Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) (12/25/89)
Hey gang! It has come to pass that my ole 'part r us' 286 has finally shown its inadequacies (sp?) and I have decided to make the move to a 386 system. I am somewhat confused though regarding the 386 vs. 386SX systems. Will the SX run ALL software designed for a straight 386? I do not wish to get the SX and go through the hair pulling that I have done so far with my juked 286! The only reason I consider the SX is because of money. If the SX will not provide the same results (except speed) as a straight 386, then I will have to bite the bullet and go straight 386. I wish to have the capabilities of OS/2, UNIX, Xenix, etc. as well as MSDOS. Vaprak@Cup.Portal.Com Sun!Cup.Portal.Com!Vaprak
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (12/27/89)
Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) writes: >It has come to pass that my ole 'part r us' 286 has finally shown its >inadequacies (sp?) and I have decided to make the move to a 386 system. > >I am somewhat confused though regarding the 386 vs. 386SX systems. >Will the SX run ALL software designed for a straight 386? I do not wish >to get the SX and go through the hair pulling that I have done so far with >my juked 286! The only reason I consider the SX is because of money. If >the SX will not provide the same results (except speed) as a straight 386, >then I will have to bite the bullet and go straight 386. I wish to have >the capabilities of OS/2, UNIX, Xenix, etc. as well as MSDOS. > >Vaprak@Cup.Portal.Com You and I are in the same boat. My understanding is that a 386SX is identical to a 386 with respect to what will run on it, but you have certain limitations that are put on it (i.e.: 16-bit data bus, 16 Mb of addressable memory (most 386SX motherboard use 286 chip sets which work just fine)). But if you are just looking for a 286 board with 386 compatability then the 386SX will suit you just fine. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | My opinions are exactly that, ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | mine. Bill Gates couldn't buy ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | it, but he could rent it. :) ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (12/28/89)
In article <25346@cup.portal.com> Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) writes: >Will the SX run ALL software designed for a straight 386? I do not wish >to get the SX and go through the hair pulling that I have done so far with >my juked 286! The only reason I consider the SX is because of money. If The SX is 100% compatible with the DX (otherwise known as a '386) The main difference lies in the memory bus, which is only 16 bits wide, as compared to the DX which has a 32 bit wide memory bus. Another money saving feature, because you can put memory on in 2Meg increments, unlike most DX systems, which require 4Meg increments. This is just like the difference between the 8086 and the 8088, which had 16 bit and 8 bit memory busses, respectively, they they too were 100% compatible. The SX is slower than the DX because it has to do two reads to get a 32 bit word that a DX can get in one read, just like the 8088 vs 8086. Not that most of your DOS software is going to be doing 32 bit reads anyway. Chewey, get us outta here! kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (818)354-8771 Kaleb Keithley
poffen@molehill (Russ Poffenberger) (12/28/89)
In article <25346@cup.portal.com> Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) writes: >Hey gang! > >It has come to pass that my ole 'part r us' 286 has finally shown its >inadequacies (sp?) and I have decided to make the move to a 386 system. > >I am somewhat confused though regarding the 386 vs. 386SX systems. >Will the SX run ALL software designed for a straight 386? I do not wish >to get the SX and go through the hair pulling that I have done so far with >my juked 286! The only reason I consider the SX is because of money. If >the SX will not provide the same results (except speed) as a straight 386, >then I will have to bite the bullet and go straight 386. I wish to have >the capabilities of OS/2, UNIX, Xenix, etc. as well as MSDOS. > Yes, the 386SX is supposed to be 100% compatible with everything about the '386 except for its data bus width (16 bits vs 32 bits). There are two speed constraints that hit you, 1) the 386SX is only available in 16Mhz versions. 2) the data bus width gives it effectively 1/2 the throughput of a 386 in many operations. In fact, a 386SX is no faster than a 16Mhz 286 system. However all that nice memory management builtin is what makes it better than a 286. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) (01/01/90)
Hey gang! Many thanx for all the replies to my query! I went out and purchased an AST 386SX and am having a ball! My only disappointment was that I need another meg of mem to run Windows/386... buy hey, I can deal with that! thanx Vaprak@Cup.Portal.Com Sun!Cup.Portal.Com!Vaprak
tris@alzabo.uucp (Tris Orendorff) (01/03/90)
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >You and I are in the same boat. My understanding is that a 386SX is identical >to a 386 with respect to what will run on it, but you have certain limitations >that are put on it (i.e.: 16-bit data bus, 16 Mb of addressable memory (most >386SX motherboard use 286 chip sets which work just fine)). But if you are >just looking for a 286 board with 386 compatability then the 386SX will suit >you just fine. > > // JCA See MIPS Magazine, Volume 2, Number 1 (January 1990) for a comparasion between 386SX and 386 computers running OS/2 and Unix. Also of interest, PC Magazine, Volume 9, Number 1 (January 16, 1990) has an interesting article on pp 131. "286 vs. 386: The Real Cost Difference is Negligible." -- Sincerely Yours Tris Orendorff tris@alzabo.uucp -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) (01/13/90)
Hey Gang! By request of several people, I will summize my findings on the 386 vs SX decision. Many people replied (I'm grateful) and stated that the SX is FULLY 386 compatible yet will have the speed of a 286. In effect, a slow version of the 386. If speed is an issue, go straight 386. If not, the SX is a clear winner! In the recent PC Mag, the AST, Austin, and Zeos SX systems received Editor's Choice awards. Vaprak@Cup.Portal.Com Sun!Cup.Portal.Com!Vaprak
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (01/15/90)
In article <25866@cup.portal.com> Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) writes: >In the recent PC Mag, the AST, Austin, and Zeos SX systems >received Editor's Choice awards. For those of you who don't know ... PS Magazine's official position is that they do not recommend the purchase of 8086 or 80286 based PC clones ... period. They are convinced that 386 specific software is imminent enough that the normal business life cycle of a 286 based PC (3 years) would find the machine crippled by the software it wouldn't be able to run. -- --------| With Altzheimer's Disease, every day is a new day! Alien | - Earl McKennon --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
akcs.amparsonjr@vpnet.UUCP (Anthony M. Parson, Jr.) (01/17/90)
I had a 386SX motherboard for a few weeks in the summer (to temporarily replace an XT motherboard). I had no problems running Desqview 386 and things running under DV386, such as 1-2-3,Wordperfect 5.0, etc. Of course these were running under DV on the XT as well, but all I had to do to run those programs SIMULTANEOUSLY on the 386, was to use the QEMM driver plus the regular setup. Most of the notes I've seen seem to mention that using Desqview is a major reason for getting a 386. DV386 was the only 386-specific software I had at the time, but it worked on the 386SX.
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (01/17/90)
In article <25866@cup.portal.com>, Vaprak@cup.portal.com (John C Foy) writes: > By request of several people, I will summize my findings on the 386 vs SX > decision. > Many people replied (I'm grateful) and stated that the SX is FULLY 386 > compatible yet will have the speed of a 286. In effect, a slow version of > the 386. If speed is an issue, go straight 386. Please keep in mind that a major difference between the 386 and a 386sx is that the 386 has the ability to access memory in 32-bit chunks, not 16 like the 286. This combined with a higher potential clock speed allows the 386 to be faster, not just the clock speed alone. -- ======================================================================== Gary L. Barrett My employer may or may not agree with my opinions. And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions. ========================================================================