Re: PC Transporter OS

[mitch2gs@hotmail.com (Mitchell Spector)]

pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

>Roy Miller  <millers@inebraska.com> wrote:
> 
>> william strutts wrote:
>> 
>>> The last version of Windows that would run on an XT
>>> class computer would be Windows 3.0.  Windows 3.1
>>> would only work on a 80386 or better.
>> 
>> Windows 3.1 will run on a 286 or better. Win 95 dropped the 286 and the
>> 386SX.
> 
>Why shouldn't Win95 be able to run on the 386SX?

    Windows 95 requires a full 32-bit CPU. The 386SX is not.
A 386DX CPU is the minimum requirement.

>It can run 32-bit code just as well as the 386DX - the only difference is that the
>speed of execution will be slower on the SX.

    Not so. The 386SX internal data bus is _16-bits_ wide and 
its external data bus is 32-bits wide. This makes it more similar
to the 286; in fact it even shares the same 24-bit address
bus (16 MB total address space).

    Perhaps you confusing the 486SX and 486DX. The difference
between the "SX" and "DX" designation referred to the chip's
FPU (I believe Intel disabled the FPU in the 486SX so it could
be sold as a slower, less expensive CPU). On the 386 it meant
something entirely different. 

>I wouldn't want to run Win95 on anything less than a 486 though .... it
>would just be too slow on a 386 (DX as well as SX).

    Agreed. I remember a 486DX2/66 (with around 16 MB) being
the lowest tolerable configuration. Several years back, for fun
mostly, I did get it up and running on a 386DX-25 with only
4 MB RAM. Oddly it seemed to perform better than Win 3.11
on the same machine. :-)

    This is starting to stray off-topic from the Apple II/PCT btw...

Mitchell Spector