From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re:    C= policy (Re: Apple problems "Home computer")
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:57:08 GMT

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.

>
>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.

>
>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.

>
>Rick Kelly		Rick's Amiga		Framingham, Mass.
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy