HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoff@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer)
Subject: Re: Performance C News on Release 3.2
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
	<BxotMK.5BE@world.std.com> <BxqzLH.KHK@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:32:30 GMT

Marc Unangst:
>Is there a reason that known.problems isn't in all the places that the C
>News code is?

The main one is that I don't have write permission on the ftp directory
cs.toronto.edu:pub/c-news.  It is not known why Henry hasn't copied
known.problems into this directory.
-- 
Geoff Collyer				world!geoff, world.std.com!geoff
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:30:45 GMT

I think that some people here don't really understand the economics
of chip production.  Here's a little example (w/ some made up numbers,
since I can't get the actual) using the 486SX and 486DX.

Assume you can get 33 DXs on a wafer.
Now the SX is less than 1/2 the size because of no math coprocessor.
It's smaller yet because it uses a smaller line size, making it about
a third the size of the DX.  So right off your yield/wafer has tripled.
This allows you to sell the SX at about 1/2 the cost of the DX
(packaging costs are constant, so you must charge more than 1/3 cost).

Now lets say there are 22 different DX sized areas that have faults
that will ruin the chip that is there.  DX production has now dropped
to 11/wafer (33%) and the SX production has dropped to 77/wafer (78%).
Now you have 7 times as many SXs/wafer than DXs, allowing you to
charge something like 1/5 the cost per chip.

The SX is a bargain, the 487DX is a rip-off.


					Todd Walk
					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
From: harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison)
Subject: need help locating Micronics
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
Keywords: motherboards, VLB
Reply-To: wupost.wustl.edu!dbsun!harbison
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 12:25:03 GMT

Can someone provide me with an address or phone number for Micronics,
the motherboard manufacturer?  I am also intereted in any other
companies selling motherboards with VESA Local Bus (VLB) support.

aTdHvAaNnKcSe

-- 
*realName: Phil Harbison
*mailName: harbison%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
*phoneList: 314-731-7475 (w) 314-272-9318 (h)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: liuwu@acuson.com (Wu Liu)
Subject: Re: 386/33 DX machine: what unix options do I have
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:32:41 GMT

>mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>>What you really need to do is make sure you have enough memory.  I have
>>run SCO ODT 1.1 on a 386/20 with 12MB, and it runs pretty well.
>>Apparently ODT 2.0 is bigger, because this runs noticably worse on the
>>same machine.  But a 386/33 with >= 12MB should serve you pretty well,
>
larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) replies:
>Maybe ODT 2.0 has everything turned on in the kernel when
>shipped -- and you might need to remove or disable the drivers
>which you are not running... SVR4 is that way -- and it was
>possible here to reduce the kernel size by 30% after removing
>the stuff we don't use..

There are some device drivers you can take out, although the ODT 2.0
installation tries to get the most obvious ones.  Two things, I think,
contribute to the perceived "bloat" in ODT 2.0 vs. 1.1:  higher default
values for some of the kernel tunable parameters (specifically, streams),
and a larger (but nicer) desktop.

Anybody running ODT 2.0 should seriously consider fine-tuning the
streams resource allocation.  In many cases, the allocations are too
generous or the ratios don't match the system's usage, and you can
reclaim RAM and/or increase throughput by doing a bit of tuning.
-- 
Wu Liu                          Software Engineer, User Interface Group
liuwu@acuson.COM                Acuson
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker)
Subject: Re: Sun 3/60 SIMMS in a PC?
Organization: IDA Supercomputing Research Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:54:55 GMT


I'm using older SIMMs from a Sun in 486/33 (ETEQ chipset) and 386/40
(Opti chipset) machines.  They were borrowed when the Suns were
upgraded to 4M SIMMs. Although they are slower (100ns) than the
specified speed ("< 80ns"), the only memory problems I have had were
with new 70ns SIMMs (one 1M and one 4M were bad) and a 20ns. cache
static RAM.  With the older SIMMs you've have a few years "burn-in". 

I was planning on running the SIMMs at an extra wait state, but it
turned out they were reliable at full speed.  

The best program I found for testing memory is compiling the Linux
kernel all night.  The GCC/Linux combination does a good job of using
every bit of memory you have.  With the cache memory problem I could
get the machine to fail (usually gracefully) in about three minutes
compiling the kernel, while under MS-DOS (mostly _Aces of the
Pacific_) it looked like a rare software glitch.









