Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!ge-dab!peora!rtmvax!wbeebe
From: wbeebe@rtmvax.UUCP (Bill Beebe)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: PC Minix/64KB limit
Message-ID: <2912@rtmvax.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 89 16:06:42 GMT
References: <8752@louie.udel.EDU> <2047@ast.cs.vu.nl> <419@bilver.UUCP> <3576@mit-amt>
Reply-To: wbeebe@rtmvax.UUCP (Bill Beebe)
Organization: RTmVax Public Unix System, Orlando FL
Lines: 22

In article <3576@mit-amt> pshen@atrp.media.mit.edu (Paul Shen) writes:

>>to the 80376 (no real mode, no paging). The 80376 comes up in protected
>           ^                                    ^
> I guess that is just a typo. They should be 80386. Am I right?

Sorry. That is *NOT* a typo. In April 1988, when Intel announced the 80960
(Officially :-), they also announced the 80376. The 80376 was a stripped
down 80386 with a 32-bit internal architecture, 16-bit data and 24-bit
address bus. It could not support real mode, and it did not have the paging
unit. It did support the full  segmentation and protection architecture of
the 80386 and the 80386's instruction set. It runs at 16 MHz. What makes the
80376 interesting is that it was aimed at the embedded market. It was
designed to be a cheap '386 for folks who didn't want all the other stuff in
the '386 that made it so expensive. So the 80376, a "de-DOSed" 80386, was
introduced for $99. Now Intel has dropped the price on the 80386SX to $89,
with even greater price breaks in quantity. The question now becomes will
the 80376 get even cheaper, and if not,  then what's the reason for buying
the 80376 over the 80386SX? Of course, I got mine as samples :-). And it
makes good sense to go ahead and use the 80376 as a PM development platform,
because code written on the 80376 is easily ported to the "real" 80386
family :-). Sorry for the confusion.