home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!exucom.exu.ericsson.se!s09a05!exuhag
- From: exuhag@exu.ericsson.se (James Hague)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
- Subject: Re: 486 vs. 386
- Message-ID: <1992Nov11.164527.23898@exu.ericsson.se>
- Date: 11 Nov 92 16:45:27 GMT
- References: <1992Nov10.213327.9439@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- Sender: news@exu.ericsson.se
- Reply-To: exuhag@exu.ericsson.se
- Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson, TX
- Lines: 21
- Nntp-Posting-Host: s09a05.exu.ericsson.se
- X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
- Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
- user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.
-
- fred j mccall writes:
- >
- >Unless, of course, it's the only way to get decent performance out of
- >Windows/NT or Windows 4.0. Hey, when the 386-25 came out I remember
- >hearing the same sorts of things. "Hey, nobody needs that much
- >computer on their desktop!" Well, surprise. If the hardware exists,
- >someone will make software that soaks up the performance.
-
- True, this used to be said about 4K Z80 computers, etc. But look
- at the performance jump from such a machine to a 50 MHz 486 with
- 8 megabytes of RAM. You actually can do quite a lot with a Z80.
- 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;
- if, say, Geos was in the position that Windows is then people
- wouldn't be so desperate for 486s. A well-designed machine with
- properly balanced subsystems would be preferrable to a lackluster
- box with a screamingly fast CPU.
-
- --
- James Hague
- exuhag@exu.ericsson.se
-