v081nhdb@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Nina Banerjee) (07/20/90)
If you are going to get a '386, get a REAL '386! Namely a DX. The SX's are actually 16 bit microprocessors, or so a friend of mine in the Computer business tells me. If you are going to spend the money on a '386 (either a new motherboard, or a whole new system), you might as well get a good one that has a 32 bit Microprocessor. Nina Banerjee President The Pinta Corporation, Inc. (Also a SUNY at Buffalo Student) I've got to learn how to make sig files!
mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (07/21/90)
This post (unwarranted?) may not be true for all people. First, the 386SX is a *full* 32 bit microprocessor; only thing is, its interface to the external world is through 16 bits. All software intended to run on the 386DX should run absolutely correctly on the SX. Secondly, the price difference between a 286AT and 386SX is next to 0 if you look at the right places. This is not the case between 386SX and 386DX (and I think Intel will always make sure that the differential exists). Milan .
jdu4855@cs.rit.edu (Unrue Jack D) (07/22/90)
In article <31122@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v081nhdb@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >[...] The SX's are >actually 16 bit microprocessors, or so a friend of mine in the Computer >business tells me. If you are going to spend the money on a '386 (either a >new motherboard, or a whole new system), you might as well get a good one >that has a 32 bit Microprocessor. > Your friend in the computer business probably intended to say that 386SX's communicate to the outside world in 16 bits, but function internally as a full 32 bit processor. The 32 bit machine instructions you use on a DX will also be fine on an SX.
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (07/23/90)
In article <1773@cs.rit.edu> jdu4855@cs.rit.edu (Unrue Jack D) writes: > >Your friend in the computer business probably intended to say that 386SX's >communicate to the outside world in 16 bits, but function internally as a >full 32 bit processor. The 32 bit machine instructions you use on a DX will >also be fine on an SX. But isn't the 386sx restricted in the amount of memory it can address? If that's the case, then would a 386sx be able to run OS/2 ver 2.0 ? I guess I'm wondering if the SX includes ALL the 32 bit machine instructions of a DX? Furthermore, what is the size of the data path between a 386SX and a 387SX? Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
dhiman@motcid.UUCP (Ravinder Dhiman) (07/24/90)
v081nhdb@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Nina Banerjee) writes: >If you are going to get a '386, get a REAL '386! Namely a DX. The SX's are >actually 16 bit microprocessors, or so a friend of mine in the Computer ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No Way! The 386SX is internally a FULL 32-bit uP (just like the 386DX); the only difference is that the 386SX has a 16-bit external data pathway as opposed to the 386DX's 32-bit external data pathway. The result is that the 386SX can do everything that a 386DX can, only slightly slower. >business tells me. If you are going to spend the money on a '386 (either a >new motherboard, or a whole new system), you might as well get a good one >that has a 32 bit Microprocessor. > Nina Banerjee > President > The Pinta Corporation, Inc. > (Also a SUNY at Buffalo Student) [...] ------------------------------------------------------------ Ravi Dhiman Motorola, Inc. Cellular Infrastructure Div. Arlington Heights, IL My opinions, not my employer's.