Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!clewis
From: clewis@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 16bit 386 chips!
Message-ID: <2139@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Nov-87 17:31:54 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.2139
Posted: Sun Nov  8 17:31:54 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Nov-87 19:02:03 EST
References: <5011@oberon.USC.EDU>
Reply-To: clewis@lsuc.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Curmudgeons At Large
Lines: 26
Keywords: 386
Summary: There is...
Xref: lsuc comp.sys.ibm.pc:7986 comp.sys.intel:346

In article <5011@oberon.USC.EDU> farhad@corwin.usc.edu (Farhad Khansefid) writes:

Regarding early revs of 386's which had a low incidence of 32bit multiply
problems...
>My question is now this: Is there a quick and easy way to test the
>chip from DOS (without having to go through installation of xenix).

Yes, there is a DOS program that will do this, but unfortunately, I don't
have access to it anymore, nor am I sure what Intel's policy regarding posting
It's quite small - the copy I had was on floppy contained source, documentation
and a binary.

Say INTEL are you listening?  It would really be nice if you posted the
chip testing program!

If it doesn't get posted shortly try contacting a local Intel rep, they
should have it.

BTW: I wouldn't worry a heck of a lot about the possibility of a chip
from those batches causing a problem.  We ran 5 or so machines with
UNIX V (ISC's) with 386's from that era - the probability of a given
chip from those batches being bad is relatively low.  None of our
machines were affected.  It's not a design problem, but a fabrication
screening problem and I think that the incidence was about 10% or less.
Either way, if you get a bad one, Intel will replace it free (I don't
think that the offer has expired yet)