Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site ecrcvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!snoopy From: snoopy@ecrcvax.UUCP (Sebastian Schmitz) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Questions about running Ultrix (Unix) on uVaxII Message-ID: <163@ecrcvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 07:06:11 EST Article-I.D.: ecrcvax.163 Posted: Tue Oct 29 07:06:11 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 08:59:25 EST Organization: ECRC, D-8000 Muenchen 81, W. Germany Lines: 39 Summary: Expires: References:Sender: Reply-To: snoopy@ecrcvax.UUCP (Sebastian Schmitz) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: European Computer-Industry Research Centre, Munchen, W. Germany Keywords: Re. 1. I have heard that memory was the problem. I do not know if the problem was exactly as you mentioned, but I do know it had something to do with memory loss. I do not work for DEC, nor am I their spokesperson and I know two people on the Net who are very happy about this (right A&J) :-). Re. 2. I don't know whose chips will be used to replace the duff ones. It may be good NEC ones, for all I care. Re. 3 The reason VMS was not bothered is simply that VMS will regularly access all the memory in a sort of "software refresh". I know nothing about VMS whatsoever so I don't know if this is true. This is one story I have heard. The other story I have heard is that Un(ltr)ix runs in low memory (which is where the duff chips were) and therefore got corrupted. VMS runs in high memory and therefore its kernel did not get mangled. The real answer is likely to be a combination of both. -- Love, Sebastian (Snoopy) "You haven't done it, till you've done it with pointers" \!mcvax\!unido\!ecrcvax\!snoopy /* N.B. valid csh address */