Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!server!stortek!aarond From: aarond@twolf.StorTek.com (Aaron Dailey x4989) Subject: Re: Answer to question on the virtual machine In-Reply-To: jmonroy@netcom.com's message of Tue, 31 May 1994 05:33:07 GMT Message-ID: <AAROND.94May31105253@twolf.StorTek.com> Sender: usenet@stortek.com Nntp-Posting-Host: bigb.stortek.com Organization: StorageTek References: <jmonroyCqnJF8.3I8@netcom.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 16:52:53 GMT Lines: 29 In article <jmonroyCqnJF8.3I8@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes: Information has it that some lower end 386 chips don't have the VM on board. Other information is that some 386-clone makers also are not adding the VM support. IN addtion embedded systems designers seem not to need the VM. All this information is unconfirmed at this time. It was passed to me by another (well-qualifed) source. As far as I know, the only 386 type chip that does not have virtual 8086 mode is the Intel 376 CPU, a specialized part made for the embedded market. It's essentially a 386 SX, except, the 376 can't run in real mode, and has the paging support stripped out. Because it can't run in real mode, I don't think that any general purpose PCs would use this chip. I can't imagine CPU clone makers not including v8086 mode - I'm not saying it's possible, but it would just seem like a stupid move to introduce an incompatability. Any confirmed examples would be appreciated. -- Aaron Dailey Internet: Aaron_Dailey@stortek.com StorageTek Corporation Voice: (303) 673-4989, FAX: (303) 673-2570 Mail: MS0262, 2270 South 88th Street, Louisville, C0 80028