-- 
Donald Becker				       becker@super.org
Supercomputing Research Center
17100 Science Drive, Bowie MD 21114		   301-805-7482
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: tmcreek@eos.ncsu.edu (Tobin M. Creek)
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Originator: tmcreek@pepe.csc.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: tmcreek@eos.ncsu.edu (Tobin M. Creek)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:36:25 GMT


In article <NOP.92Nov21200809@theory.Mankato.MSUS.EDU>, nop@theory.Mankato.MSUS.EDU (Jay A. Carlson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.040933.236@gandalf.ca> mramsell@gandalf.ca (Mark Ramsell) writes:
>
>   One final note.. Watch out for the systems that let you expand your 486sx cpu.
>   This requires you to put a whole new processor in.  Why didn't you just
>   purchase the better processor in the first place?  
>
>Because we see that the 486SX prices are reasonable now, and we
>anticipate that 486DX prices will fall in the future to reasonable
>prices. 
>

How many 386-33's and 40's are there out in the world running around without
coprocessors?  A fair percentage, I would guess.  If you don't need the
coprocessor, why spend $400 extra for a DX board?  Think of a 486SX as a very
fast 386.

>   And btw, you don't get to take the old processor out and sell it to
>   recoupe the cost of the new one.  The old cpu ends up being a space
>   heater.  What a _deal_.
>
>Not in my system.  There's one CPU slot, and you can jumper select
>which CPU you have installed.

Mine as well.  I bought a 486DX-25 chip used for $135, and sold the old SX-20
chip for $100.  $35 for a coprocessor.  Not bad.

>   >The SX is a bargain, the 487DX is a rip-off.
>
>   If you think so then buy it.  I'll buy the dx.

For the price of your DX board, I can buy an SX board at the same speed, plus
an HD, 2 or 3 sound boards, or some RAM.  Why should I put the extra $400
up now for a coprocessor I don't need when I can get this other stuff?

>I bought the SX.  Please stop flaming about it, if you admit that
>there are good reasons to buy 486SX systems.

I can think of one.  It's economics: buy what you need.

>Jay Carlson
>nop@theory.cs.mankato.msus.edu
>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: beaulieu@bose.com (Larry Beaulieu)
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Organization: Bose Corporation
	<1992Nov11.204936.9751@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <id.SGYU.X4L@ferranti.com>
	<1992Nov16.223245.5045@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<BxvnnD.A14@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:18:42 GMT

In article <BxvnnD.A14@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:

   Xref: bose comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:466 comp.os.linux:575 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:12109
   Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Path: bose!uunet!ukma!wupost!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu!walk
   From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
   References: <1992Nov4.223834.9454@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <id.81RU.CTA@ferranti.com> <1992Nov11.204936.9751@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <id.SGYU.X4L@ferranti.com> <1992Nov16.223245.5045@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
   Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
   Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
   Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:30:45 GMT
   Lines: 24

   Now the SX is less than 1/2 the size because of no math coprocessor.
   It's smaller yet because it uses a smaller line size, making it about
   a third the size of the DX.  So right off your yield/wafer has tripled.
   This allows you to sell the SX at about 1/2 the cost of the DX
   (packaging costs are constant, so you must charge more than 1/3 cost).


You are making a couple of assumptions which may not be valid.
Depending upon the differences in the line widths the 486SX would
require a more capable (i.e. more *expensive*) wafer stepper.  The additional
costs would be for capital outlay and also possibly for associated
maintenance costs.

If the 486 SX die were really that much smaller Intel probably designed their
masks to include multiple processors so as to maximize the number of die exposed per 
step (as in wafer STEPPER, as in STEP and repeat).  One goal of wafer layout is
to minimize the number of steps in order to maximize throughput, which can be done
by maximizing the number of die exposed during each step.

   Now lets say there are 22 different DX sized areas that have faults
   that will ruin the chip that is there.  DX production has now dropped
   to 11/wafer (33%) and the SX production has dropped to 77/wafer (78%).
   Now you have 7 times as many SXs/wafer than DXs, allowing you to
   charge something like 1/5 the cost per chip.

A high percentage of faults in a production-worthy fab are due to alignment
errors of one sort or another.  This would mean that a fault would affect either
an entire die or the entire wafer.  Faults that would ruin only part of the
chip - such as those that would only ruin one die out of a multiple-die 
exposure - would be identified and corrected very quickly.  Examples would be
a defective mask, dust, or any of various types of lens distortion.  Using
your analogy above (which would corrolate to 3 sx die per exposure), 22 defects
would work out to the same 33% yield.

The capital outlay required to produce chips of this complexity is *very* high.
You can bet that Intel expends considerable effort to ensure maximum throughput
and yield.  I would be surprised if the yield for either chip was under 90%. 





--
Larry Beaulieu			beaulieu@bose.com
Bose Corporation		Phone: 508-879-1916 x6479
Framingham, MA 01701-9168	FAX:   508-820-4865	

		All flames gleefully ignored.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mramsell@gandalf.ca (Mark Ramsell)
Subject: Re: 486SXs as Unix Iron?
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:09:33 GMT

In <BxvnnD.A14@news.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:

>I think that some people here don't really understand the economics
>of chip production.  Here's a little example (w/ some made up numbers,
>since I can't get the actual) using the 486SX and 486DX.

>Assume you can get 33 DXs on a wafer.
>Now the SX is less than 1/2 the size because of no math coprocessor.
>It's smaller yet because it uses a smaller line size, making it about
>a third the size of the DX.  So right off your yield/wafer has tripled.
>This allows you to sell the SX at about 1/2 the cost of the DX
>(packaging costs are constant, so you must charge more than 1/3 cost).

The 486sx chip, in it's original form, is not half the size of a 486dx!
The sx included the math coprocessor but had it disabled.  The sx was
a marketing ploy by Intel.  I have no idea why they did it but that's
what happened.  Recently Intel has finally pulled the coprocessor out
and is NOW seing the cost savings you are referring to above.  They
are able to put the new 486sx chips in a plastic package because of
the reduced heat they don't generate.  That also makes the packaging
cheaper, ie not _constant_.  The sx might be a deal if it is priced at
less than half of the dx.

What I want to know is why?  Why did Intel do such a silly thing?  Didn't
they realize that people would see through this ploy?  Maybe they were
trying to see how many new customers would fall for this new _deal_.

One final note.. Watch out for the systems that let you expand your 486sx cpu.
This requires you to put a whole new processor in.  Why didn't you just
purchase the better processor in the first place?  And btw, you don't
get to take the old processor out and sell it to recoupe the cost of the
new one.  The old cpu ends up being a space heater.  What a _deal_.  I
hope some day Intel will let me pay even more money for less features.

>The SX is a bargain, the 487DX is a rip-off.

If you think so then buy it.  I'll buy the dx.

Mark Ramsell

>					Todd Walk
>					walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: mjerosc@nmrsun.erenj.com (Michael Jerosch-Herold)
Subject: Unix on laptop pc
Followup-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering, Co.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:40:23 GMT



Are there any problems with running Unix on a laptop pc (386)?

Has anybody on the net tried this and what is your experience?

What ftp sites are there for linux?

What version of Unix is best suited for running on a laptop?

Michael Jerosch-Herold
mjerosc@nmrsun.erenj.com
From: nabil@ogicse.ogi.edu (Aaron Nabil)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: $200 - 8 PORT SERIAL CARD FOR UNIX, MS-DOS & BBS SYSTEMS
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:30:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.46237
Distribution: world
Organization: Explosive Space Modulators - R - Us

My company still has a number of Digichannel Digiboard PC 8e cards that
are surplus to our needs.  These were purchased for a networking project
and never used.  They are new in the factory box and include the
factory manual and warranty card (5 year).

The PC8e is an "intelligent" card, that is it has a coprocessor on it
to offload the host CPU.  The card uses 1 IRQ to support all 8 ports.  To
run it as COMn thru COMn+7 on a DOS machine you need to use a driver.

There are drivers availiable for all of the common PC unixes, both 3.2
and SVR4, Novell, PC-MOS, FOSSILs (for BBS systems), OS/2, and general 
MS-DOS INT 14 drivers.  You can download them all from Digiboards BBS 
at 612 943 0812 or I can enclose them on floppies.

It has an AT style interface, and thus works in 286/386/486 ISA bus systems.

Price is $200 + shipping.

List price from Digichannel is $800, needless to say we are taking
substantial loss on them and we just want to get them out of our 
storage space.

Reply via email, please.

-- 
Aaron Nabil
nabil@cse.ogi.edu  
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: need beginner info ...
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:22:03

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:18:20 GMT, ghost@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Hartmut Kuehn) said:

	Hartmut> First, I don't want to use DOS but Unix (perhaps BSD
	Hartmut> or so) as a cheap alternative to SUN Sparc (a
	Hartmut> complete Sparc workstation is yet out of reach).  Now
	Hartmut> I wonder what quality the DX-50, DX2-50 and DX2-66
	Hartmut> (?) reached so far and what experiences the people
	Hartmut> here have using a PC and some kind of Unix with X11
	Hartmut> (what exactly are the differences between the above
	Hartmut> DX's ?).  

The DX2s have a double internal clock rate.  This means that a DX2-50
will only use 25mHz to memory, but work 50mHz internally.  A DX-50 is
therefore faster than the DX2, but needs more expensive support
circuitry (faster memory and caches and the like)

As far as I understand.

	Hartmut> Did the new series of DX-xx reached a level of
	Hartmut> performance and hardware, so that you can say, they
	Hartmut> are realy realible, or are there still problems like
	Hartmut> chip-overheat, inconsistent hardware or other ?

I can't imagine there's much hardware problems with the chips, as they
seem to be used extenxively.  I'd worry about software incositencies
instead. 

	Hartmut> Ok, everybody using a PC will say, this is the best
	Hartmut> and don't want to admit some weaknesses, but what I
	Hartmut> need is a objective kind of view that gives me the
	Hartmut> chance to decide, if it's worth buying a PC for main
	Hartmut> Unix-use, or wait till prices for SUN Sparc / Clones
	Hartmut> decreaes, so that I can afford a workstation.

I don't own a PC, so I guess I'm pretty objective :-)

I think it is worth it to buy a PC as a low end unix WS, get a 486
with 8+ Mb of RAM, 200 Mb disk, preferably locally bussed Video and
and disk controllers.  As for video, get soething that your Unix
supports, and get an accellerated card, S-3 seems to be the way to go.

If you're not afraid to hack a little, get linux (which is free and
supports X for trident, et4000 and S-3 (I believe) video cards)

There's also 386BSD for free (or was it BSD386?)

If compatibility with Suns is important, consider Solaris from
SunSoft.  Be prepared to fork out money, though, not to mention to
bring your own compiler (shame on Sun!)

Hope this helps!




--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli)
Subject: Re: 386/33 DX machine: what unix options do I have
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:06:40 GMT

In article <BxuzyD.8GJ@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>mfraioli@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
>
>>What you really need to do is make sure you have enough memory.  I have
>>run SCO ODT 1.1 on a 386/20 with 12MB, and it runs pretty well.
>>Apparently ODT 2.0 is bigger, because this runs noticably worse on the
>>same machine.  But a 386/33 with >= 12MB should serve you pretty well,
>
>Maybe ODT 2.0 has everything turned on in the kernel when
>shipped -- and you might need to remove or disable the drivers
>which you are not running... SVR4 is that way -- and it was
>possible here to reduce the kernel size by 30% after removing
>the stuff we don't use..
>
I'm not at the machine right now so I can't check, but I don't think
that the kernel increased in size that much.  I think it was the
improvements made to the X-based desktop manager that are really eating
up the memory.  When running in console mode only, performance is fine.
The new desktop manager really is a lot more sophisticated and there's a
lot more to it than there used to be.  I wouldn't be surprised if the
bulk of the increase was in here.
-- 
Marc Fraioli
mfraioli@grebyn.com	        	(So I'm a minimalist...)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: need help locating Micronics
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:06:31 GMT
Keywords: motherboards, VLB

In <1992Nov21.122503.10597@dbsun.uucp> harbison@dbsun.uucp (harbison) writes:

>Can someone provide me with an address or phone number for Micronics,
>the motherboard manufacturer?  I am also intereted in any other
>companies selling motherboards with VESA Local Bus (VLB) support.

The last phone number I have for them is 
415-651-2300
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
============================================================================
From: smgf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Steve Freeman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: notebook/un*x combination recommentations, please.
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:27:16 GMT
Reply-To: smgf@computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk
Organization: Computer Lab, University of Cambridge, UK

Does anyone have any strong opinions about a good notebook to use with
one of the free Un*x's?

Steve

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Freeman, Computer Lab, University of Cambridge, UK
Steve.Freeman@computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk

"The science of medicine is founded on conjecture and improved by murder"
   Sir Astley Cooper.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: 386/33 DX machine: what unix options do I have
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:08:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.050620.1132@candle.uucp> root@candle.uucp (Bruce Momjian) writes:

>... how can one person write so much?  Gnu has been
>working on this type of thing for years ( no insult intended).  

The GNU project is far more ambitious than Linux, IMHO (no insult
intended here, either :-).  Linux arose out of Linus Torvalds' desire
for Unix on a PC and curiousity about operating system design, and
sort of exploded from there.  GNU, on the other hand, is intended to
be not only a distributable, retargetable operating system (unlike
Linux, which presently runs only on 386-class machines), but, as I
understand it, scalable to a wide variety of users' needs.  Read the
GNU Bulletin (currently available on prep.ai.mit.edu, I believe) for
more details on GNU.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
From: vagle@hsr.no (James Bond)
Subject: LINUX ??
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:34:07 GMT

What is this wounderful LINUX people are talking about ?

I've heard it is free. (wow)

Help please.                        Thank you.
-- 
 Lars Vagle.  E-mail: vagle@hsr.no  Phone: +47-4-874220
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sysv386
From: ashley@gidday.enet.dec.com (STEPHEN ASHLEY)
Subject: Re: PC-Clone UNIX Hardware Buyer's Guide
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 23 NOV 92 20:57:24 AES


In article <By5JtB.Eq3@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes...
>Followups to comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit, which has superseded
>comp.unix.sysv386.
> 
>In article <1jWcGn#4fvVtm5Qb2WK1ZYkQn0Nhlpc=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
> 
>>What's new in this issue:
>>  * The 386 is history.
>>...

The 386 is dead and the 486SX is shit, Oh well I got one of each and the
486SX/25 is as good (am be a fraction better) as the 386DX/40. I think
Intel have done the right thing markting wise.
	Stephen Ashley
	Alice Springs Out Back Oz.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.linux,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware