11 Nov
2001
11 Nov
'01
4:26 a.m.
On November 11, Richard.Sandwell(a)roebry.co.uk wrote:
I have an Apricot Xen 'mainframe' which is a
286 based msdos generic from
1986. Its not ibm compatible. Comically, it does have a copy of Windows V1
on its disk which runs, well, like all versions of windows ;-)
Its role was a fileserver for an ms-net network, hence the awful
'mainframe' name. I've always been intrigued that there was a port of
xenix available for this machine - anyone know anything about that, or
about xenix on a 286 based system in general?
I ran SCO Xenix 286 on a few 286 systems back in 1988 or so. It was
abyssmal. I don't remember much about it...I think I blocked it
out. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL
11 Nov
11 Nov
9:35 a.m.
At 10:26 AM 11/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
On November 11, Richard.Sandwell(a)roebry.co.uk wrote:
> I have an Apricot Xen 'mainframe' which is a 286 based msdos generic from
> 1986. Its not ibm compatible. Comically, it does have a copy of Windows V1
> on its disk which runs, well, like all versions of windows ;-)
> Its role was a fileserver for an ms-net network, hence the awful
> 'mainframe' name. I've always been intrigued that there was a port of
> xenix available for this machine - anyone know anything about that, or
> about xenix on a 286 based system in general?
Remember, Xenix was originally a Microsoft product, they then sold it off
to SCO (for a % ownership in SCO)
10:32 a.m.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Geoff Reed wrote:
At 10:26 AM 11/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
Actually Xenix was never a Microsoft branded product. It was Microsoft's
but they only sold Xenix as OEM'd versions to vendors like SCO and lots
of HW vendors who then added they modifications to support their specific
products (like Apricot, whose machines were far from plain PCs).
There were several Xenix versions (none of which had the Microsoft brand).
I think later M$ got some kind of stake on SCO.
Then again Xenix was the clear proof that M$ can not even compy a great OS
correctly. I remember using a version of Xenix that only allowed 8.3
naming of files (like M$-DOS)! Typical M$ "innovation"... pheb!
Speaking of M$, I was reading the other day a keynote speech by BillyBoy
in which he claimed that DOS got such a widespread use because they
contributed with an open architecture, the PC. As far as I know the PC was
not open at all (i.e. the BIOS, etc), and most importantly the PC was not
their architecture! The key components of what made a PC a PCE were
supposed to be propietary, and most of the early clones that used DOS had
copied BIOSs which were theoretically illegal. So basically BillyBoy was
admiting that his empire was based on the encouragement of piracy by their
OEM clients of IBM's IP. Interesting, eh?
_______________________________________________________________________
Francisco J. MesaMartinez http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~javi
_______________________________________________________________________
Basking Engineering Ctr #228 email:javi@cse.ucsc.edu
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 phone:(831) 502-2073
_______________________________________________________________________
On November 11, Richard.Sandwell(a)roebry.co.uk
wrote:
> I have an Apricot Xen 'mainframe' which is a 286 based msdos generic from
> 1986. Its not ibm compatible. Comically, it does have a copy of Windows V1
> on its disk which runs, well, like all versions of windows ;-)
> Its role was a fileserver for an ms-net network, hence the awful
> 'mainframe' name. I've always been intrigued that there was a port of
> xenix available for this machine - anyone know anything about that, or
> about xenix on a 286 based system in general?
Remember, Xenix was originally a Microsoft product, they then sold it off
to SCO (for a % ownership in SCO)
11:16 a.m.
Actually Xenix was never a Microsoft branded product.
It was Microsoft's
but they only sold Xenix as OEM'd versions to vendors like SCO and lots
of HW vendors who then added they modifications to support their specific
products (like Apricot, whose machines were far from plain PCs).
Tandy sold a version for the Model 2000, as well as some of
the later TRS-80 badged machines. The Model 2000's version didn't
work well at all and brought to light all kinds of nasty bugs in the
machine that didn't otherwise show up. Most of the later service
bulletins released by Tandy for the machine were geared towards
fixing these bugs under Xenix.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
11:40 a.m.
Xenix was also a popular option for the TRS-80 Model II/12/16/6000 series.
--Mike
Michael Nadeau
Editorial Services
603-893-2379
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Xenix ?
Actually Xenix
was never a Microsoft branded product. It was Microsoft's
but they only sold Xenix as OEM'd versions to vendors like SCO and lots
of HW vendors who then added they modifications to support their specific
products (like Apricot, whose machines were far from plain PCs).
