5:07 a.m.
I had three IBM 9000s (hal, sal, and pal, of course) running Xenix.
The hardware was solid gold for reliability and ran unattended for
months at a remote site. Xenix was also rock solid, and I could
depend on it to send me daily emails with status, etc., of the site.
Dave
Lawrence Walker wrote:
I have an excellent book on Xenix "Understanding Xenix" by Paul Weinberg
and James Groff put out by Que in 85. It goes into details about computer
systems and Unix history. Apparently MS was working on Xenix before they
developed DOS. It also lists the various versions of Unix and mentions an
earlier version of Unix for PC/ATs by Interactive Systems called PC/IX introed
in Jan 84. The book lists the vendors who offered Xenix.
Vendor System
Altos Altos 586
Altos 986
Apple Lisa
Durango Poppy ll
Encore MPU-8000
General Automation Zebra 2000
IBM IBM PC/AT
System 9000
Intel Intel 286/280
Tandy/RS TRS-80 M.16
Spectrix Spectrix 10
Visual Technology Visual 2000
They also describe it as a 16/32 bit system. It offered the choice of 3 Shells.
The Bourne, the C, and an unique Xenix shell - the visual shell.
Lawrence
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)mts.net
--
David C. Jenner
djenner(a)earthlink.net
Xenix was
also a popular option for the TRS-80 Model II/12/16/6000 series.
I couldn't remember which of the above it was available for,
so I didn't name a specific model. I've never used it on any of the
above machines myself. Was it any more usable than the version on
the Model 2000?
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757