Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3036 comp.unix.microport:1342 news.groups:5187 Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!visenix!beattie From: beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups Subject: Re: new groups for iX86 unix (was: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Summary: Xenix System V != UNIX System V Message-ID: <183@visenix.UUCP> Date: 19 Aug 88 13:15:10 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1608@edison.GE.COM> Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department, Reston, VA. Lines: 26 In article <1608@edison.GE.COM>, rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) writes: > > In article <728@wb3ffv.UUCP> howardl@wb3ffv.UUCP (Howard Leadmon ) writes: > > .... > > >comp.unix.i286 General 80286 UNIX discussions . . . > > >comp.unix.1386.xenix For 80386 Xenix > > This is excessive and still fails to address the point that Real Soon Now > there won't be a hill of beans worth of difference between Xenix and the > AT&T/Intel/interactive Systems/Microport/BellTech System V/386 port. when this is seen as true I will beleive it. The fact of the matter that what is being proposed is that Xenix will be made compatible. Microsoft will continue to try to give there product unique features. If they don't then what excuse do they have for existing. Please note that not everyone who buys System V/AT or System V/386 does so for price reasons, some of us do it because we want a system that conforms more closely AT&T (I'm still waiting for 4.4 BSD/386) -- Brian Beattie | (703)471-7552 MSDOS/OS2 | 11525 Hickory Cluster, Reston, VA. 22090 - just say no! | beattie@visenix.UU.NET | ...uunet!visenix!beattie