home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!news
- From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
- Subject: Re: 486 vs. 386
- Message-ID: <1992Nov12.014526.16459@leland.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
- Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
- Organization: DSO, Stanford University
- References: <1992Nov11.164527.23898@exu.ericsson.se>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:45:26 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- James Hague writes
-
- > Now think about what the 486 is capable of. There are very few
- > people who need that sort of power. It is mostly a marketing thing;
- > .... A well-designed machine with
- > properly balanced subsystems would be preferrable to a lackluster
- > box with a screamingly fast CPU.
- >
-
- Agreed that a there's no point in getting a blazing cpu and saddling
- it with slow i/o and graphics.
- But i fear that the need for power is not just a marketing thing.
- Software requirements expand to fill the power available. Most of
- today's software will simply not run adequately on a 286; some of it
- is borderline on a 386. If you want to run that software, and newer
- one on the way, you'll need more power. If you want a nicer
- interface, you'll need more power.
-
- In a few years, we'll be discussing whether people 'really need' a
- 986; after all, a 300MHz 886 is perfectly adequate...
-
-
- --
- -
- Stefano Pagiola
- Food Research Institute, Stanford University
- spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
- spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
-