Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda!vandys From: vandys@hpindda.HP.COM (Andy Valencia) Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: Ridiculous(ly slow) tty driver Message-ID: <7030015@hpindda.HP.COM> Date: 31 May 88 18:05:41 GMT References: <1086@maynard.BSW.COM> Organization: HP Technical Networks, Cupertino, Calif. Lines: 23 / hpindda:comp.unix.microport / bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) / 11:14 pm May 29, 1988 / In article <670@igloo.UUCP> learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) writes: >>In article <70@carpet.WLK.COM>, I wrote: >> >>> Just like you marvel that the '286 can run UNIX at all... >> >>Is that the problem. The 286 was never intended to run unix at all ? >>I suppose that's why xenix works just fine. Eh? Current SCO XENIX is a port of System-V. I'm told that it isn't called UNIX simply for legal reasons. ... >I didn't want anyone to think I'm cozy with them. Read the 286 data >sheets, read some more about the UNIX kernel, marvel that V/AT works at >all! Now that *IS* to Microport's credit, Hickey and company made it >work. I've read quite a bit about both, plus about the PDP-11, and I'm puzzled. The PDP-11 certainly ran UNIX (:->), and the '286 is in the same ballpark. Which feature of the '286 is so incompatible with UNIX? Andy