Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 286,386sx,386?
Message-ID: <39144@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 28 Sep 89 23:07:07 GMT
References: 
Reply-To: madd@cs.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Organization: Software Tool & Die
Lines: 19

In article  hs0i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Harold Jason Shapiro) writes:
|I have heard people say the SX is trash since it is trying to squeeze 32
|bit addressing on a 16 bit bus.  I have also heard people say I should not
|waste my time on a 286.

If you have the choice, go for the 386sx.  It's not as fast as the
80386 but is generally as fast as the high-speed 286's, and runs all
the virtual-8086 programs (eg VM386), allowing you multiple MS-DOS
PC's on one terminal.  It also runs UNIX correctly, something that is
impossible on 286's but may well be a consideration in the future
(even to you MS-DOS people :-).

In short, you'll get better flexibility out of the 386sx than the 286,
extending the life of the computer at the cost of some 386 performance
but still performing at equal or better levels than most 286's.

jim frost
software tool & die
madd@std.com