HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: ftp site for 8051 assembler/compiler
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:04:11 GMT

In article <2A742E50.14716@noiro.acs.uci.edu> jtien@venice.eng.uci.edu (Joe Tien) writes:
>
>Does anybody know if there is any 8051 assembler/compiler available for free?
>I know this is unlikely, but just thought I'd give it a try. BTW, assembler for
>an 8051 equivalent is also okay.

August 1, at the FTP site csd4.csd.uwm.edu in the directory /pub/8051/assem
you will find portable ANSI-C source, and DOS executables for a free 8051
assembler.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Successor to i860?
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:02:58 GMT

>markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>The entire embedded controller series: 8051/8096/80960.  The last two are
>highly orthogonalized and have plenty of RISC design features in them, the
>first had many RISC features designed in it before RISC was even a word.

In article <MKAHN.92Jul30092618@hopi.sedona.intel.com> mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn) writes:
>Semantic police here: The 80960 is an *embedded microprocessor*.
>Embedded controllers are typically used for electromechanical 
>control and/or have a slew of peripherals on board.

They're called embedded controllers too, and in fact Intel refers to them as
such, also: embedded processor, microcontroller, and microprocessor.

Also, in current usage, the term refers to the core of any embedded
microprocessr-based device, such as a disk drive, motor controler, laser
printer, washing machine, transmission unit, network controller and so on.

>The 80960 is a RISC processor (less the MMU which seems to denote full
>microprocessor these days).

Its main purpose is to be used in high-performance embedded controllers.  That's
why it (and the 186 and 376) don't have the MMU.  That's also why it, and the
186 and 376, are detailed in the Embedded Controller Handbooks.
From: jtien@venice.eng.uci.edu (Joe Tien)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: ftp site for 8051 assembler/compiler
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:11:45 GMT
Reply-To: jtien@venice.eng.uci.edu (Joe Tien)
Organization: University of California, Irvine


Does anybody know if there is any 8051 assembler/compiler available for free?
I know this is unlikely, but just thought I'd give it a try. BTW, assembler for
an 8051 equivalent is also okay.

Thanks,

Joe Tien
From: hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Is there any i860 C++ Compiler
Date: 30 Jul 92 22:34:22 GMT
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL

In article <1992Jul20.064522.11700@cucs5.cs.cuhk.hk> cmhui@cucs18.cs.cuhk.hk (Hui Chau Man) writes:
>Dear Netters,
>
>Do anyone know whether there are any i860 C++ Compiler on the market.

The current version of GNU C++ runs on SVR4 ABI-compliant i860s.
-- 
  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: RFowler@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Robert A. Fowler)
Subject: 386/486 clock (1x or 2x)?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:46:55 GMT

In comp.ibm.pc.hardware there is a thread about weather the 486DX uses a 1x 
or a 2x clock.  I (perhaps mistakenly) said it used a 2x clock, (all of the 
motherbords I've seen had a 2x occilator) could some one with a real data 
book clarify?

The 386 does(?) use a 2x clock?
    _________________________________________________________________
                        
                        HONDA -- The only way to fly
    o          
  _/\_>   -A proud owner (just wish they were made in the USA)
 O,> / O   [with all respects to Ohio MINE were made in Japan]
           
                           CM400T/XL500R/VF500F
                             '79   '82    '84
                           
     Slower trafic keep right (SUCKzukies, HDs, etc.) ->->->->->->->
    _________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Successor to i860?
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:38:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.051517.177756@zeus.calpoly.edu> mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard) writes:
>This goes out to all the people in the know at or around Intel: Does Intel
>have any plans to further improve the i860, or to produce future generations
>of the design?  Or does it have some other RISC chip simmering on the back
>burner besides the Px (x86) line?

The entire embedded controller series: 8051/8096/80960.  The last two are
highly orthogonalized and have plenty of RISC design features in them, the
first had many RISC features designed in it before RISC was even a word.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: OMF51 format
From: Steve_Baldwin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Steve Baldwin)
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:08:38 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Is anybody able to send me information on the Intel OMF51 object file
format.
I understand that this is freely available from Intel but I am
trying  to save another $25 phone call to the US.

