To: 386users@TWG.COM Subject: 80386 mailing list, vol 4 #6 Date: 8 Feb 89 20:01:22 EST (Wed) From: "Wm E. Davidsen" 80386 User's mailing list vol 4 #6 Feb 4, 1989 In this issue: 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: jep@fantasci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) Subject: 100ns .vs. 120ns Date: 4 Jan 89 20:40:35 GMT How bad of a speed difference would my UNIX V.3 for the 80386 system incur if I added 120ns chips instead of the 100ns chips it already has 2 meg of? The system is a personal system with no more than 3-5 users on at the extreme most. The reason I am considering the slower chip is mainly the price. Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -Jo _______________________________________________________________________________ | Joseph E Poplawski (Jo) US Mail: 1621 Jackson Street | | Cinnaminson NJ 08077 | | UUCP:..!rutgers!rochester!moscom!telesci!fantasci!jep | | ..!princeton!telesci!fantasci!jep | | ..!pyrnj!telesci!fantasci!jep Phone: +1 609 786-8099 home | |_____________________________________________________________________________| ------------------------------ From: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) Subject: Re: 100ns .vs. 120ns Date: 6 Jan 89 14:54:22 GMT In article <377@fantasci.UUCP> jep@fantasci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) writes: >How bad of a speed difference would my UNIX V.3 for the 80386 system incur if >I added 120ns chips instead of the 100ns chips it already has 2 meg of? The >system is a personal system with no more than 3-5 users on at the >extreme most. First, system load does not have much to do with memory speed requirements. The processor runs full speed all the time whether it is waiting for keyboard input or moving a 1MB array in memmory. Memory is not a good place to economize when you are using UNIX. For some reason, UNIX tends to bring out memory errors in a system faster than other OSs like MSDOS. You do not mention what machine you have, but in general: 16 MHZ 100ns 20 80ns 25 60ns I got lucky when I purchased my Inboard/386 AT, it is a 16MHZ 386, but it uses a 64K static cache and will run with 120ns chips. Remember, if the machine would run reliably with the slower chips, the manufacturer would have used them to save money. This might not be true if a manufacturer got a particularly good deal on faster chips though. You will know if it is not working when your machine dies with panic messages. -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Kansas State University INTERNET: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu Manhattan, KS 66502 UUCP: rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry ------------------------------ From: debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) Subject: Re: 100ns .vs. 120ns Date: 6 Jan 89 16:48:41 GMT In article <377@fantasci.UUCP> jep@fantasci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) writes: >How bad of a speed difference would my UNIX V.3 for the 80386 system incur if >I added 120ns chips instead of the 100ns chips it already has 2 meg of? The >system is a personal system with no more than 3-5 users on at the extreme most. > >The reason I am considering the slower chip is mainly the price. > There is no magic in the PC and AT compatibles (including 80386's) to detect what speed the memory can handle. There are 2 possibilities: either your system doesn't really need 100ns chips and will run just as fast with 120ns chips, or else the system will not run at all with 120ns chips (it will give parity errors at least). Considering the price of memory chips it is very unlikely that you got the machine with 100ns chips when it only needs 120ns. The only way to make your system work with slower chips is to lower the clock-frequency (like from 20Mhz to 16Mhz). What ram-chips your system needs is very motherboard-dependent. Some boards use very fast rams (60ns) and no cache memory, others use slow ram (up to 120ns) and compensate with cache memory. In any case the hardware expects a minimal speed of ram which is really necessary at the highest clock rate. Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: 100ns .vs. 120ns Date: 6 Jan 89 23:43:13 GMT In article <8687@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: >In article <377@fantasci.UUCP> jep@fantasci.UUCP (Joseph E Poplawski) writes: >>How bad of a speed difference would my UNIX V.3 for the 80386 system incur if >>I added 120ns chips instead of the 100ns chips it already has 2 meg of? The >>system is a personal system with no more than 3-5 users on at the extreme most. >> >>The reason I am considering the slower chip is mainly the price. >> > >There is no magic in the PC and AT compatibles (including 80386's) to detect >what speed the memory can handle. There are 2 possibilities: either your >system doesn't really need 100ns chips and will run just as fast with 120ns >chips, or else the system will not run at all with 120ns chips (it will give >parity errors at least). Considering the price of memory chips it is very >unlikely that you got the machine with 100ns chips when it only needs 120ns. > >The only way to make your system work with slower chips is to lower the >clock-frequency (like from 20Mhz to 16Mhz). > >What ram-chips your system needs is very motherboard-dependent. Some boards >use very fast rams (60ns) and no cache memory, others use slow ram (up to >120ns) and compensate with cache memory. In any case the hardware