From: johnsonm@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Michael K. Johnson) Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron? Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 05:05:47 GMT
In article <Bwz2MK.HLH@mail.boi.hp.com> slack@mail.boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
As far as the 486SXs being a choice for Unix, they work great. The main
thing to watch out for is the bus. I don't see much reason for buying a
486 thats on a 16 bit bus, I have yet to see any real performance
improvements over a 386. BUT!, a 486SX with an ESIA bus does kick some
butt, and I felt that the performance was far better that any 386 that
we have at work. Although I have to say, all 386s are 16 bit machines.
/Please/ don't post confusion like this when you don't know what you
are talking about. /Learn/ something about your subject, /then/ post,
when potential confusion of this magnitude might be involved.
1) 486 is 32 bit bus and 32 bit data, in both the DX and SX
implementations. The only 16/24bit implementation is cyrix's
486SLC, which is really a 386slc with a few add-ons, and is
inappropriately named.
2) Not all 386's are 16 bit -- only the SX family, which is 16/24 bit
externally, though 32/32 bit internally. The original 386 (what
was later to become the "DX") was/is 32/32 bit. Where you get this
nonsense that "all 386's are 16 bit machines" I don't know.
[...]
I don't mean to flame, but every time confusion like this gets
started, it takes at least a week to quell the resulting
misinformation rush.
michaelkjohnson