Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!lll-winken.llnl.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: My hardware loves 2.0 but doesn't like 2.1
Date: 11 Jan 1996 20:33:33 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <4d3s6t$dql@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <4cs961$m4j@Mercury.mcs.com> <4cu458$6pl@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) wrote:
] I found that, unfortunately, only Intel co-processors worked. I tried Cyrix
] and IIT, and both of their 80387's were not truely compatable with Intel's.
] The chips worked fine under DOS, but under OS/2 and FreeBSD they caused
] problems like you described. Anyway, putting in an Intel chip caused the
] problems to go away.
They didn't "work fine under DOS", you just didn't happen to make
calls to "80287 specific" (code for "we didn't implement them on
or 80397 clone chips") instructions.
Make the calls, and DOS and OS/2 will fail too.
You can force 80387 emulation in the "boot -c" case, which is the
typical way of handling this problem.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.