Bell Tech W.G.E. use with "sissy" unix

[Terry Hull]

In article <771 at drexel.UUCP> you write:
>Terry Hull writes
>
>
>> [Stuff about my system deleted]
>> -- 
>There should be absolutely no problem with the INBOARD, since the INBOARD 
>the ideal arrangement: The ending address for caching is set by switches
>on the card. Typically, one sets them for the end of physical memory,
>while dual ported and memory mapped registers are addressed above this.
>I have checked this point out with INTEL technical support: the INBOARD
>is completely compatible with cards like the W.G.E. because the cache
>does not function above the end address.
>
>Please post your results Terry - I'd realy like to know if you get
>X up on XENIX. Are they offering V11 yet?

Now I am really confused.  I talked to Christine Burr at Bell Tech
last Thursday and she told me that the WGE would absolutely NOT work
with the Inboard.  Is there some other problem with the Inboard that
causes it not to work with the WGE?  Did Christine just hear the word
"cache" and say "Oops, this will not work?"  

Unfortunately, I am doing this on my personal computer budget, and
purchasing a $995 card from Bell Tech along with a $500 monitor and
having the thing not work would not be acceptable.  While I think I
could get my money back from Bell Tech, I'm sure the company that I
bought the monitor from would not feel the same way.  

I will be more than happy to post my results to the net when (if) I
get X running on XENIX.  Unfortunately, it may be a while.  The
upgrades to 2.3.0 are still not shipping from SCO, and that will be
required before I can try.  
  



-- 
Terry Hull                    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
                                           Kansas State University
INTERNET: terry at eecea.eece.ksu.edu          Manhattan, KS  66502 
UUCP: {pyramid,ucsd}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!ksuvax1!eecea!terry