johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) (07/21/89)
I have recently confirmed that the 286-COFF executables compiled on System V/AT seem to run reliably on a 386 machine running Sys V 3.2 (AT&T 6386 WGS). It would make sense, as the 386 is supposed to be a true superset of the 286. Question: Is there any reason that a Sys V/AT wouldn't run on a 386 CPU board? Granted, there are unique initializations for the 386 processor, but shouldn't that be handled by the BIOS before boot? Anyone doing this? It seems like a nice migration step. John -- John Kennedy johnk@opel.UUCP Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (07/22/89)
In article <225@opel.UUCP> johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) writes: >Is there any reason that a Sys V/AT wouldn't run on a 386 CPU board? No, it should run OK. Merge/286 will NOT run, but everything else should. I'd not bother, though. Unless you are *really* strapped for $$$ the ease of use and freedom from those Damn Segments is worth the cost of a 386 Unix. Everex has a version for ~ $500, with a Microport disk ISC and SCO give trade up discounts, and I'm sure you could find someone who would sell you a slightly used Microport 3.0e set real cheap :-) Have Fun! -John Plocher
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (07/23/89)
In article <225@opel.UUCP> johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) writes: >Question: > >Is there any reason that a Sys V/AT wouldn't run on a 386 CPU board? >Granted, there are unique initializations for the 386 processor, >but shouldn't that be handled by the BIOS before boot? > >Anyone doing this? It seems like a nice migration step. We did this for about two months. It works -- you have effectively a fast '286. It is no less or more buggy than the straight 286 microport though, which may be either a blessing or a curse :-) -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
neighorn@qiclab.UUCP (Steven C. Neighorn) (07/23/89)
In article <225@opel.UUCP> johnk@opel.UUCP (John Kennedy) writes: >I have recently confirmed that the 286-COFF executables compiled on >System V/AT seem to run reliably on a 386 machine running Sys V 3.2 >(AT&T 6386 WGS). >It would make sense, as the 386 is supposed to be a true superset of the >286. And the fact that there are special programs (/bin/[ix]286emul) that help out with emulation. That's why 286 binaries used to need read permission (ie r-xr-xr-x instead of just --x--x--x) or they wouldn't execute. I believe this is fixed now, at least in 3.2 it is. Also, not all 286 COFF binaries will run, even with the emulation. Two notables were a hacked 5.51 sendmail (ioctl differences) and the development system for Unify, a relational database package. >Is there any reason that a Sys V/AT wouldn't run on a 386 CPU board? >Granted, there are unique initializations for the 386 processor, >but shouldn't that be handled by the BIOS before boot? There may be an equation for answering this question definitively, but in my experience you can only go on a case by case basis. Microport's Sys V/AT ran fine (ie normal 286 operation speed and reliability) on Intel OEM platforms, but would not run on an Everex System 3000 '386 box. It might have been BIOS related, and the machine in question has had a BIOS upgrade, but the interested parties are no longer interested in V/AT. I think the only way to find out for sure is to actually try it. Great advice, I know, but as it has been said in the movies, "It's the only way to be sure." -- Steven C. Neighorn !tektronix!{psu-cs,nosun,ogccse}!qiclab!neighorn Sun Microsystems, Inc. "Where we DESIGN the Star Fighters that defend the 9900 SW Greenburg Road #240 frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada" Portland, Oregon 97223 work: (503) 684-9001 / home: (503) 641-3469
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (07/26/89)
+---- In <2267@qiclab.UUCP> Steven C. Neighorn writes: | +---- | | Is there any reason that a Sys V/AT wouldn't run on a 386 CPU board? | +---- | my experience you can only go on a case by case basis. Microport's Sys V/AT | ran fine (ie normal 286 operation speed and reliability) on Intel OEM | platforms, but would not run on an Everex System 3000 '386 box. It might +---- As I recall, the Everex 3000 used a 12Mhz i/o bus which didn't work with Microport's V/AT hard disk driver (The controller couldn't handle a "rep move string" at a full 12Mhz) Microport Tech Support *had* a disk which would let you run on machines with a faster i/o bus - we replaced the rep stuff with a discrete mov + jmp loop which ran slow enough to let the controller work. :-) -John Plocher