From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:     C= policy (Re: Apple problems "Home computer")
Distribution: world
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:17:09 EST
Organization: Rick's Amiga

In article <1992Apr14.185708.4379@ctr.columbia.edu> jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>In article <root.01e7@rkamiga.UUCP> root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>This is serious BS.  Nobody sells anything these days that doesn't run
>>>Windows, which requires strict compatibility as well as protected mode
>>>operation.  I don't know where you get this stuff.  If anything, the
>>>quality of low-end clones has been getting better.  They all run Windows,
>>>have large caches, and are expandable to at least 32MB RAM.

>>Windows does not run in 386 protected mode.  

>Of course it does.  First of all, there's only one Protected Mode.  The
>difference is that on the 286, you can have 16-bit segments, while on the
>386, you can have both 16- and 32-bit segments.  Second, in 386-Enhanced
>Mode, Windows itself is a 32-bit flat-model kernel residing in a 32-bit
>segment (although the Windows applications that run under it are mostly
>16-bit apps, with exceptions like Mathematica 2.x).  Third, Windows runs
>DOS applications in V86 mode, which is only available on the 386 and up.
>Fourth, Windows uses the paging unit that's only available on the 386 and
>up.  In summary, Windows utilizes *every* major feature of the 386 (and up),
>so a clone motherboard has to work perfectly to run it.  And in these times
>of the Windows explosion, they all do.

Yes.  A friend of mine saw this post, and called me up.  He pointed out that
apps like Word For Windows and Lotus 123 For Windows run in 32 bit mode.

V8086 mode runs pure MSDOS with the 640k limit per process.

You are assuming that everyone is using Windows.  I maintain that Microsoft
is using the figures from bulk licensing agreements as the number of copies
in use.  Almost every clone sold today comes with Windows in the box.  Many
of those copies are still in the box.  The friend of mine above has a 386/33.
He loaded Windows 3.0 and configured it for the 386 with the advice of
another friend who writes Windows apps at Lotus.  He fooled around with it
for a little while and then deleted it.  He said, "It sucks".

If I was interested in running MSDOS apps with a GUI interface, I would
buy OS/2.

>>There are many clones out there that will not run standard SVR3 and SVR4
>>UNIX.  I spent almost a year evaluating UNIX on 386 and 486 motherboards.
>>The ones that failed, failed with horrible bus timing problems related to
>>the hardware.  These problems were tracked down with a logic analyzer.

>Yes, I've seen UNIX fail on a clone, too.  However, this was a very long
>time ago during the infancy of the 386 and 386 UNIX.  It almost never happens
>anymore.  Unfortunately, PC compatibility grants the motherboard manufacturers
>a bit of flexibility in terms of *some* components, since the differences may
>be covered up by the ROM BIOS (just like on the different Macs).  UNIX and
>OS/2, of course, bypass the BIOS and therefore must rely on a set of standard
>hardware specs, so if a clone differs even slightly, there may be problems.
>
>Like I said, however, this never happens anymore.  I have seen the cheapest
>possible 386sx and 386 motherboards run ISC, SCO, and SVR4 UNIX just fine,
>as well as IBM OS/2.  Even if there are problems, they are not because
>UNIX "pounds" on the hardware and Windows doesn't.  Windows does quite a
>lot of "pounding" on its own.  Especially if you consider that 3.1, when
>used with the FastDisk driver, totally bypasses both DOS and BIOS.

Try reading comp.unix.sysv.386, comp.unix.bsd, or the SCO groups for a while.
It happens all the time.

I would only buy a clone motherboard that is guaranteed to run with UNIX.
That's the only OS I am interested in using on an Intel box.

Systems that are sold at flea market prices aren't guaranteed to run anything.

So with Windows 3.1 you can delete MSDOS from you system?

>>Small clone companies are already beginning to fail.
>>
>
>Name a small clone company that has been around for at least 3-4 years that's
>beginning to fail now.  New ones don't count -- failure within a year of
>startup is common no matter what the business.

But that is where a lot of the cheap clones in Computer Shopper come from.

And that is where a lot of the price comparisons in this group come from.

TRIVIA:  There is a written AT standard, however the mechanical specifications
of the standard don't have anything to do with the original IBM AT anymore.
In the last year, I have seen add on boards that will not fit mechanically
into an original AT case, but will fit into any clone that I tried.

--
Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.

		think!unixland!rmkhome!rkamiga!root