🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6964@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>The main problem I see with the 80386SX is that it doesn't have a
>clear market. For DOS and OS/2, a fast 80286 will provide better
>performance, and the 80386 mode is inaccesible. For UNIX, the 80386SX
>is shortchanged in horsepower...  The figures I've seen indicate that
>an 80386 UNIX and an SX is less than a happy marriage.

>Who is using 80386es? And what are you using them for?

   The 80386SX is exactly like an 80386 except for several differences.
It only has a 16 bit data path (not 32) and consumes much less power as its
small size (by comparison) would indicate.  Where I work, we have several
386/386SX machines.  The 386es are used by people who need the speed for
large software development.  The 386SX are used by people who don't need
as much speed, in fact, we have on up as a file server on the LAN.  The 386SX,
we believe, is an affordable solution to the 386 architecture, which I
believe is quite superior to the 286 architecture because of better
multi-tasking and virtual memory abilities.  In fact, as a Beta Site for
Windows 3.0, the new Windows 3.0 will run in either 286 mode or 386 
protected mode.  But Windows preforms much, much better in 386 mode since
it can acquire much more memory and handle tasks more efficiently.  OS/2,
I believe, must also have a 386/386SX to run.  Not to mention the benefits
of the new 32 bit ABIOS coming out in the new PS/2 line and other clone
lines.
   I agree that the 386SX is not suited well for UNIX, but Intel just
announced the 385SX cache which should boost its speed considerably to
about that of a 25MHZ 386 (compared to a 16 MHZ 386SX w/ 385SX).

-Thomas J. Dimitri             tommyd@cs.arizona.edu
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the type of person that
I'm preaching to!" J.R. Bob Dobbs