daf@public.BTR.COM (David A. Feustel daf@btr.com) (07/27/90)
I'm running OS/2 version 2.0 very nicely on a 386sx with an AMI bios and 8 megs (no 87sx though).
v112pdl5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark J Cromwell) (07/27/90)
In article <6534.26ae1eb3@uwovax.uwo.ca>, baer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes... >32-bit applications (unless they were specifically programmed around >the limitations of the SX chip), including OS/2 2.0, would not run on >an SX machine. Is this claim garbage, as I suspect, or is there something >to it? Utter garbage. It's a salesdweeb speaking. Can anyone expect ought but garbage? - Mark Cromwell
alistair@microsoft.UUCP (Alistair BANKS) (07/28/90)
In article <6534.26ae1eb3@uwovax.uwo.ca> baer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes: >limitations (16-bit path, etc.). A salesperson trying to push a DX over >an SX told me that the memory addressing limitations meant that many >32-bit applications (unless they were specifically programmed around >the limitations of the SX chip), including OS/2 2.0, would not run on >an SX machine. Is this claim garbage, as I suspect, or is there something >to it? Your salesman is very wrong - tell him about logical to physical address mapping as a feature of virtual memory on 386sx,dx & 486 - and then ask him to explain what this special programming is! Win3 & os/2 2.0 both run just fine on 386sx, but both gain from extra i/o bandwidth usually associated with a full 32-bit data bus. Speak to a different salesman! Alistair Banks OS/2 Group Microsoft