Tandy sold a version for the Model 2000, as well as some of
the later TRS-80 badged machines. The Model 2000's version didn't
work well at all and brought to light all kinds of nasty bugs in the
machine that didn't otherwise show up. Most of the later service
bulletins released by Tandy for the machine were geared towards
fixing these bugs under Xenix.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
12:15 p.m.
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
12:54 p.m.
I've never used anything but TRSDOS on the Model II, so I can't speak to the
relative usefulness. However, I believe that there were more Xenix
implementations on the II/12/16/6000 line than on any other system and by a
wide margin. Like I said, it was a popular option and well-supported by
Tandy. The 2000 was quirky enough that a lot of software ported to it didn't
behave as it was supposed to, and it never sold well enough for the software
makers to care much about fixing the problems. Tandy had a hard time
convincing software developers to support the 2000, and was rumored to have
paid Lotus $250,000 to port 1-2-3. My guess is that Microsoft made less than
a whole-hearted effort to port Xenix as cleanly as it could have.
--Mike
Michael Nadeau
Editorial Services
603-893-2379
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Xenix ?
>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
1:23 p.m.
Tandy. The 2000 was quirky enough that a lot of
software ported to it didn't
behave as it was supposed to, and it never sold well enough for the software
makers to care much about fixing the problems. Tandy had a hard time
convincing software developers to support the 2000, and was rumored to have
paid Lotus $250,000 to port 1-2-3. My guess is that Microsoft made less than
a whole-hearted effort to port Xenix as cleanly as it could have.
That could be true concerning the port. The 2000 did have
some nice software ported to it though, just not enough. Though the
machine did have it's quirks, it's unfortunate that it was largely
ignored because programmers chose to bang the hardware directly.
It's actually quite a nice machine.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
2:20 p.m.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Michael Nadeau wrote:
I've never used anything but TRSDOS on the Model
II, so I can't speak to the
relative usefulness. However, I believe that there were more Xenix
implementations on the II/12/16/6000 line than on any other system and by a
wide margin. Like I said, it was a popular option and well-supported by
Tandy. The 2000 was quirky enough that a lot of software ported to it didn't
behave as it was supposed to, and it never sold well enough for the software
makers to care much about fixing the problems. Tandy had a hard time
convincing software developers to support the 2000, and was rumored to have
paid Lotus $250,000 to port 1-2-3. My guess is that Microsoft made less than
a whole-hearted effort to port Xenix as cleanly as it could have.
--Mike
Michael Nadeau
Editorial Services
603-893-2379
Somehow, I am inclined to question if there was a Z-80 version of Xenix
and, if not, then there was none for the Model II.
- don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Xenix ?
>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
4:45 p.m.
Don Maslin wrote:
Somehow, I am inclined to question if there was a Z-80
version of Xenix
and, if not, then there was none for the Model II.
The only OS that came close to Unix for 8 bit micros was OS/9 for the
6809 and
even then you needed a external MMU.
Was not Xenix limited to a 64K code and 64k data segment on the PC? If
this was
the case this could be one factor in its demise. Another factor is RS
started
their clones of the pc at this time as well a large cost for the
software compared
to DOS.
Ben Franchuk.
--
Live "Pre-historic Cpu's" -- and you thought they were extinct.
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
12 Nov
12 Nov
11:16 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 727 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011112/26f59eb4/at…
9:18 a.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Well I ran OS-9 level #1 too, but for any real work level 2 (mmu) was
needed.
I had a Coco 3 once but never got OS-9 level 2 because RS dropped the
product
line before I could save up for it and buy a memory upgrade. Also they
did
not have any real I/O for the Coco.
Ben Franchuk.
PS. With the OS9 C compiler I used only a simple variable could be used
in the switch statement. "switch( simple variable ) { ..."
--
Live "Pre-historic Cpu's" -- and you thought they were extinct.
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
The only OS that came close to Unix for 8 bit
micros was OS/9 for the
6809 and
even then you needed a external MMU.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AFAIK you didn't. The CoCo 2 can run OS-9 (I ran such a system for many
years before I upgraded to a CoCo 3), and there's no MMU in that. The
memory map is essentially all RAM (64K RAM, no paging or anything like
that), with a little lost to I/O near the top of the address space.
Of course with no MMU you didn't have any memory protection, so user
processes could directly write anywhere in memory. Yes, this is a Bad
Thing, but if your programs were well-behaved and didn't try to do this
then OS-9 would work quite well on a plain 6809 + 64K RAM.
-tony
1:25 p.m.
AFAIK you didn't. The CoCo 2 can run OS-9 (I ran
such a system for many
years before I upgraded to a CoCo 3), and there's no MMU in that. The
memory map is essentially all RAM (64K RAM, no paging or anything like
that), with a little lost to I/O near the top of the address space.
My SWTPc S/09 has 56k of RAM and a 6809 and it's set up to
run OS-9 without an MMU. It does some interesting address
translation using a DAT RAM though that allows it to have more RAM
than that, though I don't.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
11 Nov
11 Nov
5:09 p.m.
At 05:20 PM 11/11/01 -0800, you wrote:
Somehow, I am inclined to question if there was a Z-80
version of Xenix
and, if not, then there was none for the Model II.
- don
Tandy sold a Xenix kit for the Models 2 and 12, which included the cardcage
and the 68K and ramboards that essentially upgraded your 2 or 12 to a 16 or
6000 respectively....
5:35 p.m.
I have several copies of xenix that I received with my Model ll on 8" fdds, as
well as 3 of the large 8Meg TRS HDDs which I have not explored other than
ascertaining that it boots both TRSDos and CPM. According to Ward (?) the
model ll needs the 68000 board to use it. I'll eventually catch up to all my
projects. (sighhh)
I also want to get "Pickles and Trout" for it eventually
Lawrence
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Michael Nadeau wrote:
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)mts.net
I've never used anything but TRSDOS on the
Model II, so I can't speak to the
relative usefulness. However, I believe that there were more Xenix
implementations on the II/12/16/6000 line than on any other system and by a
wide margin. Like I said, it was a popular option and well-supported by Tandy.
The 2000 was quirky enough that a lot of software ported to it didn't behave
as it was supposed to, and it never sold well enough for the software makers
to care much about fixing the problems. Tandy had a hard time convincing
software developers to support the 2000, and was rumored to have paid Lotus
$250,000 to port 1-2-3. My guess is that Microsoft made less than a
whole-hearted effort to port Xenix as cleanly as it could have.
--Mike
Michael Nadeau
Editorial Services
603-893-2379
Somehow, I am inclined to question if there was a Z-80 version of Xenix
and, if not, then there was none for the Model II.
- don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Xenix ?
>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
12 Nov
12 Nov
7:19 a.m.
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
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
8:07 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
11 Nov
11 Nov
4:44 p.m.
The way I remember it, most of the clone makers of the time were scared to
death of IBM and the forthcoming lawsuit were they to use a copied bios in
a machine.
Companies like Sanyo (mbc series) and Victor (remember the v9000?) used
bios's that were Bdos compatible meaning that programs that stayed within
the DOS environment and made dos calls (such as PKZIP) would work fine but
software written for the PC's hardware would not. There were patches etc.
Kinda like the PC junior but the hardware was better....
Pheonix was the first company to release a 'clean-room' PC compatible bios
- to much fanfare as I recall. This opened the door to other makers and
thier clean-room bios products to join the fray.
As far as open architecture, ISA was very well documented and noone needed
to pay IBM to use the buss. MCA was a different story. The PC wasn't an
open architecture, but the effects were something of the same. Heck there
are ISA slots on Amigas, Ataris, etc.....
Regards,
Jeff
In <Pine.GSO.4.05.10111111318580.21847-100000(a)sundance.cse.ucsc.edu>du>, on
11/11/01
at 01:32 PM, "Francis. Javier Mesa" <javi(a)cse.ucsc.edu> said:
Speaking of M$, I was reading the other day a keynote
speech by BillyBoy
in which he claimed that DOS got such a widespread use because they
contributed with an open architecture, the PC. As far as I know the PC
was not open at all (i.e. the BIOS, etc), and most importantly the PC was
not their architecture! The key components of what made a PC a PCE were
supposed to be propietary, and most of the early clones that used DOS had
copied BIOSs which were theoretically illegal. So basically BillyBoy was
admiting that his empire was based on the encouragement of piracy by
their OEM clients of IBM's IP. Interesting, eh?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Worley
Asheville, NC USA
828-6984887
UberTechnoid(a)Home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
5:45 p.m.
What Atari used ISA ? TTs or Megas ? Certainly not the ST.
Lawrence
As far as open architecture, ISA was very well
documented and noone needed
to pay IBM to use the buss. MCA was a different story. The PC wasn't an
open architecture, but the effects were something of the same. Heck there
are ISA slots on Amigas, Ataris, etc.....
Regards,
Jeff
In <Pine.GSO.4.05.10111111318580.21847-100000(a)sundance.cse.ucsc.edu>du>, on
11/11/01
at 01:32 PM, "Francis. Javier Mesa" <javi(a)cse.ucsc.edu> said:
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)mts.net
Speaking of M$, I was reading the other day a
keynote speech by BillyBoy
in which he claimed that DOS got such a widespread use because they
contributed with an open architecture, the PC. As far as I know the PC
was not open at all (i.e. the BIOS, etc), and most importantly the PC was
not their architecture! The key components of what made a PC a PCE were
supposed to be propietary, and most of the early clones that used DOS had
copied BIOSs which were theoretically illegal. So basically BillyBoy was
admiting that his empire was based on the encouragement of piracy by
their OEM clients of IBM's IP. Interesting, eh?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. Worley
Asheville, NC USA
828-6984887
UberTechnoid(a)Home.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
10:20 p.m.
Lawrence Walker skrev:
What Atari used ISA ? TTs or Megas ? Certainly not the
ST.
Save for ST clones and Atari-brand PCs, none. The Hades has got some ISA
slots, though they're a limited implementation, mainly for adding an ISA card
with an ST cartridge port, I think. The Medusa may have had one, too, and
possibly the Milan.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
12 Nov
12 Nov
12:28 p.m.
On 12-Nov-2001 UberTechnoid(a)home.com wrote:
As far as open architecture, ISA was very well
documented and noone
needed to pay IBM to use the buss. MCA was a different story. The PC
wasn't an open architecture, but the effects were something of the
same. Heck there are ISA slots on Amigas, Ataris, etc.....
My MIPScomputer M/120 has ISA slots. Being big endian, it has to do some
fun things with byte and word swapping different parts of the IO space.
-Philip
1:33 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 gwynp(a)artware.qc.ca wrote:
On 12-Nov-2001 UberTechnoid(a)home.com wrote:
AFAIK Apollos (before they were bought by HP) used ISA with most of their
M68K machines. I think they also used ISA with their risc DN10K boxen.
_______________________________________________________________________
Francisco J. MesaMartinez http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~javi
_______________________________________________________________________
Basking Engineering Ctr #228 email:javi@cse.ucsc.edu
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064 phone:(831) 502-2073
_______________________________________________________________________
As far as open architecture, ISA was very well
documented and noone
needed to pay IBM to use the buss. MCA was a different story. The PC
wasn't an open architecture, but the effects were something of the
same. Heck there are ISA slots on Amigas, Ataris, etc.....
My MIPScomputer M/120 has ISA slots. Being big endian, it has to do some
fun things with byte and word swapping different parts of the IO space.
2:02 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Francis. Javier Mesa wrote:
AFAIK Apollos (before they were bought by HP) used ISA
with most of their
M68K machines. I think they also used ISA with their risc DN10K boxen.
Yes, Apollos were, in their later desktop arrangements, ISA boxes, with
the same byte-ordering issues that somebody mentioned earlier. Before
that, they were Multibus, and the DN10000 used "XBus" which I don't
believe is related to the bus by the same name used by Sun for a short
while. The DN10k was prone to smoke its XBus terminators, and finding
working ones are a perennial problem for resurrectors.
ok
r.
13 Nov
13 Nov
5:52 a.m.
Actually Xenix was never a Microsoft branded product.
Maybe true, but it was certainly plastered with Microsoft copyrights. All the
scripts and headers in the Tandy 16/6000 version were copyright Microsoft.
Then again Xenix was the clear proof that M$ can not
even compy a great OS
correctly. I remember using a version of Xenix that only allowed 8.3
naming of files (like M$-DOS)! Typical M$ "innovation"... pheb!
I doubt it. I think early versions of Xenix had the v7 filename limits.
I've never seen one that recognized extensions as anything special.
Eric
8288
days inactive
8290
days old
23 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
djenner＠earthlink.net -
donm＠cts.com -
geoffr＠zipcon.net -
gwynp＠artware.qc.ca -
javi＠cse.ucsc.edu -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
lgwalker＠mts.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
menadeau＠mediaone.net -
optimus＠canit.se -
red＠bears.org -
UberTechnoid＠home.com