To: 386users@TWG.COM Subject: 80386 mailing list, vol 4 #3 Date: 8 Feb 89 19:15:35 EST (Wed) From: "Wm E. Davidsen" 80386 User's mailing list vol 4 #3 Jan 10, 1989 In this issue: IBM PC 386 clone - purchase help speed of 286 vs 386 mode on the same machine Backup Options/External Storage Media System info wanted, Everex Step 386. info on 386 wanted Re: info on 386 wanted HP Vectra QS/16 Re: 80x86 numbering (was: 80486) (4 msgs) 80486 Re: 80486 (3 msgs) The addresses for the list are now: 386users@TWG.COM - for contributions to the list or ...!uunet!TWG.COM!386users 386users-request@TWG.COM - for administrivia or ...!uunet!TWG.COM!386users-request P L E A S E N O T E If you want to get on or off the list, or change your address, please mail to the 386users-request address, or the message will be delayed by having to hand forward it (for your convenience, not mine). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lalouche@lanai.cs.ucla.edu Subject: IBM PC 386 clone - purchase help Date: 11 Dec 88 00:24:23 GMT Help!, I want to buy the lowest cost 386 PC clone I can find with the following characteritics: OS/2 compatible, 40MB HDISK 28ms, 32 bit RAM, and most importantly fast VGA. I keep finding loopholes in clones like 20Mhz machines using 16MHz 386's, or VGA on the motherboard using only 8-bit data transfer, or FCC A, not B. I know all these components can be purchased separately, but you need a base computer that wont lock you out of hardware add ons, or one that requires you to by their own expensive add ons. Thanks for any help, lalouche@lanai.cs.ucla.edu ------------------------------ Subject: speed of 286 vs 386 mode on the same machine From: Bill Davidsen [ I don't know exactly where this one came from... the header got lost, but it was the result of some timing I did. I am looking for results on a machine with the 386SX using 286 and 386 mode, such as a Xenix system running Xenix/386, or a DOS system with Phar Lap. This would settle the problem of how much the 386 mode matters on a DOS machine with the 16 bit compiler ] In getting MicroEMACS v3.10beta working, I had a chance to time execution of a few versions and see what the performance trend has been. I has xenix 286 and 386 versions, and chose emacs3.9e as a baseline, since I compiled it about a year ago. My standard test script wrote a line, duplicated it 499 times, formatted the whole thing as a paragraph, searched for a non-existant string, and exited. I also did a similar test, without the format paragraph but with the search in "magic mode." The results show that the performance has been increasing as well as new features being added. WHile the size of the compiled image has grown, it still runs the test in <200k. Core sizes shown are actual running size, which is a bit harder to measure under DOS. It's interesting to note that even though they were run on the same machine, the 286 version runs far slower and somewhat larger than the 386 model. This leads me to believe that when people see programs running in 386 mode under DOS the 286 will die for business applications. Build and justify 500 line paragraph and search ----- 286 -----|----- 386 ----- version CPU mem, K CPU mem, K 3.9e 27.10 161 7.82 147 3.9n 3.86 167 3.10beta 9.86 219 3.88 170 Build 500 line file and search in magic mode ----- 286 -----|----- 386 ----- version CPU mem, K CPU mem, K 3.9e 12.04 164 3.82 146 3.9n 3.20 156 3.10beta 7.50 205 2.88 158 Since I know people ar going to ask for the test scripts, here they are. These are probably valid only for UNIX, and are run by "emacs "!J=6UP0ID ` end Please note that I don't run emacs benchmarks as a regular thing, I have some scripts to validate the functioning of emacs when I get a new version. I dumped the accounting file to look at something alse, and the figures were there. The point is that Dan Lawrence is continuing to improve the program, both in features and performance. It also shows what using the 386 instructions will do, and why compilers which take advantage of this, even under DOS, are worth the money. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@sixhub.uucp) ...!uunet!steinmetz!sixhub!davidsen sixhub!davidsen%kbsvax@ge-crd.ARPA "Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anon ------------------------------ From: murphy@pur-phy (William J. Murphy) Subject: Backup Options/External Storage Media Date: 15 Dec 88 16:27:18 GMT Our lab is using a Zenith 386 to control sampling and analysis of audio signals. Since the samples are 30 seconds at 20kHz, we are creating 1.2Mb files that quickly fill our hard disk. At present we are copying them onto Bernoulli cards for later analysis, but that is only a temporary/cost- prohibitive solution. What we need is a reliable and cheap medium to store LOTS of data on. Three possible mediums are DAT tape storage, VCR tape storage, and Streaming tape cartridge storage. What information do other users have about these three? How reliable is the medium? How fast is the access to the stored data? Which companies have the best reputation for their field? What is the projected cost? Equipment? Medium? I have seen a company called Alpha Micro that makes a VCR backup card advertised in Byte. Does anyone have any experience with this company? Well, Lots of questions. Please respond via e-mail. With enough info, I would post the results. Thanks, Bill Murphy murphy@newton.physics.purdue.edu ------------------------------ From: blew@tc.fluke.COM (Bob Lewandowski) Subject: System info wanted, Everex Step 386. Date: 16 Dec 88 20:59:37 GMT hi! I've been thinking seriously of getting an Everex Step 386/20 as a home system and am interested in anyone's experiences with it. The system will be used for CAE/CAD applications for analog and rf circuit design. With SPICE, Orcad, etc., and eventually some home made stuff. I'd like to install a 'fast' 16 bit hi-res VGA card but am not sure which: Paradise, Genoa, Video 7, or ?? Any thoughts on video cards would also be appreciated. Last but not least a 'large' (>80MB, <150MB), 'fast' (<25ms ) hard disk (ESDI, SCSI, or ??) would like to be part of the system. Need info on that as well. It would be nice if the hard disk cost significantly less than the basic computer!! I've heard about some sompatibility problems with the Everex and SCSI host cards (Adaptec and Western Digital). Any other problems?? An alternative could be a Compaq 386/20e, the only problems that I have with it are price and the fact that the interface hardware seems to be cast in motherboard. Any thoughts/experience on the choice?? I have a chance to get 1MX9 SIM memory modules (Toshiba THM91000S-10) for a good price and would like to know if they would work in either machine. A tall order! Thanx in advance for any and all help! Bob -- Bob Lewandowski Domain: blew@tc.fluke.COM Voice: (206) 347-6100, Ext. 5368 UUCP: {microsof,sun}!fluke!blew U S nail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box C9090 / MS 273G / Everett WA 98206 ------------------------------ From: matt@nbires.nbi.com (Matthew Meighan) Subject: info on 386 wanted Date: 17 Dec 88 00:05:09 GMT I'd like some references (articles and/or books) that will better help me understand the 386 processor; especially, it's memory management. I'm also interested in knowing more about the various EMS managers (e.g. 386Max) that use the capabilities of the 386, and about Windows 386. Any suggestions will be appreciated -- I'll summarize and post any responses I get my e-mail that aren't already posted. -- Matt Meighan "The eighties are the fifties in color." - Cowtown matt@nbires.nbi.com (nbires\!matt) ------------------------------ From: cdold@starfish.Convergent.COM (Clarence Dold) Subject: Re: info on 386 wanted Date: 17 Dec 88 20:59:49 GMT >From article <205@nbires.nbi.com>, by matt@nbires.nbi.com (Matthew Meighan): > I'd like some references (articles and/or books) that will better help > me understand the 386 processor; especially, it's memory management. Try Intel. They have a series of books on the 386, about 150 pages each. System programming, hardware reference, 387 coprocessor... One of them ( I don't have them with me ), has a good explanation of different caching styles, as well as interleaved memory. -- Clarence A Dold - cdold@starfish.Convergent.COM (408) 434-2083 ...pyramid!ctnews!professo!dold MailStop 18-011 P.O.Box 6685, San Jose, CA 95150-6685 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Dec 88 17:06:17 -0100 From: Hin Oey Organisation: TNO-IBBC Postbox 49 2600AA Delft, The Netherlands To: 386users@TWG.COM [ Since this is a European request for info, I am leaving the smail address in case anyone can't say what they want by Email -bd ] L.S. Early next year we want to start some experiments with telecommunication. Last week I have purchased a Compaq386 with 110MB harddisk. In the first stage we want to use a BBS under XENIX. More important, however, is that we want to link to databases and applications. If there is some experience I would appreciate an email. Regards, Hin Oey (hin@tnoibbc) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Dec 88 08:57:49 EST From: Ken Seefried iii Subject: HP Vectra QS/16 I am soliciting opinions, etc. on the HP Vectra series of 386 machines. The application is primarily Unix. Other topics I would like more info on are: New Wave user interface HP-IB connectivity (HP 88500A ?) HP-HIL devices (mouse, digitizers, tablets, etc.) HP terminal emulation Any comments are greatly appreciated... ...ken ken@gatech.edu ccastks@gitvm1.bitnet ------------------------------ From: rob@conexch.UUCP (Robert Collins) Subject: Re: 80x86 numbering (was: 80486) Date: 17 Dec 88 05:48:38 GMT In article <715@ethz.UUCP> zu@bernina.