(Follow-up posted to comp.unix.sco.misc as well)

On 28 Jan 2004 12:47:40 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:

>All,
>
>Here is another question for the acclaimed wizard of computer PC
>hardware.
>After the first nuclear blast hits, you are the wizard to make things
>work with only the material you posses. Here is what you have:
>
>-486dx
>-1 ESDI micropolis 1355 hard drive loaded with SCO UNIX.

Which version of SCO? 'uname -X' should divulge that.

>-1 WD1007A-WA2 controller
>-1 ESDI controller cable and data cable
>-1 dos bootable floppy disk with Norton Ghost 2003
>
>
>Your mission if you decide to accept. ;-)
>
>Create a spanned disk of floppies from your UNIX drive using ghost.
>However you notice that with every attempt, you get : "application
>error 29089"
>When you go the Symantec site you read: " non compatibility with ghost
>2002 and USB"
>You then say "Huh" I got 2003!!!..
>
>
>What would you do????

Translation: How do I get the data off of my old failing ESDI drive.
I would try one of the following (in order of preference):

Grab a free trial copy of one of the 'Supertars' (see
http://aplawrence.com/Reviews/supertars.html) to create a backup of
the existing drive and transfer said backup to a new IDE or SCSI
drive.

-OR-

Throw an IDE or SCSI drive into the system, run 'mkdev hd' to
configure the new drive into the kernel, then copy the data from the
ESDI to the new drive with cpio or dd. See
http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/newdisk.html for help on adding the new
drive to the kernel.


Scott McMillan

Scott McMillan <smcm@usa.net> wrote in message news:<56ag10l5no4jju11pjd0ppgr362eh6pc32@4ax.com>. ..
> (Follow-up posted to comp.unix.sco.misc as well)
>
> On 28 Jan 2004 12:47:40 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >Here is another question for the acclaimed wizard of computer PC
> >hardware.
> >After the first nuclear blast hits, you are the wizard to make things
> >work with only the material you posses. Here is what you have:
> >
> >-486dx
> >-1 ESDI micropolis 1355 hard drive loaded with SCO UNIX.
>
> Which version of SCO? 'uname -X' should divulge that.


I tried the command, and it threw into a prompt menu, lioke some sort
of editor, to break out I did alt-contrl-del

did the uname by itself and it said: Unix..

nortonm ghost does identify it as SCO.

On 29 Jan 2004 05:00:07 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:

>Scott McMillan <smcm@usa.net> wrote in message news:<56ag10l5no4jju11pjd0ppgr362eh6pc32@4ax.com>. ..
>> (Follow-up posted to comp.unix.sco.misc as well)
>>
>> On 28 Jan 2004 12:47:40 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:
>>
>> >All,
>> >
>> >Here is another question for the acclaimed wizard of computer PC
>> >hardware.
>> >After the first nuclear blast hits, you are the wizard to make things
>> >work with only the material you posses. Here is what you have:
>> >
>> >-486dx
>> >-1 ESDI micropolis 1355 hard drive loaded with SCO UNIX.
>>
>> Which version of SCO? 'uname -X' should divulge that.
>
>
>I tried the command, and it threw into a prompt menu, lioke some sort
>of editor, to break out I did alt-contrl-del
>

Run uname -X without the quotes.

>did the uname by itself and it said: Unix..
>
>nortonm ghost does identify it as SCO.



Scott McMillan

Scott McMillan <smcm@usa.net> wrote in message news:<u84i10d8oc0urgavt4bp4eollshvft6nhu@4ax.com>. ..
> On 29 Jan 2004 05:00:07 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:
>
> >Scott McMillan <smcm@usa.net> wrote in message news:<56ag10l5no4jju11pjd0ppgr362eh6pc32@4ax.com>. ..
> >> (Follow-up posted to comp.unix.sco.misc as well)
> >>
> >> On 28 Jan 2004 12:47:40 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote:
> >>
> >> >All,
> >> >
> >> >Here is another question for the acclaimed wizard of computer PC
> >> >hardware.
> >> >After the first nuclear blast hits, you are the wizard to make things
> >> >work with only the material you posses. Here is what you have:
> >> >
> >> >-486dx
> >> >-1 ESDI micropolis 1355 hard drive loaded with SCO UNIX.
> >>
> >> Which version of SCO? 'uname -X' should divulge that.
> >
> >
> >I tried the command, and it threw into a prompt menu, lioke some sort
> >of editor, to break out I did alt-contrl-del
> >
>
> Run uname -X without the quotes.
>
> >did the uname by itself and it said: Unix..
> >
> >nortonm ghost does identify it as SCO.
>
>
>
> Scott McMillan

I did.. did not work...

I tried a different aproach.. same drive one on the different machine

on the pentium three it boots as ATT 386 Unix
on the 486sx it boots as unix system /386 R 3.2.2

JaBrIoL wrote:
> Scott McMillan <smcm@usa.net> wrote in message news:<u84i10d8oc0urgavt4bp4eollshvft6nhu@4ax.com>. ..
> >
>
> I did.. did not work...
>
> I tried a different aproach.. same drive one on the different machine
>
> on the pentium three it boots as ATT 386 Unix
> on the 486sx it boots as unix system /386 R 3.2.2

how about man uname which tells you all the options

in any case try

uname
uname -a
uname -A

also, I am starting to think this is not a sco system...

maybe Interactive unix or ATT SVR3????

/dev/null <dhart@n.o.s.p.a.m.ultranet.com> wrote in message news:<xAgSb.142724$nt4.650755@attbi_s51>...
> JaBrIoL wrote:
> > Scott McMillan <smcm@usa.net> wrote in message news:<u84i10d8oc0urgavt4bp4eollshvft6nhu@4ax.com>. ..
> > >
> >
> > I did.. did not work...
> >
> > I tried a different aproach.. same drive one on the different machine
> >
> > on the pentium three it boots as ATT 386 Unix
> > on the 486sx it boots as unix system /386 R 3.2.2
>
> how about man uname which tells you all the options
>
> in any case try
>
> uname
> uname -a
> uname -A
>
> also, I am starting to think this is not a sco system...
>
> maybe Interactive unix or ATT SVR3????

I will look into it..

by the way, the system does not have man.. which tell me this was a chop job for
a purpose unkown to man, by the almighty Lucent Propierty lawyers..

>by the way, the system does not have man.. which tell me this was a chop job
>for
>a purpose unkown to man, by the almighty Lucent Propierty lawyers..
>

Lucent, you say...Is the box you're working on a Lucent system? If so, which
one? (If I had to guess from the description of the hardware I'd put my money
on some sort of voicemail system.) If it's one of those boxes I would guess it
would be AT&T System V.