gt1342a@prism.gatech.EDU (PLACENTA) (01/16/90)
Someone mentioned the use of a 386SX Laptop as a portable UNIX box. I read
in the Unix in-depth about SCO Xenix that most PC 386 unices do _NOT_ operate
reliably in a 16-bit environment. SCO most emphatically suggests that you do
NOT use SCO Xenix/386 in a 386SX. Pity and a shame, though. You'd have to
look at last month's BYTE (I've lost it), and I don't think it goes in depth.
--
Charles LeDuc | gt1342a@prism.gatech.edu | GT PoBox 31342a Atl GA 30332-1001 USA
NetMail 7301/203 , 7301/516 | "victims of incipient bang-utut clutch..." W.S.B.
...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,rutgers,purdue}!gatech!prism!gt1342a |Please apply all
...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1342a | Standard Disclamers.kelly@uts.amdahl.com (Kelly Goen) (01/16/90)
In article <4899@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1342a@prism.gatech.EDU () writes: > > >Someone mentioned the use of a 386SX Laptop as a portable UNIX box. I read >in the Unix in-depth about SCO Xenix that most PC 386 unices do _NOT_ operate >reliably in a 16-bit environment. SCO most emphatically suggests that you do >NOT use SCO Xenix/386 in a 386SX. Pity and a shame, though. You'd have to >look at last month's BYTE (I've lost it), and I don't think it goes in depth. > >-- >Charles LeDuc | gt1342a@prism.gatech.edu | GT PoBox 31342a Atl GA 30332-1001 USA >NetMail 7301/203 , 7301/516 | "victims of incipient bang-utut clutch..." W.S.B. >...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,rutgers,purdue}!gatech!prism!gt1342a |Please apply all >...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1342a | Standard Disclamers. Sorry guy but you are way out in left field on this one... even though the 386SX presents a 16bit(multiplexed 32 bit) bus to the outside world IT IS A FULL 32 BITS WIDTH INTERNALLY(on the chip itself) furthermore Xenix 2.3.2 from SCO runs just fine although more slowly than a full width 386... really read your intel component descriptions before more misinformation is propagated... note that I dont work for SCO I am just one of their highly satisfied customers...(wish I could say that about my other unnamed vendor for 386 unix...) cheers kelly
md@sco.COM (Michael Davidson) (01/17/90)
gt1342a@prism.gatech.EDU (PLACENTA) writes: >Someone mentioned the use of a 386SX Laptop as a portable UNIX box. I read >in the Unix in-depth about SCO Xenix that most PC 386 unices do _NOT_ operate >reliably in a 16-bit environment. SCO most emphatically suggests that you do >NOT use SCO Xenix/386 in a 386SX. Pity and a shame, though. You'd have to >look at last month's BYTE (I've lost it), and I don't think it goes in depth. I don't have a copy of the BYTE article to hand, but I seem to remember that it was open to mis-interpretation - I think the point that they were attempting to make was simply that a 386SX with 16 bit memory really does not have anything like the performance of a 386DX with 32 bit memory. (they also, correctly, made the same point about adding 16 bit memory to 386DX machines - something which we do not recomend) That having been said, the 386SX has the advantage of being a cheap entry-level 32 bit processor which, apart from it's smaller physical address space, is completely compatible with the 386DX. Both SCO Xenix/386 and SCO UNIX 3.2 operate perfectly reliably on 386SX processors - the price point of the 386SX machines pretty accurately reflects their relative performance compared with 32 bit 386DX machines - it is somewhere between the fastest 286 machines and the slowest (ie 16MHz) 32 bit 386 machines. We have 386SX machines in house running both Xenix/386, UNIX 3.2 and SCO ODT (which includes NFS, TCP/IP and X windows). If you are contemplating buying a desktop machine I think that you probably would be wise to consider at least a 20 MHz (or preferably 25 MHz) 386DX, since the incremental price difference is not that great, but if you want a laptop to run UNIX, or the cheapest desktop machine possible, there is absolutely no reason not to buy a 386SX. (I'm not sure whether that counts as an "emphatic suggestion" or not ;-)
rosso@sco.COM (Ross Oliver) (01/17/90)
In article <4899@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1342a@prism.gatech.EDU () writes: >Someone mentioned the use of a 386SX Laptop as a portable UNIX box. I read >in the Unix in-depth about SCO Xenix that most PC 386 unices do _NOT_ operate >reliably in a 16-bit environment. SCO most emphatically suggests that you do >NOT use SCO Xenix/386 in a 386SX. This is definitely not true. Both SCO XENIX 386 and SCO UNIX System V/386 will run fine on a 386SX machine. The only problem I could forsee would be a degradation of performance if slower 16-bit memory is used in the machine. Ross Oliver Technical Support The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
erc@khijol.UUCP (Edwin R. Carp) (01/17/90)
In article <4899@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1342a@prism.gatech.EDU () writes: >SCO most emphatically suggests that you do NOT use SCO Xenix/386 in a 386SX. Interesting. I've been using SCO XENIX 2.3.2 (386) on my 386SX for 2 months now, and it's worked perfectly. The machine serves as a news server, and is up 24 hours a day. -- Ed Carp N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) uunet!cs.utexas.edu!khijol!erc Austin, Texas (512) 832-5884 "Good tea. Nice house." - Worf
rjd@dell.dell.com (Randall J. Davis) (01/18/90)
gt1342a@prism.gatech.EDU (PLACENTA) writes: |>Someone mentioned the use of a 386SX Laptop as a portable UNIX box. I read |>in the Unix in-depth about SCO Xenix that most PC 386 unices do _NOT_ operate |>reliably in a 16-bit environment. SCO most emphatically suggests that you do |>NOT use SCO Xenix/386 in a 386SX. Pity and a shame, though. You'd have to |>look at last month's BYTE (I've lost it), and I don't think it goes in depth. Dell's version of ISC System V/386 UNIX works great on Dell's 386SX machine, the 316SX (16 MHZ 80386SX box). Dell's number is 1-800-426-5150. Randy