<div>You are right, Xenix was available for the 286 in 85 (I bought my 286 in late 83 I think) but was available for the 8088 (the CPU on the IBM PC, everyone says 8086 because of the sequence 80286, 80386...; I think the 80186 was a special purpose processor that turned out to be more apt for pursuing a CPU line than the 8088 was) in 83.
<div>At the time it seemed the conventional wisdom was (to develop on unix) to invest in the bigger word and I was oblivious to people running Xenix on a base PC, but apparently they did, at least it was available.</div>
<div>I remember, I think rather later, I looked up the command "uucp" in the Xenix programming manual (idle curiousity how they would define the acronym) and it said "Xenix to Xenix Copy", suggesting this would only communicate with another Xenix machine (they had expunged the word "unix" from their docs). I don't think I ever would have considered paying money for that. Ken is one of the nicest guys I've met and that's just insulting.
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jim Lux</b> <<a href="mailto:James.P.Lux@jpl.nasa.gov">James.P.Lux@jpl.nasa.gov</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">At 11:39 AM 4/9/2007, Peter St. John wrote:<br>>Well, I could run unix with all 1536K, but not MS/PCDOS
3.2. So call<br>>it a software issue of failing to work around the hardware issue.<br>>Obviously the hardware was not a show-stopper.<br>><br>>But it was the 286 I did this on, not the earlier 8088, which I<br>
>don't think could reasonably have been expected to run unix;<br><br><br><br>No problem running unix on a 8086.. (Don't forget Xenix on 8086 or<br>80286) Or, for that matter, on a 68000. (maybe the 68010 with the
<br>mmu or the 020 with virtual memory?.. I seem to remember DRAM refresh<br>by 64 NOPs on the timer tick)<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>