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.