[rescue] Sun 486i (was: SunPC drivers for solaris and sunos)

[Mike Spooner]

On 20 March 2018 at 03:38, Richard <***@trick-1.net> wrote:

>
> I wonder how it will compare to my Sun 386i for DOS/Win 3.0 speed :-)
> (Should put photos of that up too)
>
>
Just for curiosity's sake, while we are on a related subject, have any list
members ever seen one of the hundred or so prototype Sun 486i machines that
were manufactured? Interior pictures would be fascinating!

-- Mike
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Richard]

Hi Mike

Unfortunately not and I have not been able to find pictures although a few have promised over the years...I agree it would be fantastic.

I do however have a TX486DLC which is an i386 pin config with a i486 inside that I am thinking of swapping in at some stage....I understand mileage may vary there though

Cheers

Richard

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, at 9:24 PM, Mike Spooner wrote:
> On 20 March 2018 at 03:38, Richard <***@trick-1.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I wonder how it will compare to my Sun 386i for DOS/Win 3.0 speed :-)
> > (Should put photos of that up too)
> >
> >
> Just for curiosity's sake, while we are on a related subject, have any list
> members ever seen one of the hundred or so prototype Sun 486i machines that
> were manufactured? Interior pictures would be fascinating!
>
> -- Mike
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Liam Proven]

On 20 March 2018 at 12:24, Walter Belgers <walter+***@belgers.com> wrote:
>
> I guess they must have been pretty similar looking to the 386i though? Just
> with another motherboard inside.

I did a little Googling. It sounds like it. I wonder if Sun used any
kind of 32-bit expansion bus, though?

ISA wasn't good on a 386, but it was a major limitation on a 486. An
ex of mine had a 486SX PC with only ISA slots, no local bus at all --
they did exist. I put 32MB of RAM in it, and a 486 DX2/66 chip, but it
was a dog of a PC and there was little else I could do to improve it.


--
Liam Proven b" Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: ***@cix.co.uk b" Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: ***@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven b" Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: [phone] b" DR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): [phone]
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Peter Stokes]

Hi

I had the misfortune to use a Sun 386i at Agfa one of our customers and can
only remember it was the worst PC I had ever used, read slowest. It took
forever to do anything from memory.

Peter

Sent from my iPad

> On 20 Mar 2018, at 11:33, Liam Proven <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 March 2018 at 12:24, Walter Belgers <walter+***@belgers.com>
wrote:
>>
>> I guess they must have been pretty similar looking to the 386i though?
Just
>> with another motherboard inside.
>
> I did a little Googling. It sounds like it. I wonder if Sun used any
> kind of 32-bit expansion bus, though?
>
> ISA wasn't good on a 386, but it was a major limitation on a 486. An
> ex of mine had a 486SX PC with only ISA slots, no local bus at all --
> they did exist. I put 32MB of RAM in it, and a 486 DX2/66 chip, but it
> was a dog of a PC and there was little else I could do to improve it.
>
>
> --
> Liam Proven b" Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
> Email: ***@cix.co.uk b" Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: ***@gmail.com
> Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven b" Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
> UK: [phone] b" DR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): [phone]
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[David Brownlee]

On 20 March 2018 at 17:50, Peter Stokes <***@ashlyn.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I had the misfortune to use a Sun 386i at Agfa one of our customers and can
> only remember it was the worst PC I had ever used, read slowest. It took
> forever to do anything from memory.
>

IIRC there were two memory board options - the 150 had max 8MB without
cache and the 250 a max 16MB with cache, which made a noticeable
difference, even if both had 8MB.
(I once had to benchmark whether it was worth upgrading the memory in
around 50 sun386i boxes at City University :)

Random recollection: The SunOS 4.0.2 they ran was an offshoot which had
partially pageable kernel text which I remember being impressed by at the
time, and those funky octopus video/keyboard/mouse cables. Of course some
of the machines they were replacing were Whitechapel MG-1 workstations,
which made them awesome in comparison...

David
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Richard]

Just on the below memory configuration. I know it isnbt supported but I have
a third board in my 386i/150 for a total of 12MB. Works like a charm :-).

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Mar 2018, at 07:09, David Brownlee <***@absd.org> wrote:
>
>> On 20 March 2018 at 17:50, Peter Stokes <***@ashlyn.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I had the misfortune to use a Sun 386i at Agfa one of our customers and
can
>> only remember it was the worst PC I had ever used, read slowest. It took
>> forever to do anything from memory.
>>
>
> IIRC there were two memory board options - the 150 had max 8MB without
> cache and the 250 a max 16MB with cache, which made a noticeable
> difference, even if both had 8MB.
> (I once had to benchmark whether it was worth upgrading the memory in
> around 50 sun386i boxes at City University :)
>
> Random recollection: The SunOS 4.0.2 they ran was an offshoot which had
> partially pageable kernel text which I remember being impressed by at the
> time, and those funky octopus video/keyboard/mouse cables. Of course some
> of the machines they were replacing were Whitechapel MG-1 workstations,
> which made them awesome in comparison...
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Andrew Jones]

> On Mar 20, 2018, at 07:33, Liam Proven <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20 March 2018 at 12:24, Walter Belgers <walter+***@belgers.com> wrote:
>>
>> I guess they must have been pretty similar looking to the 386i though? Just
>> with another motherboard inside.
>
> I did a little Googling. It sounds like it. I wonder if Sun used any
> kind of 32-bit expansion bus, though?
>
> ISA wasn't good on a 386, but it was a major limitation on a 486. An
> ex of mine had a 486SX PC with only ISA slots, no local bus at all --
> they did exist. I put 32MB of RAM in it, and a 486 DX2/66 chip, but it
> was a dog of a PC and there was little else I could do to improve it.
>

8/16 bit ISA was a dog, sure. Specifically, most of the cards for old time ISA were dumb as rocks and expected the CPU to dote on them.

Full width EISA buses werenbt too bad by late 1980s standards. 32 bits at 8 MHz, bus mastering etc etc. And folks built passable Unix machines on that substrate.
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue