Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!pollux.usc.edu!kjh
From: kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: 386 dx vs. sx
Message-ID: <28699@usc>
Date: 8 Dec 90 21:36:31 GMT
References: <28664@usc> <18330@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@usc
Organization: EE-Systems, USC, Los Angeles
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <18330@hydra.gatech.EDU> ken@dali.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
>In article <28664@usc> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes:
>>Getting a 386dx (as opposed to a 386sx) is a big win for V.3 and V.4,
>>because the basic integer size is 32 bits instead of 16 bits.  (Assuming
>>that the clock speeds are the same, of course.)
>
>This is, of course, absolutely wrong...

You didn't read my statement.  Read it again.  I'll repeat it with the
implications you missed to make sure you understand.

Getting a 386dx (as opposed to a 386sx) is a big win for V.3 and V.4,
because the basic integer size is 32 bits.  IT IS NOT SUCH A BIG WIN FOR
A MS-DOS SYSTEM, WHERE THE BASIC INTEGER SIZE IS ONLY 16 BITS.  As a
matter of fact, if you compare MS-DOS benchmarks, like Landmark AT and
Norton SI, you will find that they are directly proportional to clock
speed for all machines from the '286 on up.  There is no advantage to
the 386dx over the 386sx for MS-DOS, because MS-DOS uses 16-bit
integers.

The size of the integer in bits that I was refering to was the size of
the integers in the OS running on the machine.  Read the first statement
again.  The phrase about 32-bit integers clearly refers to V.3 and V.4.

Hence my question:  Does Minix 386 use 32-bit integers?  If they do,
then getting a 386dx will be a big win for Minix 386.

-- 
favourite oxymorons:   student athlete, military justice, mercy killing
Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6       kjh@usc.edu      ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh