Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!silver!ntaib
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Question about different 386's ...
Message-ID: <1991Apr9.160458.21943@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 91 16:04:58 GMT
References: <27fb0c94-b35.1comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware-1@vpnet.chi.il.us> <1991Apr5.023634.549@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr6.004456.5858@cc.helsinki.fi>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Lines: 19

>> I disagree.  Even though the DX has 16 more pins, most of the time they're
>> not being used.  This is due to the fact that most MSDOS programs are 16-bit
>> (with the exception of 386-specific programs).  So unless you actually make
>> use of all 32 pins, a 386SX is not a bad way to go.


So how do you exceed 16 MByte RAM if you're only using 
16 bit addresses?   8-)

I think the SX actually has over 100 pins 8-)



--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                        | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS               !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------