I am writing a (shareware) source level simulator for the 8051 and
would  like to be able to fall back to symbolic level if the source
is incomplete  or in a format I am not aware of. The Intel OBJ
format seems to be the  common point for most assemblers and compilers.

>If I have been misinformed and it isn't free, I'll shell out the
>$$$. 
> 
>If there are other 8051 object file formats that you are aware
>of and  they are not covered by licensing agreements, I would be
>intested in  those too.
>
>Thanks,

Steve.


Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: rky57514@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tall Cool One )
Subject: SnapIn386 and OS/2
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:56:38 GMT

HI,

	Does anyone have a SnapIn 386 and is running OS/2?? I can't seem to
	get OS/2 to boot up.  It just gives me a blank screen.  ( Yes, I've
	given it PLENTY of time to boot, but it just sits there).  I think
	the SnapIN 386 has something to do with it, but I'm not sure.  Any
	help or info would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!!

	Please email me.

Raymond Yeung
Nimbus@uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: villa_t@cs.uwa.oz.au (Tim Villa)
Subject: Release dates of i processors
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 02:05:19 GMT

Someone was asking about the release dates of the Intel processors. Here
they are, from the Norton Guide to the IBM PC & PS/2:

PROCESSOR	DATE
4004		1970
8008		1972
8080	 	1974
8080A		1976
8085A		1978
8086		1978
8088		1979
80188		1982
80186		1982
80286		1982  (Been around a while eh!)
80386		1985
80386SX		1988
 i486		1988

So there you have it!

Tim Villa
villa_t@kultarr.cs.uwa.edu.au
From: mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Wanted: 82510 Serial Controller
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:50:40 GMT
Organization: /eng/eng3/mkahn/.organization
In-reply-to: gregh@hprnd.rose.hp.com's message of 25 Jul 92 01:38:05 GMT

gregh@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Greg Holdren) writes:


]
] I'm looking for a source for the Intel 82510 serial controller 
] in single quantities. Its simular to the 8251A but supports 9 bit
] xfers, built in FIFO, etc.
]
]

You may also want to try local distribution (Arrow Electronics,
Hamilton-Avenet etc.). They'll usually get samples quicker than
we can simply because they keep them in stock closer to your
location.

--
|  Mitch Kahn              | "I hope you know that this will go down on |
|  mkahn@sedona.intel.com  |  your permanent record..."                 |
*************************MY OWN OPINIONS*********************************
From: chandler@redwrf.reo.dec.com (Peter Chandler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Ada compiler for Intel 520
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:50:04 GMT
Reply-To: chandler@redwrf.reo.dec.com (Peter Chandler)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <25069@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, G_Jin@lbl.gov (Jin Guojun[ITG]) writes:
|>Path:
|
rdg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!caen!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu
u!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!george.lbl.gov!jin
|>From: G_Jin@lbl.gov (Jin Guojun[ITG])
|>Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
|>Subject: Ada compiler for Intel 520
|>Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 16:49:35 GMT-0:06
|>Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
|>Lines: 7
|>Sender: jin@george.lbl.gov (Guojun Jin[ITG])
|>Distribution: world
|>Message-ID: <25069@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
|>NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.196.93
|>
|>Can anyone provide information about the Intel/520 computer?
|>What is this machine, and who distributes the Ada compiler for
|>the Intel/520 computer?
|>
|>Thanks for advise.
|>
|>jin guojun
|>
To: G_Jin@lbl.gov (Jin Guojun[ITG])
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Ada compiler for Intel 520

intel 520 is a multibus II workstation.
you can have it configured with your choice of cpu's, ethernet, disk
controller etc.
you can run either intel rmx or unix on cpu's
ada compiler is telesoft ada 386/486 and only runs on unix
you can get a lib of rmk interface if rmx is running on other cpu's in
box

