Re: PC Transporter OS

["Brendon Woirhaye" <bytre@hotmail.com>]

The initial 386es were just "i386".  Later, when the 386SX was released
(with the 16-bit external addressing, 32-bit internal), the full 32-bit 386
was renamed the 386DX - but was otherwise the same as the original i386.

Windows 95 (950) would run on a 386SX.  It would "run" on a 4mb machine.  A
4mb 386SX was the minimum configuration for my first commercial Windows app
(norton utilities 95).  It wasn't speedy, but worked.


"Roy Miller" <millers@inebraska.com> wrote in message
3B4FD060.21F9DD0E@inebraska.com">news:3B4FD060.21F9DD0E@inebraska.com...
> Mitchell Spector wrote:
>
> >
> >     Heh, how about getting this back on topic. Did you know the
> > 65C816 was internally 8-bits wide while externally 16-bits wide?
>
> I believe you have that backwards. The 816, like the 8088 was 16 bit,
> internally, but when it came time to talk the outside world, they do it
through
> an 8 bit wide data bus.
>
> You said something similar about the 386 SX vs DX (does anyone remember
that
> the first 386 was a "DX" but didn't carry the initials because there
wasn't an
> SX yet?) Both chips are 32 bits internally, but the SX (like the 68000,
and the
> 80286) spoke to the outside world through a 16 bit bus.
>
> >
> > That makes it a hybrid 8/16 CPU, much like the Intel 8088. I've
> > always wondered if for that reason it's technically correct to call
> > the Apple IIGS (or SuperNintendo) a true 16-bit machine. By
> > contrast the Amiga and first Macs used hybrid 16/32 68000's
> > and were considered 16-bit machines.
> >
> > Mitchell Spector
> > a_specto@alcor.concordia.ca
>
> Roy
>
>