fordke@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Ford x8614) (10/10/90)
I checked the Frequently Asked Questions file, but no help there. I know a 386SX is said to be functionally equivalent to a DX, but is there anything it cannot do, other than the obvious 32-bit bus accesses. Email replies requested to save bandwidth. TIA-kef/MM- -- | ...!uunet!ingr!fordke OR fordke@ingr.com | Micro Magic BBS (Fidonet: 1:373/12, MaBell: +1 205 830 2362) | "and the Trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw." -Rush
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) (10/10/90)
>I checked the Frequently Asked Questions file, but no help there. >I know a 386SX is said to be functionally equivalent to a DX, but >is there anything it cannot do, other than the obvious 32-bit bus >accesses. Email replies requested to save bandwidth. TIA-kef/MM- Let's all sing the 386 song: (sung to the tune of the Beatles Revolution no. 9) A 386 is A 386 is A 386 is A 386 is.... Even if it's an SX. There's nothing a DX can do that an SX can't. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov causing trouble again.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (10/14/90)
In article <1990Oct10.001733.1299@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: | Even if it's an SX. There's nothing a DX can do that an SX can't. Whoops! The 16 bit data bus prevents doing 32 bit i/o to memory mapped devices, and the addressing space is only 16 MB. I believe those are the major diferences. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) (10/15/90)
In article <2056@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1990Oct10.001733.1299@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: > >| Even if it's an SX. There's nothing a DX can do that an SX can't. > > Whoops! The 16 bit data bus prevents doing 32 bit i/o to memory mapped >devices, and the addressing space is only 16 MB. > Got any memory mapped devices in mind? We are talking about Intel architecture here, not Motorola ;-) Accuse me of "small world" if you want, I haven't seen memory mapped i/o for PC's in ten years, that's what the i/o bus is for. As for memory, yeah, you're right, but how many people do you know who are using DOS are being limited by the SX's 16Meg limit? I don't know anyone, including UNIX and OS/2 users. How many people are being limited by DOS's 640K limit? Everyone. Remember, not everyone has DesqView/QEMM or Windows 386/3.0 Actually, I think I'll let this whole thread go, since I just upgraded my 386SX to a 486 (Can you say $1100?) Defending my SX from ignorance has become a non-issue to me. Anyone want to buy a slightly used 386SX w/ 0k, plus an AT case and 200W p/s? It has run DOS, OS/2, ESIX SysV UNIX, DesqView/QEMM, and Windows 386. Up to 8 Meg on the M/B, AMI BIOS, C&T chipset. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov causing trouble again.
rcollins@altos86.Altos.COM (Robert Collins) (10/16/90)
In article <1990Oct15.161015.417@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >> Whoops! The 16 bit data bus prevents doing 32 bit i/o to memory mapped >>devices, and the addressing space is only 16 MB. >> > >Got any memory mapped devices in mind? We are talking about Intel >architecture here, not Motorola ;-) Accuse me of "small world" if you >want, I haven't seen memory mapped i/o for PC's in ten years, that's >what the i/o bus is for. Try being a BIOS programmer and dealing with custom and standard chip sets. We have memory mapped I/O on lots of machines in the address ranges from 80000000h - A001FFFFFh. I assure you, there are plenty of machines that use memory mapped I/O. -- "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." Mat. 4:10 Robert Collins UUCP: ...!sun!altos86!rcollins HOME: (408) 225-8002 WORK: (408) 432-6200 x4356
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (10/17/90)
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >In article <2056@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >>In article <1990Oct10.001733.1299@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >> >>| Even if it's an SX. There's nothing a DX can do that an SX can't. >> >> Whoops! The 16 bit data bus prevents doing 32 bit i/o to memory mapped >>devices, and the addressing space is only 16 MB. >> > >Got any memory mapped devices in mind? We are talking about Intel >architecture here, not Motorola ;-) Accuse me of "small world" if you >want, I haven't seen memory mapped i/o for PC's in ten years, that's >what the i/o bus is for. As for memory, yeah, you're right, but how >many people do you know who are using DOS are being limited by the SX's >16Meg limit? I don't know anyone, including UNIX and OS/2 users. How >many people are being limited by DOS's 640K limit? Everyone. Remember, >not everyone has DesqView/QEMM or Windows 386/3.0 > >Actually, I think I'll let this whole thread go, since I just upgraded >my 386SX to a 486 (Can you say $1100?) Defending my SX from ignorance >has become a non-issue to me. Anyone want to buy a slightly used 386SX >w/ 0k, plus an AT case and 200W p/s? It has run DOS, OS/2, ESIX SysV >UNIX, DesqView/QEMM, and Windows 386. Up to 8 Meg on the M/B, AMI BIOS, >C&T chipset. What I have found is the 386SX is a very viable alternative to going to a true 32-bit machine. Yes, you are going to have the physical memory and 16-bit bus limitation, but oh well. It does do the job nicely. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */