Re: PC Transporter OS

["william strutts" <wrstrutts1@home.com>]

"Mitchell Spector" <mitch2gs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
3b4e2e5d.21007300@news2.sympatico.ca">news:3b4e2e5d.21007300@news2.sympatico.ca...
> pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
<snip>
>     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).

I believe that the FPU was missing in the 386SX too.  The 386DX
had the FPU.

>     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.

Due to a marketing decision, Intel decided to release a crippled
486SX because of the prior generations usage of the cheaper
designed 386SX processor.  However, they took a perfectly good
486DX chip and removed the FPU circuit from the chip.  It
was the same processor.  The 386 SX and 386 DX were totally
different processors.  Intel of course has repeated this with the
Pentium versus Celeron's.  I have a Celeron III in my computer
which is a crippled Pentium III with Coppermine core.  They
reduced the cache in half and dropped the bus speed to 66mhz.
--
--
William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@home.com - Whatever!

C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts

Just hacking away...