🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <10856@chaph.usc.edu>, by dwu@alcor.usc.edu (Daniel Wu):
> In article <269ec77e-31fccomp.ibmpc@ddsw1.MCS.COM> akcs.gregc@ddsw1.MCS.COM (*Greg*) writes:
>>
>>Touch (A computer corporation in IL.) Says that an AMI MotherBoard is more
>>compatible than others.  Is this true?
> 
> Please post. I'm interested, and I'm sure other people are interested in 
> this too.  I've been considering buying a UNIX box, and would
> like a 386 (25 or 33Mhz) cache system.  
> If anyone out there has any experiences or opinions about these AMI mother-
> boards (or any other 386 motherboards) in regards to compatibility,
> please post.

More compatible? With what?

I can say that there were some conflicts between multiport serial 
adapters using the high address space up near 16Mb and the cache
address on EARLY AMI 386 motherboards. That was right about the
time they were hitting the market widely, targeting, of course,
DOS applications. UNIX? What's that??

I believe the latest is that this has been addressed (no pun!).

The other unconfirmed RUMOR about the earlier AMI systems was
that occasionally the cache memory would return invalid data
under very heavy system loads. (DOS doesn't tax a 386 :) This
was never confirmed by me, nor was it a problem for all two
of these motherboards running Xenix 2.3, and now SCO UNIX 3.2.x.x.x.x.x

All in all, from the built-in BIOS configuration/diagnostic
routines to the construction, I have been pleased with the
AMI systems. It still seems to be a chore to locate a supplier
who claims to have them; the tendency is to ship whatever
was cheapest down on the docks this week!

I note that most of the motherboards nowadays seem to be supplied
with AMI BIOS, if not the entire chipset. They do seem to have it
together, it just took a little while.

I'm gone...

-- 
John Boteler                         {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
NCN NudesLine: 703-241-BARE  --  VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible