hs0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harold Jason Shapiro) (09/29/89)
I am thinking of upgrading my XT clone in the near future. Would somebody
give a recommendation to me? I think I can afford a 286 or 386sx but prob-
ably not a true 386. Also, will somebody tell me if I need to upgrade at
all. I would like to, but don't know if I need to.
I have heard people say the SX is trash since it is trying to squeeze 32
bit addressing on a 16 bit bus. I have also heard people say I should not
waste my time on a 286.
Any help would be appreciated.
Harold Shapiro (hs0i@andrew.cmu.edu)madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (09/29/89)
In article <YZ8bQwm00Ui0QS4Ek2@andrew.cmu.edu> hs0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harold Jason Shapiro) writes: |I have heard people say the SX is trash since it is trying to squeeze 32 |bit addressing on a 16 bit bus. I have also heard people say I should not |waste my time on a 286. If you have the choice, go for the 386sx. It's not as fast as the 80386 but is generally as fast as the high-speed 286's, and runs all the virtual-8086 programs (eg VM386), allowing you multiple MS-DOS PC's on one terminal. It also runs UNIX correctly, something that is impossible on 286's but may well be a consideration in the future (even to you MS-DOS people :-). In short, you'll get better flexibility out of the 386sx than the 286, extending the life of the computer at the cost of some 386 performance but still performing at equal or better levels than most 286's. jim frost software tool & die madd@std.com
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (09/29/89)
>I am thinking of upgrading my XT clone in the near future. Would somebody >give a recommendation to me? I think I can afford a 286 or 386sx but prob- >ably not a true 386. The SX is basically the 286 redone correctly. While it is better to get a 386, if you cannot afford it then the 386SX is a much better choice than a 286. Intel has lowered the prices on the SX chips and it is now possible to get SX systems that are within spitting distance of a 286 system pricewise. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Sillicon Valley HP SPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (10/01/89)
From article <YZ8bQwm00Ui0QS4Ek2@andrew.cmu.edu>, by hs0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harold Jason Shapiro): > I am thinking of upgrading my XT clone in the near future. Would somebody > give a recommendation to me? I think I can afford a 286 or 386sx but prob- > ably not a true 386. Also, will somebody tell me if I need to upgrade at > all. I would like to, but don't know if I need to. > I have heard people say the SX is trash since it is trying to squeeze 32 > bit addressing on a 16 bit bus. I have also heard people say I should not > waste my time on a 286. Harold you sure have a way with words. I would not go as far as saying the 386SX boards are "trash". I recently traded on for a disk drive. It seems alot of dealers are willing to upgrade a XT motherboard or a AT motherboard up to a 386SX board. Now if your not planning to run 4 or more users on the system I am sure it would be well worth the upgrade. There are is a major difference in useing the 386 architecture and that is it supports vitual memory. This will at least allow you to run multi DOS programs in the protected mode with a higher degree of reliablity. Sure the 286 can do it but it will do it but there are other problems with that chip. Heck with the 386SX board if you wanted to at least try a 386 version of UNIX you could do it. I know I did it. It is slower when you compare a 16Mhz 386 to a 16Mhz 386SX board because the 386SX does two 16bit fetchs. I ran the MIPS test on the 386SX, overall it had about 85 to 90 percent of the MIPS that a 16Mhz 386 would. Somewhere around 2.7 mips. I decided to use DOS on the machine. The 386 version of UNIX was just a bit too much for it to handle. Under DOS I use VP, Foxbase, and some schematic capture programs with a pcb layout that does some auto routeing. I am quite happy with the speed that the programs execute. I would consider it extremly fast for a single user. This is the case that I would recommend someone to upgrade to a 386SX board. I heard dealers offering a trade in deal on a 386 SX board for 200 to 300 depending on what motherboard your tradeing in. If you plan on running multi-users or even multi-tasking software forget the 386SX and save your money for a fast 386. Just my opinion. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda packbell!indetech!palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Home {sun|dasiy}!ys2!fiver!palowoda (415)-623-8809 1200/2400 Work {sun|pyramid|decwrl}!megatest!palowoda (415)-623-8806 2400/9600/19200 TB Voice: (415)-623-7495 Public access UNIX XBBS
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/03/89)
In article <863@fiver.UUCP>, palowoda@fiver.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: | I ran the MIPS test on the 386SX, overall it had about 85 to 90 percent | of the MIPS that a 16Mhz 386 would. Somewhere around 2.7 mips. I decided | to use DOS on the machine. The 386 version of UNIX was just a bit too | much for it to handle. This is pretty much the story. If you run benchmarks using 32 bit software you will find that most programs run about twice as fast as a 286 on a 386, about 30% faster on an SX. The SX is also slower (at the rated 16MHz speed) than a 16 or 20MHz 286. I would say the SX is a bad deal. It is not as fast at DOS as a 286, or as fast for UNIX or OS/386 as a real 386. It is slightly cheaper than a 386 (and that's probably a marketing decision, I bet it costs more to build) and not as good as either the 386DX or 286 in terms of price/performance. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (10/06/89)
> I would say the SX is a bad deal. It is not as fast at DOS as a 286, >or as fast for UNIX or OS/386 as a real 386. It is slightly cheaper than >a 386 (and that's probably a marketing decision, I bet it costs more to >build) and not as good as either the 386DX or 286 in terms of >price/performance. Not really such a bad deal for some people. IF you intend to run 386 software, and you don't need speed, you need it. There are several 386-only commercial packages out now. Also, there are programs that don't REQUIRE a 386, but do use 386 instructions if they are there (well, there is only one I know about, my TeX screen previewer), and astounding gains are sometimes achieved (a 386SX runs 40% faster than a similar clock speed 286). A couple of people around here have bought them just for that one program, or for the upcoming 386-only AutoCad vaporware. The 386SX REALLY should have been a plug-in replacement for the 286! Doug McDonald
mvolo@uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) (10/07/89)
One consideration which I have not seen mentioned, is that the cost of a medium speed 80286 machine (e.g. 16Hz) plus the cost of an add on EMS card with memory (usually $400-$550) roughly equals the cost of a 386SX, where EMS can be defined and managed by software. An 80286 with only motherboard memory and with a chipset that includes EMS firmware (e.g., NEAT?) should be cheaper theoretically. However, does the EMS firmware in the newer 80286 chipsets work and do all the LIM 4.0 tricks? M Volow, VA Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705 mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP 919 286 0411
d88-eli@nada.kth.se (Erik Liljencrantz) (10/09/89)
In article <1989Oct6.202428.3240@uncecs.edu> mvolo@uncecs.edu (Michael R. Volow) writes: >One consideration which I have not seen mentioned, is that the cost >of a medium speed 80286 machine (e.g. 16Hz) plus the cost of an >add on EMS card with memory (usually $400-$550) roughly equals the >cost of a 386SX, where EMS can be defined and managed by software. >An 80286 with only motherboard memory and with a chipset that includes >EMS firmware (e.g., NEAT?) should be cheaper theoretically. However, >does the EMS firmware in the newer 80286 chipsets work and do all the >LIM 4.0 tricks? Yes, the NEAT chipset do handle EMS 4.0. But the memory management features found in the 386, including the 386SX, can do more than providing EMS support through software. In my system I have 96Kb of high memory (above EGA memory, below BIOS) where memory resident programs can reside. I use 386-MAX to accomplish this and its easy to rearrange the memory into EMS or EXTended memory. Just small changes in CONFIG.SYS. As for the speed of the 386SX compared to the 286 I can only confirm that it is a bit slower at equal MHz's, but just a little. PC Magazine recently tested a number of 286 systems. Their conclusion was: By at least a 386SX! Just what I did... >M Volow, VA Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705 >mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP 919 286 0411 -- Erik Liljencrantz | "No silly quotes!!" d88-eli@nada.kth.se | Embraquel D. Tuta