NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/sys/sun/hardware/6189

Text File | 1992-12-11 | 1.8 KB | 43 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.hardware
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nj.nec.com!sandiway
From: [e-mail] (Sandiway Fong)
Subject: Re: LX and SUNOS 4.x - how ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: sandiway@gb
Sender: [e-mail] (Sandiway Fong)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NEC Research Institute
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:51:52 GMT
Lines: 29


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Guy Harris) writes:
|> >According to postings within the Sun corporation's internal newsgroup(s),
|> >software engineers stated that making the Classic and LX use 4.1.3 would
|> >require very little time and expense to change the drivers that work with
|> >the new I/O on the microSPARC.  The powers-that-be pronounced that it will
|> >not be discussed again and to do so could result in termination of employment.
|> [Parts deleted]
|> I.e., it's not as if doing a 4.1.4 would have been a slam-dunk; the
|> desire to get everybody onto 5.x might have *contributed* to the
|> decision not to do a 4.1.4, but I've yet to hear anything credible to
|> indicate that it was *purely* a case of wanting to get everybody onto
|> 5.x.

Well, how about still wanting to clear out the remaining IPXs for another
motivation? I know if I was in the market right now for buying a bunch of
Sparcs, I would definitely choose the IPX over the LX, despite the cost and
(smaller) performance disadvantages, simply because of the 4.1.X capability.

Sandiway

---
Dr. Sandiway Fong
NEC Research Institute Inc.
4 Independence Way
Princeton NJ 08540

[phone]
[phone] (FAX)