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) writes: -In article <2618@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: ->What do you do with the architecture after the 80386 - outside of speedups ->like more on-chip cache and higher MHz? The architecture has pretty much ->reached its limit ... look at '386 native mode: a complete revamping of ->the instruction set! Seems to me that after '386 native mode there's no ->good place to take the architecture, it's already pretty much maxed out. ->So you either make it faster or you go to a new chip design. Why then is ->there all this hype about a '486? It'll probably only be a fast '386 ->(like the 80186 to an 8086). - -The 80486 is rumored to have a virtual 80286 mode as the 80386 has a -virtual 8086 mode. That's all we waited for, isn't it. So we can run -multiple OS/2's on one computer :-) (If you run two OS/2's does this -make it a complete Operating System ?) - -By the way, this virtual 80286 mode caused Intel a lot of problems. It -seems to be the main reason why the chip is that late. - In the latest (or one of the latest) issues of Microprocessor Report, says the '486 will have downloadable micro code, and a 6 instruction prefetch queue. As for the bigger prefetch queue, that means that relative jumps can be done in 0 clock cycles. But as to your assertion of disbelief that much can be done other than speedups, I think downloadable microcode is lightyears more advanced than the '386. For copies of Microprocessor report, you must pay $250/year for a subscription, but I find it well worth it. -- "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only." Mat. 4:10 Robert Collins UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!icnvax!conexch!rob HOMENET: (805) 523-3205 UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!turnkey!conexch!rob WORKNET: (805) 371-5081 ------------------------------ From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) Subject: Re: 80x86 numbering (was: 80486) Date: 18 Dec 88 16:59:05 GMT rob@conexch.UUCP (Robert Collins) writes: -In the latest (or one of the latest) issues of Microprocessor Report, -says the '486 will have downloadable micro code, [...] -of disbelief that much can be done other than speedups, I think -downloadable microcode is lightyears more advanced than the '386. ^^^^^^^^^^ You mean it's physically remote, or aimed at starry-eyed people? :-) IBM made big bucks with downloadable microcode in their mainframes; they kept the S/360 architecture alive for years after they got better hardware, by emulating a 360 whenever a customer wanted to run an old program. Maybe not so fast, except for the fact the the new iron would run so much faster than an original 360 anyway. If the '486 can be re-microprogrammed, perhaps the 8080 will ride again! (Or a 4004? 32-to-64 bit bus, 4-bit words, riiiiggghhhhttttttt.) Or more radically, Intel can make a generic engine that it can program as an 80x86 (for the obsolescence freaks), a 680x0 (for the addressing-mode freaks), another S/360 (for the IBM freaks) . . . ------------------------------ From: bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) Subject: Re: 80x86 numbering (was: 80486) Date: 19 Dec 88 06:36:29 GMT In article <16716@conexch.UUCP>, rob@conexch.UUCP (Robert Collins) writes: > In article <715@ethz.UUCP> zu@bernina.UUCP (Urs Zurbuchen) writes: > -The 80486 is rumored to have a virtual 80286 mode as the 80386 has a > -virtual 8086 mode. That's all we waited for, isn't it. So we can run > -multiple OS/2's on one computer :-) (If you run two OS/2's does this > -make it a complete Operating System ?) > - > -By the way, this virtual 80286 mode caused Intel a lot of problems. It > -seems to be the main reason why the chip is that late. > - > In the latest (or one of the latest) issues of Microprocessor Report, > says the '486 will have downloadable micro code, and a 6 instruction > prefetch queue. As for the bigger prefetch queue, that means that > relative jumps can be done in 0 clock cycles. But as to your assertion > of disbelief that much can be done other than speedups, I think > downloadable microcode is lightyears more advanced than the '386. Umm, well, I am by no means entranced with the '386 (for various reasons ...). My original posting was more along the lines that the '386 has become too much of a muchness, and that in order to do anything else with it it seems that there is little choice but to go with something like virtual 80286 and virtual 80386 modes. This is hardly an improvement!!! The architecture is too complex by half already, there is very little percentage in piling kludge upon kludge. As for downloadable microcode, well, I have used a number of machines that had downloadable microcode; and although we always thought we would try to take advantage of it we never found it to be cost-effective. I know of other installations which had the same reactions - it's something which sounds really neat, and it may even be useful so that the Field Service Engineers can update the microcode on the machine to correct bugs, but _VERY_ few ever really used it. Seems likely to me that its only real use on a 486 will be just that - correcting bugs (assuming that the bugs are fixable in microcode and aren't embedded in the microengine .....). It might be _SOLD_ as being something that had broader utility but in my experience this would be mostly marketing hype rather than solid value. I also don't quite understand why it is considered so horrible that it might be a good idea to call a halt to the continual reorganization of the 80x86 machine architecture and just concentrate on speedups. As it is now there is very little software which really takes advantage of the 80386 native mode ... after all, in the real world what matters is how much work you can get done for how many $. If you are going to increase the complexity of the architecture (and hence the difficulty of using the architecture) then that complexity will have to produce significant returns. My concern is that the 80386 with all of its different operating modes is already complex enough, and provides a reasonable functionality. Why complicate things further for little additional gain? If you are really running into architectural limits I would submit that the time has arrived to junk the architecture and look at going with a cleaner design. Bruce C. Wright ------------------------------ From: bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) Subject: Re: 80x86 numbering (was: 80486) Date: 19 Dec 88 07:01:46 GMT In article <15892@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes: > IBM made big bucks with downloadable microcode in their mainframes; > they kept the S/360 architecture alive for years after they got better > hardware, by emulating a 360 whenever a customer wanted to run an old > program. Maybe not so fast, except for the fact the the new iron would > run so much faster than an original 360 anyway. IBM mainframes are still running an architecture extremely similar to the S/360. A few additional instructions, and the entire 32 bits of a base register can be used as a memory address (instead of only 24 as on the S/360), but close enough so that most well-written assembler programs (or even binaries) would run in native mode on the latest machines. You are almost certainly thinking about 1401 emulation mode. The early S/360 and S/370 machines could emulate an old IBM 1401 machine; I think this emulation mode has been removed from the latest machines (but I haven't had any reason to keep track so I don't know this for certain). > If the '486 can be re-microprogrammed, perhaps the 8080 will ride again! > (Or a 4004? 32-to-64 bit bus, 4-bit words, riiiiggghhhhttttttt.) > Or more radically, Intel can make a generic engine that it can program > as an 80x86 (for the obsolescence freaks), a 680x0 (for the > addressing-mode freaks), another S/360 (for the IBM freaks) . . . This has of course always been possible - you just have to remask the ROM for the microcode. IBM has a chipset for the S/360 based I think on the 68k. One point (which you may be trying to make) is that it is not clear that changing the personality of the processor has much utility unless you have old programs to run. Most of the users running 1401 emulation mode were doing so because they hadn't rewritten all their code to run in S/360 native mode (sometimes they no longer HAD the source!!) - in fact there were several companies that made a very nice living converting 1401 binaries to S/360 COBOL code. Anyway, after experiences like that I don't think that there are very many companies that take such a cavalier attitude towards their critical program sources. If it is really interesting to be able to run, say, S/360 code on your PC, why didn't the XT/370 and similar products go anywhere? (this machine could run both PC and S/360 applications on the same machine). Would making the chip dynamically reconfigurable really make that much difference? I can see that there would be a few selected applications where it would be nice (I can even think of a couple of times it might have some marginal utility in some of the off-the-wall type projects I sometimes get involved in), but for the VAST run of PC-type and minicomputer applications I just don't see where the percentage is. Maybe I'm just getting old. Bruce C. Wright ------------------------------ From: ocyy@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU Subject: 80486 Date: 16 Dec 88 01:23:07 GMT I hope that I am posting to the best group. I recently heard that the 486 chip is headed for the real world. Can anyone forward a summary of info or just here? What are the major differences with the 386? What likely cost increase will there be or is this ultimately destined to be a PC CPU? How many years before production runs are on line? Many thanks, Dominic Ryan Dept. Chem. Cornell University. BITNET: OCYY@CRNLVAX5, INTERNET: see header ------------------------------ From: beres@cadnetix.COM (Tim Beres) Subject: Re: 80486 Date: 16 Dec 88 16:51:00 GMT In article <17566@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> ocyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu () writes: > >I hope that I am posting to the best group. I recently heard that the 486 chip >is headed for the real world. Can anyone forward a summary of info or just >here? What are the major differences with the 386? What likely cost increase >will there be or is this ultimately destined to be a PC CPU? How many years >before production runs are on line? My info is from InfoWorld: The major difference is that the 486 will be a "set" of closely coupled chips, similar to the 386/cache/DMA set, but with higher levels of integration and (presumably) more features. Other stuff I've heard: 486 will include on-chip (pick one or more) FP, graphics, high speed I/O; the 486 will be RISC architected; first silicon will achieve 2X performance increase over top of line 386; you will see 486 machines on the market in 89. Of course I could be wrong. Tim ------>MY SOAPBOX (I speak not for Cadnetix nor any enjoined entity) OK, one more time: This is a frying pan.....this is an egg.... this is an egg in a frying pan....JUST SAY OVER EASY Tim Beres beres@cadnetix.com {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!beres ------------------------------ From: ed@imuse.uucp (Ed Braaten) Subject: Re: 80486 Date: 18 Dec 88 21:36:00 GMT In article <17566@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> ocyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu () writes: > >I hope that I am posting to the best group. I recently heard that the 486 chip >is headed for the real world. Can anyone forward a summary of info or just >here? What are the major differences with the 386? What likely cost increase >will there be or is this ultimately destined to be a PC CPU? How many years ^^^^^^ |||||| EEeeek!!!! Please spare us. The idea of DOS running at X-Mips... Please don't wish a future like that on the 80486! (I'm referring to all the under-worked 80386 CPU's out there in PC-boxes doing single- tasking brain-damaged DOS or executing sludge-ware like OS/2...) Thanks for rating comp.sys.intel as the 'best group'! ;-) +--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "Seek the Lord while he may be found; Intel Semiconductor GmbH | call on him while he is near." Dornacher Strasse 1 | Isaiah 55:6 8016 Feldkirchen bei Muenchen | West Germany | uucp: ed@imuse.uucp Ph: +49 89 90992-426 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) Subject: Re: 80486 Date: 19 Dec 88 15:25:57 GMT In article <213400015@s.cs.uiuc.edu> carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >I went to a talk by Intel about it, and they were cagey about actual dates. >From what they said, the '486 does not really have any new features. Mostly, >it's faster (a significant number of long instructions execute in fewer >cycles), and there will be no '487 - it's built in now. (I.e., the FPU >is onboard, which makes it a lot faster). Is it a full function FPU (i.e. with trig and transcendentals) or is does it just support the four basic operations? What floating point format does it support? Does this mean the 486 has no coprocessor interface? -- Regards.....George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. UUCP: {utzoo,uunet}!mnetor!george BELL: (416)475-8980 ------------------------------ End of 80386 M/L ****************