haugen@bulus3.BMA.COM (John M. Haugen) (11/22/90)
We have a batch of Intel 486 chips which we have been having some problems with. The chips have the marking "Q0129" on them. These chips work for the most part with DOS applications but we see them fail when running Interactive Unix and SCO Unix and on occasion Microsoft Windows 3.0. For both versions of Unix, we see the kernal die with a page mode fault (Trap E). Interactive will panic into the debugger about once a day while SCO panics during the initial phase of booting from the N2 diskette. For Microsoft Windows, we see the machine lock up in a similar manner. I will not vouch for it since I don't know that software as well. Anyone else seen any problems like this with these chips and for that matter, does anybody else have these chips? John M. Haugen Domain: haugen@BMA.COM Bull Micral of America UUCP: ...!uunet!bulus3!haugen 900 Long Lake Road ATT: 612-633-5660 New Brighton, MN 55112-6400
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (11/25/90)
haugen@bulus3.BMA.COM (John M. Haugen) writes: >We have a batch of Intel 486 chips which we have been having some problems with. >The chips have the marking "Q0129" on them. These chips work for the most part >with DOS applications but we see them fail when running Interactive Unix and >SCO Unix and on occasion Microsoft Windows 3.0. > >For both versions of Unix, we see the kernal die with a page mode >fault (Trap E). Interactive will panic into the debugger about once a day >while SCO panics during the initial phase of booting from the N2 diskette. > >For Microsoft Windows, we see the machine lock up in a similar manner. I will >not vouch for it since I don't know that software as well. > >Anyone else seen any problems like this with these chips and for that matter, >does anybody else have these chips? There's one thing that I do know. The early versions of the 486 have a bug in them. It deals with the FPU portion of the 486. From what I have heard on comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware, the chip will work just fine with MS-DOS, but go to any other OS and it will blow up. Could somebody who's more experienced with the 486 please elaborate on this? I know currently shipping 486 machines have the corrected 486's in them (at least from the major vendors such as ALR), but the issue here is if it is the older 486 or not. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | What to buy? ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | EISA or MCA? ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | When will the bus wars end? ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hp-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley ) (11/26/90)
haugen@bulus3.BMA.COM (John M. Haugen) writes: >We have a batch of Intel 486 chips which we have been having some problems with. >The chips have the marking "Q0129" on them. These chips work for the most part >with DOS applications but we see them fail when running Interactive Unix and >SCO Unix and on occasion Microsoft Windows 3.0. > >For both versions of Unix, we see the kernal die with a page mode >fault (Trap E). Interactive will panic into the debugger about once a day >while SCO panics during the initial phase of booting from the N2 diskette. I don't know about Q0129; when I bought mine, I was told it was a "B5" and the only place I found B5 on the chip was on the bottom, which means if you want to know what you've got, you'll have to pry the thing out of its socket. I've heard that there are B6 and C0 revs out. As for my B5, I've been running Everex's ESIX SysV.3 for two months now with no kernel panics, faults, or other strange occurances. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov I don't watch Twin Peaks; I just come to work.
tmh@bigfoot.FOKUS.GMD.DBP.DE (Thomas Hoberg) (11/28/90)
|> |> I don't know about Q0129; when I bought mine, I was told it was a "B5" |> and the only place I found B5 on the chip was on the bottom, which means *** Ahh, there it is then... *** |> if you want to know what you've got, you'll have to pry the thing out |> of its socket. I've heard that there are B6 and C0 revs out. ... |> -- |> Kaleb Keithley Jet Propulsion Labs |> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov I read something like ...308... on mine and hoped it would at least be a B6. Now Intel doesn't seem interested in publishing bug-lists (been quite a hot discussion about that elsewhere) but I would still like to know about those obscure floating-point bugs. Compaq used to publish a disconcerting bug list for the 386 in their tech manuals, which I thought grand. It's difficult enough to trace compiler bugs (companies are very silent about those, too--too bad GNU Fortran isn't there yet). I'd appreciate it very much, if somebody could provide pointers to 486 bug lists and diagnostics programs. BTW. those 32-bit Intel CPU's are supposed to report their revision ID's after reset. I'm afraid my BIOS trashes those before I ever have a chance to look at them (even when doing a SHUTDOWN #9 return). ---- Thomas M. Hoberg | UUCP: tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de or tmh%gmdtub@tub.UUCP c/o GMD Berlin | ...!unido!tub!gmdtub!tmh (Europe) or D-1000 Berlin 12 | ...!unido!tub!tmh Hardenbergplatz 2 | ...!pyramid!tub!tmh (World) Germany | BITNET: tmh%DB0TUI6.BITNET@DB0TUI11 or +49-30-254 99 160 | tmh@tub.BITNET