Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site intelca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!qantel!intelca!kds
From: kds@intelca.UUCP (Ken Shoemaker)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: AT xenix + uucp
Message-ID: <415@intelca.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 03:41:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: intelca.415
Posted: Thu Sep 27 03:41:56 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Sep-84 08:36:53 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 25

Ok people, it is nasty rumor dispell (?) time again.  Many thanks
to the responses that totally obliterated the last nasty rumor:
the Xenix port that Microsoft is doing for the AT *does* run
in the 286s protected mode.  Thanks to the respondents from
Microsoft and the Santa Cruz operation for lending a voice
of authority to all this, and also to the IBM product announcement
blurb.  My confusion arose from the current (not 3 months hence)
availibility of non-protected Xenix (the same as on the XT) for
the AT.

New nasty rumor: Xenix for the AT comes sans uucp.  Apparently
because of configuration/support problems.  I'm not sure whether
people here think this is a problem, what with all the potential
new uucp nodes this might create, but I certainly would think
twice about another software/hardware package if it at least wasn't
available somewhere.  Anyway, here's hoping that it didn't get
"unbundled" never to return.....
-- 
I've got one, two, three, four, five senses working overtime, 
	trying to take this all in!

Ken Shoemaker, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
{pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!kds
	
---the above views are personal.  They may not represent those of Intel.