From: james.harris.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 30/11/2023 21:30, Paul Edwards wrote:   
   > Hi James.   
   >   
   >>> I can't remember if I mentioned, but I bought a   
   >>> Hand 386 computer to try to test PDOS/386 on real   
   >>> hardware. It died before I could do much of anything.   
   >   
   >> Yes, I saw (with interest as I have some similar goals to you) you   
   >> mention you had bought a PC clone. When you say it died do you mean the   
   >> boot failed or that the machine itself is now dead?   
   >   
   > In recent times I bought 2 modern Hand 386 and then a   
   > vintage 386SX.   
   >   
   > The first 2 machines (both Hand 386) are physically dead.   
   > They still have power though.   
      
   I hope the vendor(s) returned your money. Certain intermediary firms   
   such as Ebay have a number of protections for purchasers.   
      
   ...   
      
   >>> In the meantime I purchased an old 386SX, since the   
   >>> new Hand 386 was no longer available for sale.   
   >   
   >> OK. Genuine 386-based PCs were very expensive last time I looked.   
   >   
   > It cost something like US$400 on ebay.   
   >   
   > Expensive compared to what? Certainly not Sydney   
   > real estate prices. Fun fact: Sydney is not the   
   > capital of Australia.   
      
   I would call that expensive for an ancient computer but respect to you   
   for being prepared to pay the price.   
      
   >   
   >>> That's all I really wanted to know - that PDOS/386   
   >>> has no non-80386 instructions in it. Instead of hoping   
   >>> the emulators are perfectly correct   
   >   
   >> That's a bit confusing. You tested your code on a 386SX to check it had   
   >> no 386 instructions in it?   
   >   
   > I said non-386, not 386.   
      
   So you did.   
      
   >   
   >> Surely you would want to test on a real 8086/8088.   
   >   
   > PDOS/386 won't work on an 8086. That's why it has   
   > "386" in the name, as opposed to PDOS/86 which I   
   > have already tested on a real NEC V20 in my Book 8088   
   > (I have 2 of those too, both working).   
   >   
   >> FWIW my CPU detection code does theoretically distinguish between 8086,   
   >> 80186 and 80286 but I've never had a real 186 to test it on. Instead, I   
   >> found two emulators, only one of which apparently behaved correctly as a   
   >> 186.   
   >   
   > I am thinking that I should have a single PDOS   
   > distribution that does that detection and   
   > automatically loads PDOS/86, PDOS/286 (not yet   
   > written), PDOS/386 or PDOS/x64 and sets the PATH   
   > to the appropriate set of executables.   
   >   
   > So it will run on anything, transparently. You will   
   > only notice the difference if you try to edit a   
   > large file as that will be determined by available   
   > memory.   
      
   That's cool. I have similar goals: 16-bit, 32-bit and 64-bit code to run   
   the OS identically, albeit that the 16-bit version would lack protection   
   between tasks.   
      
      
   --   
   James Harris   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)