From: Wm E Davidsen Jr <386users@crdos1.crd.ge.com> To: 386users@TWG.COM Subject: 80386 mailing list, vol 4 #31 80386 User's mailing list vol 4 #31 May 17, 1989 In this issue: IEE488 gpib for 386 Looking for a Fax board for Xenix Looking for opinions on cheap 386 boxes [ 2 msgs ] More on my earlier "I think I've found my VGA card!!!" Need info on 386 machines. Need information about 386 performance [ 2 msgs ] Printing w/PS 2/80's w/Dual Async Adpt A's The infamous SX UNISYS PW2-850/Mitsubishi MP386 Re: Why unix doesn't catch on 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: hortman@uncmed.med.unc.edu () UNC-CH School of Medicine Subject: IEE488 gpib for 386 Date: 11 May 89 16:03:07 GMT I recently purchased a B&C Microsystems IEE488/GPIB card for our Dell 386. It was supposed to be a National Instruments compatible, but the software that I am trying to use it with calls an init file and then crashes. B&C Microsystems will not help me and neither will the company that wrote the software... Does anyone know how to get this BASIC command to work? 415 call IBINIT1(IBFIND,IBTRG,IBCLR,.........) Mark Hortman hortman@med.unc.edu ------------------------------ From: mgraham@cdp.UUCP Subject: Looking for a Fax board for Xenix Date: 10 May 89 18:18:00 GMT Dear Friends, Does anyone know of a Fax board that is compatible with Xenix running on a 386? Thanks in advance! - mark ------------------------------ From: fcr@wuee1.UUCP (Frank Robey) Washington University, St. Louis, MO Subject: Re: Looking for opinions on cheap 386 boxes Date: 10 May 89 18:23:03 GMT In article <18547@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU> u3ky@vax5.cit.cornell.edu () writes: >I'm starting to think about buying a low-cost 386(sx) box. Two machines that >have caught my eye are.... >Anyone have any info to share on these or comparable machines? > >Steve Gaarder, Cornell University, 173 Hollister, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 The latest issue of PC magazine has a review of 100+ 386 machines. It should give you a good idea of how the low cost boxes do. Frank Robey fcr@saturn.wustl.edu ------------------------------ From: u3ky@vax5.cit.cornell.edu () Cornell Information Technologies, Ithaca NY Subject: Looking for opinions on cheap 386 boxes Date: 5 May 89 18:58:02 GMT I'm starting to think about buying a low-cost 386(sx) box. Two machines that have caught my eye are the 386/16 from CompuAdd ($1900 without HD or video) and the 386/20 ($1900) and 386SX ($1300) from Computer Products United. I've heard good things about CompuAdd, but nothing about that particular box, and know nothing about Computer Products United or its machines. Anyone have any info to share on these or comparable machines? Steve Gaarder, Cornell University, 173 Hollister, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 UUCP: ..!cornell!vax5.cit.cornell.edu!u3ky ARPA: sparks@larch.cadif.cornell.edu or u3ky@vax5.cit.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Subject: More on my earlier "I think I've found my VGA card!!!" Date: 8 May 89 23:15:55 GMT Earlier I wrote: >I think I've finally settled on a VGA card. It is a Tatung VGA. Actually, >Tatung puts their name on two VGA cards. The one I like is a Video7 FastWrite >clone. The other is called the Tatung VGA-16 and is a Paradise clone. > ... >Anyway, the Tatung is available for about $200, not much more than a high-end >EGA card. The only downside is that it is limited to 256k RAM (cf. the 512k >capacity if the Video7 FastWrite.) But 256k allows 640 x 480 x 256 colors and >800 x 600 x 16 colors, which is sufficient for our needs. > Some additional info: It's 640 x 400 x 256 colors, not the 480 I typ(o)ed above. I had to work to get it to play with my Adaptec RLL card: its onboard BIOS is addresses at the same place as is the Adaptec; the Adaptec can be rejumpered to relocate its BIOS. Then it works OK. Except you have to get creative with 386^MAX: assign region c600-cc00 as RAM or the Tatung gets confused (i.e., blithered display) in 43-line text mode. That took some work to figure out. The "Under $200" price: Eltech Research, Milpitas CA. (But remember I'm getting pricing on nearly 10 systems.) kEITHe ------------------------------ From: wlat_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Wayne Lattery) Univ. of Rochester, Computing Center Subject: Need info on 386 machines. Date: 7 May 89 18:25:40 GMT I am currently looking to buy a 386 machine for my projects and other related work. My criteria for such a machine include: 1. 25 Mhz Intel 80386 chip 2. AT or MCA Bus 3. a 5-8 slots 4. preferably a vertical (floor standing) model 5. reasonably priced ($2500 -5000 price range) Does anyone out there in netland can tell me or offer suggestions on their own machines, including reliability ? Can anyone offer suggestions on the Wells American Computstar, the IBM model 80, the Compaq 386 machines, the Northgate 386, 386 machines from Gateway 2000 and Zeos. Please email all responses to wlat_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu. Thanks for all help given. Wayne Newton Lattery University of Rochester, Rochester. N.Y. ------------------------------ From: paf@unixprt.UUCP (Paul Fronberg) uni-xperts, Inc. - Unix System and Networking Consultants Subject: Need information about 386 performance Date: 10 May 89 16:34:46 GMT I am doing analysis of the i386 for use as in a controller and am having problems relating calculated timings with measured timings. Does anyone know about any documentation, ap-notes, or such that might be available from Intel that describes the inner workings of the i386, especially how the various phases of the pipeline interacts. The measured time and calculated time are very different for several test code fragments (The measurements were on a 386 Unix box with 0 wait state memory, 32 bit bus). I suspect I am seeing collisions between instruction prefetch and instruction memory accesses. Things seem to be very complicated when the MMU is activated and the memory is not 0 wait state and I am sure that the pipeline timing diagrams I am generating are anywhere correct. The hardware and software reference manuals are very skimpy when it comes to information of this type. The timing information given in the programmers reference manual gives only execution cycles, assuming that the instruction has already been prefetched and decoded. There seems no information concerning the effects of MMU, addressing, etc. Any help or information would be most appreciated. Paul Fronberg ------------------------------ From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) U of Toronto Zoology Subject: Re: Need information about 386 performance Date: 11 May 89 21:04:57 GMT In article <390@unixprt.UUCP> paf@unixprt.UUCP (Paul Fronberg) writes: >I am doing analysis of the i386 for use as in a controller and am having >problems relating calculated timings with measured timings. Does anyone >know about any documentation, ap-notes, or such that might be available >from Intel that describes the inner workings of the i386, especially how >the various phases of the pipeline interacts. Do remember that any such documentation has a good chance of being specific to a particular release of the chip, which may not be the one you've got (or the one that will be available when your design goes into production). This is the sort of thing that manufacturers will often fiddle with as time goes by, especially to fix bugs. >The measured time and calculated time are very different for several >test code fragments... >... I suspect I am seeing collisions between instruction >prefetch and instruction memory accesses. Things seem to be very complicated... Things are sufficiently complicated that what you're trying to do may well be impossible in a practical sense. It's very hard to compute accurate and precise timings for modern CISC machines, and even RISC designs make it only somewhat easier. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ From: "Curtis P. Yeske" Subject: Printing w/PS 2/80's w/Dual Async Adpt A's Date: Fri, 12 May 89 11:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Here at GSIA we are experiencing a strange problem with our PS 2/80's. We use the IBM PS/2 Dual Async Adapter/A cards to print to a HP LaserJet II. At the end of the print we get either a double tab twelve or so spaces, (we can not tell which). This causes the first line of the next print to be shifted to the right. The behavior occurs only from the DOS PRINT and DOS "Copy xxx.xx prn:" commands, (versions 3.30, 4.0 [others not tested]). Programs such as Kermit or WP, which print directly to the printer do not have this problem. Has anyone seen this problem before? Suggestions? Thank you for your time and consideration, Curt Yeske Graduate School of Industrial Administration Carnegie Mellon cy13@andrew.cmu.edu (412) 268-3091 ------------------------------ From: exos:<@crdgw1.crd.ge.com:@twg.com:carroll1.cc.edu!tkopp@ap.twg.com> Subject: The infamous SX Date: Sat, 6 May 89 14:19:38 CDT I will be purchasing a machine in the X86 line late this summer or in September, and I have something of a question... I do not *NOW* need 386 power, but I'm sure there will be things I will want it for in the future. Money, however, will be tight. Unless prices on the machines drop even further than they already have, I will not be able to spring for a mainline 386. Therefore, my question: Are there any differences, besides the 16bit bus between the SX and the mainlines? Is the 16 bit bus transparent to software? (i.e. is it likely that something could be written to attempt its own memory management looking for 32bit handling and getting confused by the bus structure?). Searching through magazines (Computer Shopper, namely), I can now put together a mainline system complete w/ VGA/multisynch, 40M HD and Panasonic 1124 printer. This is achieved by finding a reputable clone motherboard or base system, and brand names for the rest of the system. I see 386-20's w/ phoenix BIOS, controller (I plan to replace that, unless it's a decent 1:1 & 16 bit) w/ either 1.2 or 1.44M drive, and 1M of memory. (w/ monochrome, etc) for about $2000. Less if I don't insist on a reputable name :) I was looking at the printer for about $310, Paradise VGA prof. card that someone will sell me for $310, NEC's (pseudo)Multisync 2A for about $470 (2 different ads offer this this price) and Probably Seagate's 251-1. My other question to you and your expertise.... As memory drops and the 486 machines are developed (though not sold for a while yet) Do you think the 386 base systems will be dropping appreciably this summer? I have already noticed a BIG drop among some, otherwise I wouldn't even be pondering the possibility. Also, any recommendations on replacements for the above equipment? After reading a review, I am considering swapping the Paradise video card out. It didn't perform outstandingly well speed-wise. Thanks for the time. tkopp@carroll1.cc.edu or uunet!marque!carroll1!tkopp Thomas J. Kopp @ Carroll College 3B2 - Waukesha, WI ------------------------------ From: jay@umd5.umd.edu (Jay Elvove) University of Maryland, College Park Subject: UNISYS PW2-850/Mitsubishi MP386 Date: 8 May 89 16:24:35 GMT I recently purchased the Unisys version of the above Mitsubishi machine and am wondering if the problems I am having with it are well-known and, more important, fixable. Here they are: 1) The floppy disk drive controller takes three to four seconds before it begins doing I/O to the diskette. The light comes on right away, but nothing happens. Has anyone experienced a similar phenomenon on this or some other machine and know what's causing the problem? 2) My clone EGA card (admittedly a cheap one) which works just fine in a Sperry IT, but does not work at all on the PW2. Anyone have any idea why that may be? Thanks in advance -- Jay Elvove jay@umd5.umd.edu c/o Systems, Computer Science Center, U. of MD. ------------------------------ From: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) Software Tool & Die Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on Date: 7 May 89 20:26:27 GMT In article <274@tree.UUCP> stever@tree.UUCP (Steve Rudek) writes: |This is *Microsoft*, |people: You know--the company which markets perhaps the best optimized |C compiler in the world. This is very arguable. It isn't even the best optimizing C compiler for MS-DOS, much less the best in the world. The MIPS C compiler might very well be the best (it consistently makes tighter code than people whose job it is to make tight code), but of course that's not the same environment. There are a variety of other compilers which produce better code than MSC, although few under MS-DOS given its memory constraints. |And the efficiency of UNIX on the 386 is |almost certainly going to look rather sickly when compared to a mature |version of 386 OS/2. That depends on what you're looking for. The 80386 has been out for a pretty long time, yet OS/2 doesn't run there yet. IBM has already built prototypes of 80486 machines (an 80486-equipped model 70 was said to have "twice" the performance of the normal model at the same clock rate). When will OS/2 run native on the '486? UNIX will be running native before most people can get their hands on a '486-equipped machine. This lag is very detrimental. |sorrows me that there is this tradeoff. But I'll repeat: Portability IS the |enemy of excellence. You are wrong. A properly written portable program is usually easier to maintain and debug than a non-portable one. It may not be quite as fast, but it is my opinion that high reliability is better for the customer than optimum speed. What difference does it make that your program runs 20% faster if it breaks twice as often or doesn't necessarily get the right answer? To the developer, a portable program results in a much wider market, a big win. To the customer, a portable program means that it's more likely to be supported on newer, faster hardware than a nonportable one (eg OS/2 versus UNIX). To the programmer, a portable program probably means modularity, allowing you to snap in replacement code which is better, stronger, faster (and perhaps takes advantage of particular hardware) without breaking the application. It used to be the case where hardware was so expensive that you tried VERY hard to get 100% utilization. Hardware costs are so much lower, and performance so much higher, that it makes more sense to focus your attention on other matters (such as interface and portability) now. As hardware continues to improve, I believe you'll see this trend continue. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu ------------------------------ End of 80386 M/L Vol 4 #31 **************************