Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!suned1!lev
From: lev@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL (Lloyd E Vancil)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: v09i191: popadbug, test for 386 CPU bug
Message-ID: <6952@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>
Date: 8 Jan 91 18:09:17 GMT
References: <336@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU> <1991Jan5.000042.19703@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991Jan5.044926.14501@eng.ufl.edu> <1991Jan5.223646.29894@menudo.uh.edu> <1991Jan8.040941.5797@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
Reply-To: lev@suned1.UUCP (Lloyd E Vancil)
Organization: NSWSES, Port Hueneme, CA
Lines: 21

(Scott Preston) writes:
>>My 16MHz 386SX passed the test. It says, "papabug, OK." And after the
>>test it runs fine.

I have been very interested in this "bug" because of some of the things
I've seen on the Windows group.  Here's one for you programmers out there;
could this "bug" be why some users of 386 machines have had sooo many
problems with windows 3.0?
My observation has been that those who come to the net with serious and 
mysterious problems have been; 1 running a 386.  2. often using aftermarket
drivers etc.  3. experiencing problems in only certain parts of the  WIN 3
environment.
It occurs to ME, a decidedly Amature Programmer, that this could be the reason
for some problems with some setups.


-- 
      *      suned1!lev@elroy.JPL.Nasa.Gov sun!suntzu!suned1!lev
          .                lev@suned1.nswses.navy.mil        +      . 
    +          *       S.T.A.R.S.! The revolution has begun!   * 
      My employer has no opinions.  These are mine!