Subject: Re: Sun 3/50 Vs 386sx
To: Andy Ball <>
From: Alan Pearson <>
List: port-sun3
Date: 01/13/2001 23:50:07
Let me know how you get on Andy, sounds interesting.
I haven't had a chance to look at my Sun since due to car problems.... (my car
broke a driveshaft in 2 pieces!).

As for the keyboard, it is a type 3, and in very good order, but the problem is
it just sucks... The keys aren't in the right place !!!!!


On Thu, 01 Feb 2001, Andy Ball wrote:
> Hello Alan!
>   AP> The 386 I had was an sx/40, and was quite a fast board
>     > in its time.
> I sometimes wonder if AMD's 40MHz 386 DX wasn't the peak of
> PC microprocessor development.  Admittedly my criteria are
> probably different from many other people's.
>   AP> ...the Sun 3 also lets me drag full windows round the
>     > screen fine even if it is only B&W...
> Can I configure X to drag just a frame around, rather than
> the window complete with contents?
>   AP> I put together this 386 cause I got a real nice
>     > slimline case, and had the bits lying around.
> I'm currently building a 25MHz 386 SX machine, in fact I'm
> downloading NetBSD/i386 sets via a DOS FTP client right now.
> It sounds insane, but if this 'proof of concept' works I can
> think about embedding NetBSD on PC/104 boards less than 10cm
> (4") square.
>   AP> This sun seems fast enough for apps, although I
>     > wouldn't fancy my chances compiling stuff on it.  It
>     > boots quick, loads X quick (faster than the 386!!!!),
>     > and runs fine.
> There you go, I knew we'd get back on-topic eventually! <g>
> I can believe it would be at least comparible with a 386 SX
> machine, because of the SX 16-bit bus (amongst other things
> :-)
>   AP> Only bitch is the mouse. I've got the proper mat for
>     > it, but it is just a pain...
> The mouse on the Sun 3/50?  What's wrong with it?  Isn't it
> a nice optical mouse?  When I manage to pick up a Sun 3, I
> will probably use it without a mouse, even if I use a
> monitor and keyboard.
>   AP> Oh yeah and the keyboard sucks big time!
> (I'd probably run it headless though ;-)
> Regards,
>   - Andy.