how@milhow1.UUCP (Mike Howard) (05/13/88)
Is anyone running (or know of anyone running) SCO Xenix 386AT (system V 2.2.x) on a 'CSS Labs' 386 motherboard? I am attempting to go from brain dead to 386 w/o killing my piggie bank - one way to go involves replacing the mother in my clone with one of these. All assistance and war-stories will be appreciated. -- Mike Howard uunet!milhow1!how -- Mike Howard uunet!milhow1!how
root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) (05/15/88)
In article <193@milhow1.UUCP> Mike Howard writes: >Is anyone running (or know of anyone running) SCO Xenix 386AT >(system V 2.2.x) on a 'CSS Labs' 386 motherboard? >I am attempting to go from brain dead to 386 w/o killing my >piggie bank - one way to go involves replacing the mother in my >clone with one of these. >Mike Howard >uunet!milhow1!how The newer version of the CSS Lab's '386 system-board that is able to be populated with up to four MB of RAM is known to run SCO Xenix 386 without any problem. This is a good choice for users who want take advantage of the increased clock rate (their 16 MHz system is switchable 20 MHz too!) and the linear address space, at a reasonable cost. CSS Lab's makes a very reliable and well designed product. Unfortunately, they are experiencing difficulty obtaining 1 MB RAM chips. As a result, they will only sell their systems with a maximum of one MB of RAM installed, but as a temporary measure you can use your old 16-bit RAM expansion card. Users who can afford a to spend a little more should consider the purchase of a system that supports RAM caching circuitry. CSS is due to release their new caching system-board this summer. They won't reveal what size the cache will be, but for multiuser/multitasking operating systems that will be running many processes (thus requiring a good deal of RAM), a large cache (on the order of 256 K bytes) is superior to the 64 K RAM caches currently available on most '386 system boards. Everex is the only manufacturer I am aware of that offers caching circuitry of this size. Disclaimer: I am both a CSS Lab's and Everex dealer. I don't sell other than that in which I have complete confidence. -- USPS: The Consultants' Exchange, PO Box 12100, Santa Ana, CA 92712 TELE: (714) 842-6348: BBS (N81); (714) 842-5851: Xenix guest account (E71) UUCP: conexch Any ACU 2400 17148425851 ogin:-""-ogin:-""-ogin: nuucp UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!icnvax!conexch!root || ...!trwrb!ucla-an!conexch!root
jack@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) (05/15/88)
In article <193@milhow1.UUCP> how@milhow1.UUCP (Mike Howard) writes: >Is anyone running (or know of anyone running) SCO Xenix 386AT >(system V 2.2.x) on a 'CSS Labs' 386 motherboard? Mike, TCC is a close neighbor (geographically) to CSS Labs and we have sold a couple of their systems to clients running Xenix386. Overall I have high recommendations for their systems (or motherboards). Here are a few items for consideration: 1) The motherboard holds up to 4Meg with an 8Meg expansion board board available. They use 256X4 static column rams instead of simms. One problem with this is the shortage of chips at the moment, but then this applies to simms as well. 2) If you specify that it will be running Xenix, they will burn the system in running Xenix. I know as I have visited the plant and seen the motherboards set up running shell script programs under Xenix386. 3) The present released motherboard does not have caching, this may be a disadvantage but I am not totally convinced about that. I have been told by associates that the CSS 386 20Mhz empirically performs better than the Compaq 386/20 but this is just hearsay. It is certainly much less expensive. Sometime this summer CSS is said to be releasing a new motherboard that will implement the Intel cache controller and cache. 4) The only difference between the 16 and 20Mhz boards are the rating of the CPU and a jumper on the motherboard. You could conceivably buy a 16Mhz version and later buy a 80386-20 and just change the jumper to upgrade to a 20Mhz version. This assumes, of course, that you insist on 80nsec ram on the motherboard (something which I recommend anyway). Overall, I would recommend CSS. Sure, you could buy a 'hotter' system like the Compaq 386/20 or the new Everex 386-20, but you will pay for the difference and I have yet to be convinced that UNDER XENIX you are really getting your money's worth. CSS is a very friendly company in my experience, they have gone out of their way to help in problems and as I said, your system will actually run SCO Xenix before it leaves the plant. How many others can say that?? Disclaimer: I in no way represent CSS, I am only a VAR that has done business and is satisfied with their product. Hope this helps, -- Jack F. Vogel Turnkey Computer Consultants, Costa Mesa, CA UUCP: ...{nosc|uunet}!turnkey!jack Internet: jack@turnkey.TCC.COM
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (05/17/88)
I just heard from the Engineering Manager at Dyna Computers that they expect to have a 25 (or even 30!!) MHz 386 board for COMDEX-Las Vegas!!
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (05/17/88)
In article <337@conexch.UUCP> root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) writes: | will be running many processes (thus requiring a good deal of RAM), a | large cache (on the order of 256 K bytes) is superior to the 64 K | RAM caches currently available on most '386 system boards. 1) so far as I know there is one clone board with 64k cache (two if Compaq is a clone). It's made by AMI, sole as a board by Mylex, and used in a lot of clones because it runs well with 16 bit memory. 2) seeing the small improvement of 32k over 64k cache, I'm suspicious that there is a point of vanishing returns, and it's not very big. Not that you said anything incorrect, but someone could draw a dubious conclusion from it. For information: I ran a benchmark (actually several) comparing an AMI (16 MHz version), a Compaq 20 MHz, and the new ALR 20386 (20 HMz with The Compaq was about 10% faster CPU than the AMI, and the ALR was 20% faster than that. I'm going to wait until the 25 MHz machines are out before upgrading. Glad to hear that you like the Everex and CSS for Xenix. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (05/21/88)
IN article <10858@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) wrote: > 1) so far as I know there is one clone board with 64k cache (two if > Compaq is a clone). It's made by AMI, sole as a board by Mylex, and used > in a lot of clones because it runs well with 16 bit memory. PC's Ltd 386/20 uses a cache. In order to win the horse race with Compaq's 386/20, PCs Ltd uses static column RAM for bulk memory (80ns I think). > 2) seeing the small improvement of 32k over 64k cache, I'm suspicious > that there is a point of vanishing returns, and it's not very big. I have been told that 8K would be perfectly adequate to push the hit rate well over 90%. > For information: I ran a benchmark (actually several) comparing an AMI > (16 MHz version), a Compaq 20 MHz, and the new ALR 20386 (20 HMz with > The Compaq was about 10% faster CPU than the AMI, and the ALR was 20% > faster than that. I'm going to wait until the 25 MHz machines are out > before upgrading. PC's Ltd designed specifically to beat the Compaq, but I don't know if they did by 20% or not. What sort of RAM does the ALR use? As an aside, the PC's Ltd 286/20 does not use a cache. My guess is that they didn't want to compete with their 386/20, since for DOS or OS/2, a 286 is as good as a 386. My opinion is that their 386 is the better price/performance deal. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746