expects >a minimal speed of ram which is really necessary at the highest clock rate. Actually the speed of your RAM is dependant on the clock-rate *AND* the number of wait states. Generally speaking you can use slower memory chips with high speed machines by adding wait states. Depending on your machine you will have one or more of the following possibilities: - the new chips work great (try and run a good memory test though) - they don't work If they don't work: - reduce the clock rate - add global wait states - add wait states for the new memory only The last is best, but probably not supported on too many 386 systems. The actual impact lowering the clock-rate or adding wait states will have is dependant on the system: - does it have four way interleave - does it have a cache The bottom line, is RTFM. Find out what options you have in terms of setting your system up, can you: - modify clock-rate - add wait states - add wait states for specific memory only BTW these are issues that are best dealt with *before* you buy the system, unless you are never going to be expanding the system after you buy it (or are willing to return to the vendor for all upgrades). -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532 ------------------------------ From: carlson@gateway.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) Subject: Re: Paradise Autoswitch 480 and Windows/386 Date: 5 Jan 89 21:07:19 GMT In article <8547@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> slin@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Steven Philip Lin) writes: > > Does anyone know how to get Windows/386 to work at 640x480 mode with >a Paradise Autoswitch 480? Paradise supplies a driver to work with plain >Windows, but I can't seem to use this driver with the 386 version. Has >anyone gotten this to work? According to an article in the Jan 2, 1989 Infoworld the Paradise VGA cards have the same problem with Windows 386 - but they don't offer any explanation or suggestions. You may want to call Paradise and find out if they have some new drivers available through their BBS - but make sure they are actually something new. I spent the money (telephone) to transfer an archived file from the BBS and when I unarced it I found out the files were identical to those that come on the disk with the Autoswitch 480 card. I haven't checked recently to see if they have any new drivers. Bruce Carlson ------------------------------ From: chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) Subject: Re: 386 video drivers (was Re: Paradise Autoswitch 480 and Windows/386) Date: 10 Jan 89 04:17:12 GMT In article <138@smsdpg.uu.net>, seg@smsdpg.uu.net (Scott Garfinkle) writes: > From article <8547@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, by slin@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Steven Philip Lin): > > > > Does anyone know how to get Windows/386 to work at 640x480 mode with > > a Paradise Autoswitch 480? Paradise supplies a driver to work with plain > > Windows, but I can't seem to use this driver with the 386 version. Has A (slightly) modified kernel is necessary to use a 640x480 or larger screen format with Windows/386. The standard 640x480 driver that comes with Windows/ 386 is really 640x450 (try running the PC Magazine benchmark -- I forget the number -- and look at the screen format information!). > > anyone gotten this to work? > > For that matter, what is the big problem in general with Windows/386 video > drivers? I haven't seen any video card manafacturer yet who is supplying > an 800x600 VGA driver for Windows/386 -- only W/286. Why? The tool kit for Windows/386 was seriously modified between version 2.03 and 2.10 -- Microsoft sugguested to us (STB), and I would assume everyone else, that we release drivers for Windows/386 only for the new version (less buggy?) so we are... And we decided to start with the 800x600 driver for the VGA Extra/EM and EM-16 cards. That driver should be available by mid-February, based on how long such things usually take to get through the system -- I released it about January 5th or so to our testing group. > Scott E. Garfinkle > SMS Data Products Group, Inc. > uunet!smsdpg!seg =========================================================================== Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <== Apply all standard disclaimers Wordmark Systems <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us ------------------------------ From: chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) Subject: Re: 386 video drivers (was Re: Paradise Autoswitch 480 and Windows/386) Date: 10 Jan 89 04:24:44 GMT In article <6659@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, jls@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Jerome Schneider) writes: > In article <138@smsdpg.uu.net>, seg@smsdpg.uu.net (Scott Garfinkle) writes: > Unfortunately, the driver for windows/286 is the Windows part only. In win > 386, there is a chunk of code that runs in the 386 protected mode and it's > function is to provide "virtual machines" to each of the processes. A big > part of this hidden machine is the code to "simulate" COM ports, mouse, > keyboards, and display hardware for each running task. If you look at the > windows disks, there are several files (cga.386, ega.386, hercules.386, > etc) designed for specific hardware. This code is the entire "virtual machine" > code for each hardware configuration. Because the display hardware is > very intimately