29 Jun
1998
29 Jun
'98
10:35 a.m.
I have gotten hold of 5 working (and very attractive as well durable)
Intel model PSYP3022254DOX machines with 386DX-25 processors and two
case fans in each, one behind the front plate (to cool cards I guess)
and the other in the normal AT style power supply.
As usual, no docs. This is not a problem as most is self explanatory.
There is one jumper on the mainboard though that goes in either 1-2 or
2-3 that's marked "Unix", nothing else. Anyone have any idea what this
would do? I've moved it but nothing,but I haven't loaded Unix on it
either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Blakeman
RB Custom Services / Rt. 1 Box 62E / Harned, KY USA 40144
Phone: (502) 756-1749 Data/Fax:(502) 756-6991
Email: rhblake(a)bbtel.com or rhblake(a)bigfoot.com
Website: http://members.tripod.com/~RHBLAKE/
ICQ UIN #1714857
AOL Instant Messenger "RHBLAKEMAN"
* Parts/Service/Upgrades and more for MOST Computers*
--------------------------------------------------------------------
29 Jun
29 Jun
10:53 a.m.
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Russ Blakeman wrote:
As usual, no docs. This is not a problem as most is
self explanatory.
There is one jumper on the mainboard though that goes in either 1-2 or
2-3 that's marked "Unix", nothing else. Anyone have any idea what this
would do? I've moved it but nothing,but I haven't loaded Unix on it
either.
For years, while Microsoft sat on their real-mode butts, Unix was the only
thing that would take advantage of 32-bit protected mode on the 386. So,
most PC manufacturers didn't even bother to test their designs in a 32-bit
environment. When somebody tried to run a 32-bit Unix on these boxes,
there was a fair chance it didn't work (either due to a buggy rev of the
386, or to some braindead address masking done on the mobo). So, I
suspect that the jumper disables some 86/286-style address masking to
enable full 32-bitness (for which Unix was the only known user at the
time).
If I wasn't out of space, I'd want one of those boxes just for that
interesting anachronism.
-- Doug
11:33 a.m.
Doug Yowza wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Russ Blakeman wrote:
I tried a few things and what you say makes sense.
As usual, no docs. This is not a problem as most
is self explanatory.
There is one jumper on the mainboard though that goes in either 1-2 or
2-3 that's marked "Unix", nothing else. Anyone have any idea what this
would do? I've moved it but nothing,but I haven't loaded Unix on it
either.
For years, while Microsoft sat on their real-mode butts, Unix was the only
thing that would take advantage of 32-bit protected mode on the 386. So,
most PC manufacturers didn't even bother to test their designs in a 32-bit
environment. When somebody tried to run a 32-bit Unix on these boxes,
there was a fair chance it didn't work (either due to a buggy rev of the
386, or to some braindead address masking done on the mobo). So, I
suspect that the jumper disables some 86/286-style address masking to
enable full 32-bitness (for which Unix was the only known user at the
time). If I wasn't out of space, I'd want one of
those boxes just for that
interesting anachronism.
Well let me know if you ever feel like it. I may have one still but
beforewarned that these puppies are heavy with the 170 mb ESDI drives and
heavy steel cases.
Thanks for the info.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Blakeman
RB Custom Services / Rt. 1 Box 62E / Harned, KY USA 40144
Phone: (502) 756-1749 Data/Fax:(502) 756-6991
Email: rhblake(a)bbtel.com or rhblake(a)bigfoot.com
Website: http://members.tripod.com/~RHBLAKE/
ICQ UIN #1714857
AOL Instant Messenger "RHBLAKEMAN"
* Parts/Service/Upgrades and more for MOST Computers*
--------------------------------------------------------------------
9674
days inactive
9674
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
rhblake＠bbtel.com -
yowza＠yowza.com