Is a 386SX a 32-bit or 16-bit processor?

[Dominus]

Ok, heres the background: A fellow nerd and I were refurbishing some old computers for our schools underfunded computer labs. We had a 386SX system and some parts from some fried 486s. I proposed slapping the NIC and 540MB HDD from the 486 in the 386 so we could have a semi-usable system. My fellow nerd disgrees, saying that the system could not run Win95. I suggested using Linux instead, but he then dissed Linux, saying that a 16-bit OS is not worth having. I said that Linux is 32-bit, but replied that it couldn't be if it could run on a 386, being a 16-bit CPU.

This escalated into a debate over the usefulness & merits of Linux (vs NT, his OS of choice), and a general arguement over the validity of OSS, which he saw as non-profitable garbage.

The arguement aside, I'd just like to know if a 386 is 16 or 32 bit. That'd give me a little more ammunition the next time I face off against my fellow nerd.

[Susan]

The 386SX has an external 16 Bit Data Bus but 32 Bit Registers and 32 Bit addressing internally.

[800XL]

386DX 32bit external bus, 32 bit internal registers.
386SX 16bit external bus, 32 bit internal registers.

Susan is dead on.

As an aside, Win95 runs on a 386. My first experience with Win95 was beta testing it on a lab full of 386 machines. Win95 is largely 16 bit code, with the ability to execute 32 bit code. In fact, NT can be made to run on a 386. The installer for NT 4.0 will choke on it, but I believe there is no check in the kernel to prevent it from booting once installed. I know that NT 3.51 would run on a 386 because I have done it. Granted, it is nowhere near as pretty performance wise as Linux because of NT's high overhead level, but it does try to work at least. Basically all that is *required* is a CPU capable of protected or "386 enhanced" mode.

[CMonster]

Just according to official guidelines: the published minimum requirements for running W95 are an 80386DX-20 and 4MB of RAM - I do not know about the 386SX, but it is noted that performance of W95 at minimum requirements may be worse than DOS (duh).

As for multitasking, I believe that Linux uses preemptive multitasking for everything and runs everything in it's own protected memory space, whereas Win9x uses both cooperative and preemptive multitasking and uses a shared memory scheme (that may be primarily responsible for its bad reputation)

[Dominus]

Thanks for the info. I haven't had the time to work on the 386 yet, but we have managed to resurrect an old 486DX2, and a pentium system w/ a CPU someone donated.

I don't really think that the performance that the 386 can offer is going to be worth the extra work, so I've pretty much given up on it as part of the school LAN. I'm sure a teacher can just put Win 3.1 on it and use it for word processing or something.

[This message has been edited by Dominus (edited 09-21-99).]

[ANTONIO E GUERRA]

If I may, I would like to suggest to network all of them so you can share all the programs from the best computer, At the end, the 386 and 486 will act as dummy terminals getting services from the best computer. That's what we do at the school's lab and it works fine. Linux machines are also good to teach students other options besides windows. We have a teacher that created a group about alternative os and he is running Linux on several 386 and 486's. So, you don't have to own the best resources to be creative!

[AndreBranco]

i ran win95 in a 386sx20mhz with 4mb ram.

[RobRich]

Ask your friend that believes Linux is 16bit what's he smoking? The only reason Linux gains support and still has backers is that is a true 32bit multitasking OS, a feat Win9x will never be capable of. As for running Win9x on a 386, it will work, but I recommend scraping up as much memory as you can find.