tied to the virtual kernel, drivers as such are not > enough to provide the extended features. I think that only Video-7 has > a contract with Microsoft to provide a special version of the virtual > machine code with support for V-7 hardware in the extended modes. I > don't know if paradise/WD is planning to do the same. It is not easy to get the kit and all the paperwork from Microsoft, but I have it (see my last posting -- we are releasing such a beastie) and I am sure Paradise has equal access to Microsoft. They will probably release a similar "driver". Our code changes and Windows/286 driver code comes to about 310K on the distribution disk -- video is not yet very well decoupled from the basic Windows kernel! > . no signature file, > killer.jls.DALLAS.TX.US Jerome Schneider. Charles Marslett chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us ------------------------------ From: chasm@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Charles Marslett) Subject: STB Windows/386 Version 2.1 video drivers Date: 13 Jan 89 07:05:43 GMT I checked with our marketteers, and the latest party line is that the STB VGA/em16 (16 bit card) is shipping with the Windows/386 disk, and the driver disk is available to anyone who has bought a VGA/Extra-EM (the 8 bit card). Just call or write to customer service. Charles Marslett chasm@killer.dallas.tx.us ------------------------------ From: johnan@ism780c.isc.com (John Antypas) Subject: Need a 386 system/upgrade from 286 Date: 6 Jan 89 17:17:00 GMT Greetings, Does anyone in netland have suggestions (companies are OK too) for upgrading a 286 system to a 386 system. I'm on a tight budget and need a 386 for work. Because it will be unde Unix (guess which one :-) the system (new or upgraded) must have: - 3-4M ram - 110 or more meg of disk space I currently have a 286 w. 2.5M ram (120ns. 256k chips) and 2 Seagate 4038 drives. Would it be cost effective to upgrade? I don't need 20Mhtz. Is there a daughter board for the SX yet? What would this run do you think? Could I for example, find an SX "kit", pull out a 4038 and replace it with a 4096, add another 2M of memory and go? Sure it will be slower, but then again, it might save as much as $2,000. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks again. -- John Antypas -- Interactive Systems ...!{haddock, uunet, sdcrdcf}!isc780c!johnan johnan@isc780c.isc.com All Statements (C) 1989 John Antypas -- Interactive can't have them! They're mine! Do you hear???? All mine!! ------------------------------ From: bareta@ihuxv.ATT.COM (Benyukhis) Subject: 386 Motherboards vs. Acceleratr Boards Date: 6 Jan 89 20:32:34 GMT Need a lot of advice on upgrading 286 to 386 (ideally one would sell one and buy the other... but it is impossible to sell the used machine for as much as you have already invested so ....) I am looking for an information on how to upgrade an AT type machine to a 386 i.e what are the available products, known limitations, etc. For information: I have a PC's Limited 286 AT 6/8Mhz switchable with Phoenix BIOS, 40Mb ST-251, EGA, and 3MB (120 or 100 ns RAM) 1024 on the mother board and 2Mb on the Everex Ram board (3000 I beleive) I need all of the information I can gather (prices too if known) Will summarize the results to the net. Thanks much, Edward Benyukhis ------------------------------ From: jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) Subject: Re: 386 Motherboards vs. Acceleratr Boards Date: 7 Jan 89 14:46:29 GMT In article <3106@ihuxv.ATT.COM> bareta@ihuxv.ATT.COM (Benyukhis) writes: >Need a lot of advice on upgrading 286 to 386 (ideally one would sell one >and buy the other... but it is impossible to sell the used machine >for as much as you have already invested so ....) I am looking >for an information on how to upgrade an AT type machine to a 386 i.e >what are the available products, known limitations, etc. >For information: I have a PC's Limited 286 AT 6/8Mhz switchable with >Phoenix BIOS, 40Mb ST-251, EGA, and 3MB (120 or 100 ns RAM) >1024 on the mother board and 2Mb on the Everex Ram board (3000 I beleive) > A major possibility is to junk the 286 motherboard and get a replacement 386 board. There are many of them out on the market for prices starting at $1000 (rare), moving up to $1500 (happauge 386) or higher. JB -- Jonathan Bayer "The time has come," the Walrus said... Intelligent Software Products, Inc. 19 Virginia Ave. ...uunet!ispi!jbayer Rockville Centre, NY 11570 (516) 766-2867 jbayer@ispi ------------------------------ From: debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) Subject: Re: 386 Motherboards vs. Acceleratr Boards Date: 9 Jan 89 19:26:07 GMT In article <400@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes: }In article <3106@ihuxv.ATT.COM> bareta@ihuxv.ATT.COM (Benyukhis) writes: }>Need a lot of advice on upgrading 286 to 386 (ideally one would sell one }>and buy the other... but it is impossible to sell the used machine }>for as much as you have already invested so ....)... } }A major possibility is to junk the 286 motherboard and get a replacement }386 board. There are many of them out on the market for prices starting }at $1000 (rare), moving up to $1500 (happauge 386) or higher. I couldn't agree more. Having my 286 motherboard "blow up" a couple of days ago, an accelerator board doesn't help... Since your 286 motherboard is aging this is a *real* issue... Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of 80386 M/L ****************