i worked on 520 , mbII, rmx, unix and telesoft ada here in uk.
intel did take on board the telesoft compiler but no longer so you have
to go to telesoft for that.
From: gt7080a@prism.gatech.EDU (Nathan I. Laredo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486sx questions
Keywords: 486sx, A20 line
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:51:06 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <76814@ut-emx.uucp> ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Kitchen) writes:
>
>	Sorry bud, but to upgrade from the  486SX to the 486DX, you will
>need to buy an entire new motherboard.  Reason for this is that the SX is
>a 16 bit memory bus, just like the 386.  The DX is a 32 bit part, meaning
>the memory is set up to be 32 bits wide.  Since the memory width is not
>changable, you will need a new motherboard.  Save your memory though.  You
>can never have too much memory, or disk space.  
>	A good analogy would be 'how do I upgrade my 4 cylinder engine to 8 
>cylinders ?'.

I usually don't reply to messages of this nature, but SHEESH!  You're
giving sutdents at the university of texas a bad image.   No, it is possible
to upgrade your processor to a 486DX if your motherboard supports it.
Most of the less-expensive 486WB OPTi motherboards have jumper settings
to allow you to use anywhere from a 486SX-20 to a 486DX-50 on the same
board.  Please check with your dealer for more information on your
particular motherboard.   The 486SX is NOT 16 bits... it's a true 32
bit chip, with the 8k on chip cache, as well as all the other features
of the 486DX, only it runs at a slower clock and has the math coprocessor
missing or disabled (depending on what intel now does).

You might check to see if there are extra jumpers around the socket for
the 486.  If your motherboard only has a slot for a weitek math coprocessor,
there's a good chance that it will support the processor upgrade since
there's no slot for a 487.   Motherboards that have this feature are usually
near the bottom of the scale with prices for a 33MHz 486DX board running
around $569 now.  The cache on these boards usually starts at 64k and is
upgradable to 256k only.  The manual for these motherboards is skimpy
and has a red glossy cover.  You should look for these features if your
dealer is uncooperative.

-Nathan I. Laredo
-Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
-- 
Anguna V. Ynerqb
Trbetvn Vafgvghgr bs Grpuabybtl, Ngynagn Trbetvn, 30332
hhpc:	  ...!{qrpink,ucynof,apne,cheqhr,ehgtref}!tngrpu!cevfz!tg7080n
Vagrearg: tg7080n@cevfz.tngrpu.rqh
From: singer@ll.mit.edu (Matthew R. Singer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: i960 differences
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:07:52 GMT
Reply-To: singer@ll.mit.edu (Matthew R. Singer)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory


--

Can someone tell me the difference between it 80960KA and 80960CA parts?

Thanks


P.S.  email please

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew R. Singer                                    MIT Lincoln Laboratory
(617) 981-3771                                       244 Wood Street
singer@ll.mit.edu                                    Lexington, MA 02173
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wwitt@adara.intel.com (Wolf Witt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486sx questions
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:46:48 GMT
Reply-To: wwitt@adara.UUCP (Wolf Witt)
Organization: Santa Clara Microprocessor Division, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA


To straighten out some of the confusion over the i486 family...

i486DX	- 32-bit data bus, 32-bit address bus, built in FPU, built in 8k cache.

i486SX	- Like an i486DX without the FPU. In other words, it still has the
	  32-bit busses and the 8k cache.

i487SX	- A flavor of the i486DX which can be plugged into the performance
	  upgrade socket of an i486SX machine to add floating point computation
	  hardware. Yes, this part essentially is an i486DX which shuts off the
	  original i486SX when it is plugged into a system.

i486DX2	- An i486DX with a clock doubling circuit, meaning that the chip
	  internally runs at twice the system board's frequency. This part is
	  currently only being sold to OEMs.

Overdrive Processor
	- This part is in effect the i487SX2 somebody was wishing for in a
	  previous post. It is like an i486DX2 with the pin-out of an i487SX.

I hope this helps. I know our naming strategy is confusing, but unfortunately
nobody asked my opinion.

Wolf


Legal Stuff:
i486DX, i486SX, i487SX, i486DX2 and Overdrive Processor are
trademarks of Intel Copr.

=> Wolf Witt, Design Engineer     <=> You say there is a bug in this chip?   <=
=> x86 Focus Group, Intel Corp.   <=> No, no, you don't understand...        <=
=> wwitt@smdvx1.intel.com         <=> This is a feature!                     <=
=> I speak for myself, but nobody ever listens to what I have to say anyway. <=
From: apn@Apple.COM (Alex Novickis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Wanted: 82510 Serial Controller
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:21:17 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <530001@hprnd.rose.hp.com> gregh@hprnd.rose.hp.com (Greg Holdren) writes:
>
>I'm looking for a source for the Intel 82510 serial controller 
>in single quantities. Its simular to the 8251A but supports 9 bit
>xfers, built in FIFO, etc.
>
>

Call Intel, ask who the rep for your area is, call them. They'll usually
send one off to you. If you are real lucky, you can get it delivered in
person. Samples are free, just ask your neigberhood drug dealer.






-- 
Alex P. Novickis, Real Time systems demi-guru.  (W)   408-862-4541
ALINK:alex.n                                    (H)   415-691-0657
UUCP:{amdahl,claris,pyramid,sun,decwrl,well,ubvax,ames}!apn@apple.com,apn@nonvon
"I think... I think it's in my basement. Let me go upstairs and check"-Escher.
From: ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Kitchen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Retractment of 486 statement
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:08:47 GMT
Reply-To: ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Kitchen)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
Originator: ifaq570@grumpy.cc.utexas.edu


	Earlier this week, I posted a reply that to upgrade the 486sx to
a 486dx, a new motherboard would be needed.  I guess I had stayed up too 
late the previous night, because I was thinking of the 386 by mistake. I
apologize to the net, and I retract my post about needing to replace the 
motherboard.  

	You may now turn your flamethrowers down a few degrees...   ;)

Apologies for anyone who took my word for the gospel  (yeah, right).

allen 
ifaq570@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Successor to i860?
From: mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 14:32:08 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Jul24.142327.19992@col.hp.com> friedman@col.hp.com (John Friedman) writes:
>
>There are already 2 i860 chips out there - the i860XR (first one) and the
>i860XP (newer one).  The XP is a MUCH improved processor, IMHO.
>
>John Friedman
>friedman@col.hp.com
>

Yeah, those are the "current" i860's.  Mark Hopkins also mentions the
imbedded controller line, of which I am also cognizant.  I am interested in
heretofor unreleased (unannounced?) chips.  Thanks for the info though..=)

Mark Neidengard
mneideng@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
"All questions must be submitted in writing."
	Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Is there any i860 C++ Compiler
From: mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:27:57 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Jul20.064522.11700@cucs5.cs.cuhk.hk> cmhui@cucs18.cs.cuhk.hk (Hui Chau Man) writes:
>Dear Netters,
>
>Do anyone know whether there are any i860 C++ Compiler on the market.
>

Yes, Microway produces some i860 development tools, including compilers,
debuggers, and vectorizers.

Mark Neidengard
mneideng@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
"My tolerance is GONE and my word is born.."
		God Squad, "Nitty Gritty"

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: tmcreek@eos.ncsu.edu (TOBIN MATTHEW CREEK)
Subject: Re: Overdrive Processor?
Originator: tmcreek@c00163-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: tmcreek@eos.ncsu.edu (TOBIN MATTHEW CREEK)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:48:53 GMT


In article <1992Jul30.145209.110132@zeus.calpoly.edu>, mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard) writes:
>Does anyone know anything about/use an Intel Overdrive Processor?  From what
>I saw of it in the ads, it LOOKED like a 487, but that impression could have
>been erroneous.....any info would be appreciated. 
>
>Mark Neidengard
>mneideng@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu

An Overdrive is a 487SX with a clock doubler circuit.  Also, this can be 
thought of as a DX2 with a different pinout (spelled "farse" and "swindle").
The 486SX is still a good way to go.  I am going that way myself.

P.S.  I like your quote.  I am a large fan of Ice-T.
From: mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Overdrive Processor?
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:52:09 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Does anyone know anything about/use an Intel Overdrive Processor?  From what
I saw of it in the ads, it LOOKED like a 487, but that impression could have
been erroneous.....any info would be appreciated. 

Mark Neidengard
mneideng@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
"Got me twisted, jammin' through a paradox
 Every dollar I get another brother drops.
 Maybe that's the plan, and I don't understand
 Damn, you got me sinkin in quicksand..."
		Ice T, "New Jack Hustler"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: maceache@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tim Maceachern)
Subject: Re: 486sx questions
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:29:14 GMT

doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:

>Both the Intel486(tm) SX and DX have 32-bit external busses.
>The Intel486 DX has an FPU, the Intel486 SX does not. And the pinouts
>are a tiny bit different. If your 486SX board has the right stuff ( either
>a "Vacancy" socket or signal-routing jumpers ) you can upgrade
>it to an Overdrive processor ( equivalent to a clock-doubled 486DX ),
>or maybe to a DX.

>In contrast, I think the Cyrix "486" part has only a 16-bit bus.


>--
>Dennis O'Connor			doconnor@sedona.intel.com

Sorry to keep at this.  Perhaps a FAQ is in order.  It is my understanding
that the current 487sx chip does not do clock doubling, and thus just adds
an FPU to a 486sx system.  What those of us with 486sx systems would like
to see, of course, is a 487sx2 which gives us the clock doubling boost
plus the FPU.  I realise that Intel does not discuss unannounced chips and
would not ask for that information, but exactly what is announced at this
point?  The BYTE add for July '92 claims "1.50X" performance using Windows
with OverDrive (page 90).  Is this FPU, new chip architecture, clock
doubling related or merely a typical (or atypical) application performance
difference?

Thanks for any clarification.

*******************************************************************
*         Tim MacEachern         * Tim_MacEachern@hawk.nstn.ns.ca *
*     Software Kinetics Ltd.     *  or maceache@hawk.nstn.ns.ca   *
* Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada *                                *
*           Opinions expressed are the author's only              *
*******************************************************************
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: friedman@col.hp.com (John Friedman)
Subject: Re: Successor to i860?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:23:27 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard) writes:
> This goes out to all the people in the know at or around Intel: Does Intel
> have any plans to further improve the i860, or to produce future generations
> of the design?  Or does it have some other RISC chip simmering on the back
> burner besides the Px (x86) line?

There are already 2 i860 chips out there - the i860XR (first one) and the
i860XP (newer one).  The XP is a MUCH improved processor, IMHO.

John Friedman
friedman@col.hp.com

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: scott@labtam.labtam.oz.au (Scott Colwell)
Subject: Re: 386/486 clock (1x or 2x)?
Organization: Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:24:50 GMT

tmh@keks.first.gmd.de (Thomas Hoberg) writes:
>In article <3713@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> debra@wsinis07.info.win.tue.nl (Paul De Bra) writes:
>   The 386 uses a 2x clock, whereas the 486 uses a 1x clock.
>   A 2x clock has the advantage of delivering a perfectly symmetrical
>   1x clock after halving. A 1x clock needs better clock circuitry to
>   make sure it is symmetrical.

>Hmm, I was always under the impression that even the 486 used a 2x
>clock up until the 486DX[2]50, which uses a 1x clock. Anyway I have a
>66MHz oscillator on my 486/33 motherboard.

The '486 and '386 both require a more symmetrical clock than can be
provided by standard crystal oscillators. (They come with 60%/40% duty
cycle normally.)  You can buy 55%/45% ones but these are more expensive,
come from fewer suppliers and have longer lead times.

Hence you will find that '386 machines have an oscillator with a
tighter duty cycle spec at twice the cpu frequency(*) and '486 machines
will often have an ordinary oscillator at twice the cpu frequency which
is divided by two to give the correct duty cycle.  However, with a
'486DX-50, this becomes very difficult.  Particularly if you need to
meet FCC and CISPR RFI standards.

*note: TTL crystal oscillators top out at ~80MHz which is twice the top
frequency that you can buy '386s in.  Funny about that :-)

-- 
Scott Colwell				Labtam Australia Pty. Ltd.
net:	scott@labtam.labtam.oz.au	41 Malcolm Rd., Braeside
phone:	+61-3-587-1444			Melbourne, Australia  3195