🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1477@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> msandifo@ucs.adelaide.edu.au (Martin Sandiford) writes:
# From article <935@sppy00.UUCP>, by jaa@sppy00.UUCP (Jeff Anderson):
# > In article <1990Sep16.194605.11968@ecn.purdue.edu> tlhilde@ecn.purdue.edu (Troy Hildebrand) writes:
# >>I have been warned _not_ to go with a 386sx when purchasing a computer,
# 
# This would seem to be a little unreasonable to me.  Maybe this person has
# an axe to grind?

I remember reading in BYTE some months ago a warning against running
unix and lookalikes (SCO Xenix) on 386SX's.  HOWEVER, the text warned not
against the 386sx per se, but against cheap computers with unstable
motherboards, second rate DRAMs not living up to the specs, and trying
to run a 386SX at 20 MHz with just 1 MB of ram and 30 MB or so of disk..

The warning against el cheapos makes sense, as a UNIX crash is a lot messier
to recover from than a DOS crash, and as they recommend 4-8 MB of ram
and something like 80 MB of disk.  There were a lot of cheapos made with
386SX's, but not a lot with the more expensive DX.

So there should be no problems with a respectable 386SX running at 16 MHz
with enough 80 ns ram and enough disk for the application.  The SX is
software compatible with the DX, and a SX system has a few advantages over
the DX:

The smaller bus and no cache leaves more room for goodies such as 8 MB on
the motherboard and 8 expansion slots, and the simpler board is less likely
to have design errors on it.  There is also the cheaper price for the same
software capability.

The SX is slower than the DX, which is the only tradeoff - or what?

Torkil Hammer