Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!ctrsol!srcsip!falcon!rogers
From: rogers@falcon.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 286 BIOS question
Message-ID: <26464@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jul 89 14:47:46 GMT
References: <QYnRU-y00UzxE1Aqw3@andrew.cmu.edu> <8009@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Reply-To: rogers@falcon.UUCP (Brynn Rogers)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
Lines: 22

In article <8014@spool.cs.wisc.edu> g-tookey@rocky.CS.WISC.EDU (Richard Schaut) writes:
>In article <26458@srcsip.UUCP> rogers@falcon.UUCP (Brynn Rogers(me)) writes:
>>Right. Intel doesn't want anything to compete with it's 386.

>The 286 can compete with the 386?  If the only thing that the 386
>has over the 286 is speed, then Intel does have a problem with
>second sourcing.  But try telling someone running MS Windows/386 that
>the 386 DOESN'T have anything more than speed over the 286.

A 12 Mhz 286 can't compete with a 386.
A 20 Mhz 286 Benchmarks AS WELL AS a 20 Mhz 386 for MSDOS ONLY applications

As long as you stay in the Realm of MSDOS, a 386 does not get you
anything extra over a 286 except future possibilites or Desqview or
Windows 386 which are almost operating systems themselves.
  
Sure I would rather have a 386, but I can't afford it yet, although low 
end 386's and high end 286's are dropping in price fast.
   (and XT motherboards are selling for $89)

 Brynn Rogers    Honeywell S&RC        rogers@src.honeywell.com
       612-782-7737                use this address if your reply bounces