wongl@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Glenn N Woodland) (11/15/90)
One friend of mine is planning to buy a 386SX for running a engineering package which requires 32 bit calculation. The current version can run on MS-DOS with DOS Extender(?), but the next release will support UNIX only. So UNIX will be run this 386SX PC in order to run the package. But one person told us that 386SX cannot run UNIX, whatever which version it is. Is this true? What's the reason behind it? Otherwise a 386 has to purchased instead. Please reply me by email. Thanks for your help. -Glenn
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov15.122135.28079@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wongl@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Glenn N Woodland) writes: > >But one person told us that 386SX cannot run UNIX, whatever which version >it is. Is this true? What's the reason behind it? Otherwise a 386 has to >purchased instead. > This is utter hogwash. A 386 is a 386 is a 386.... I ran ESIX on my 386SX for nine months while I saved my pennies to buy a 486. Intel reference manuals unequivocally state that SX and DX are 100% compatable. Just don't expect to address beyond the 20-bit address space of the SX. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov I don't watch Twin Peaks; I just come to work.
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/16/90)
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >In article <1990Nov15.122135.28079@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wongl@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Glenn N Woodland) writes: >> >>But one person told us that 386SX cannot run UNIX, whatever which version >>it is. Is this true? What's the reason behind it? Otherwise a 386 has to >>purchased instead. >> > >This is utter hogwash. A 386 is a 386 is a 386.... > >I ran ESIX on my 386SX for nine months while I saved my pennies to buy >a 486. Intel reference manuals unequivocally state that SX and DX are >100% compatable. Just don't expect to address beyond the 20-bit address >space of the SX. I agree, but don't you mean 24-bit address space? A 20-bit address space is 1 Mb which is the 8086/8088/80186. My 386SX motherboard manual says it has a 24-bit address space (16 Mb). As for Unix, well, I'm running SCO Xenix 386 2.3.3 with everything but the networking packages and Xsight. No problems. My only complaint is lack of hard drive space and the fact that my motherboard can only handle up to 4 Mb of physical memory on the motherboard. Oh well. Such is life. // 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 **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
jhl@frith.uucp (John Lawitzke) (11/16/90)
From article <1990Nov15.155750.3539@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov>, by kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ): $ In article <1990Nov15.122135.28079@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wongl@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Glenn N Woodland) writes: $> $>But one person told us that 386SX cannot run UNIX, whatever which version $>it is. Is this true? What's the reason behind it? Otherwise a 386 has to $>purchased instead. $> $ $ This is utter hogwash. A 386 is a 386 is a 386.... True. I've run SCO Xenix, SCO UNIX, Interactive UNIX, and Intel UNIX Sys V Rel 4 on 16MHz 386SX's. $ I ran ESIX on my 386SX for nine months while I saved my pennies to buy $ a 486. Intel reference manuals unequivocally state that SX and DX are $ 100% compatable. Just don't expect to address beyond the 20-bit address $ space of the SX. I believe you mean 24-bit address space. -- j |%|John Lawitzke, Dale Computer Corp., R&D |%|UUCP: uunet!mailrus!sharkey!dale1!jhl |%| or: uunet!frith!dale1!jhl Inquiring minds just wondering. |%|Internet: jhl@frith.egr.msu.edu
kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) (11/24/90)
In article <1990Nov15.155750.3539@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >Just don't expect to address beyond the 20-bit address >space of the SX. This can't be true! I think the 386sx can address at least 16M, which implies at least 24 bits of address space. I thought that it had the same address space as the 386, but I really don't know. -- favourite oxymorons: student athlete, honest politician, civil war Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
andyc@bucky.intel.com (Andy Crump) (11/29/90)
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) writes: >In article <1990Nov15.122135.28079@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> wongl@extro.ucc.su.oz.au (Glenn N Woodland) writes: >> >>But one person told us that 386SX cannot run UNIX, whatever which version >>it is. Is this true? What's the reason behind it? Otherwise a 386 has to >>purchased instead. >> > >This is utter hogwash. A 386 is a 386 is a 386.... > >I ran ESIX on my 386SX for nine months while I saved my pennies to buy >a 486. Intel reference manuals unequivocally state that SX and DX are >100% compatable. Just don't expect to address beyond the 20-bit address >space of the SX. We at Intel have been running both SVR3.2 and SVR4.0 on 386SXs with no problem. -- -- Andy Crump ...!tektronix!reed!littlei!andyc | andyc@littlei.intel.com ...!uunet!littlei!andyc | andyc@littlei.uu.net Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed here are my own and not representive of Intel Corportation.