Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!boulder!seri!wind55!marshall From: marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Brain-dead 286 - summary Message-ID: <1990Mar15.202659.4744@seri.gov> Date: 15 Mar 90 20:26:59 GMT References: <8681@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> <29405@amdcad.AMD.COM> <25F7F56B.11734@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <29474@amdcad.AMD.COM> <29486@amdcad.AMD.COM> Sender: news@seri.gov (news [NO CHARGE]) Distribution: usa Organization: Solar Energy Research Institute Lines: 106 phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1990Mar13.201259.11097@seri.gov> marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) writes: >|You're going to have to live with that ancient relic for at least 4 >|years. Just because there isn't that much 32-bit software today, doesn't >First of all, a 286 is not an ancient relic. Microsoft is only now >getting around to releasing a version of Windows which can take >full advantage of the 286's power. When I say ancient relic, I mean it was developed something like 7 to 10 years ago. In the computer business, anything more than 5 years old is ancient history. >Second, I think your 4 year figure is off. If 386 prices went way down >next year, buying a 286 now and a 386 in 1991 could be cheaper than >buying a 386 now. Just imagine the price war that will break out when >a viable 386 second source comes along. You missed the point. The processor is a very minor part of the expense of a TOTAL computer system. What would a cheaper 386 save - maybe $200? That's nothing. Also, I'm not talking about home PCs. I'm talking about those being used in business. Also, you can wait forever for cheaper prices. >|Quit recommending that people invest >|in this old stuff. >I think this is the root of your problem. You see a computer as an >investment. I see them as a purchase to get a job done. An asset that >depreciates incredibly fast. Microprocessors make a lousy investment, >especially with the price war that will erupt when the 386 has a >second source. I see them as an investment in a tool that I need to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time. I'm NOT recommending people go out and buy the lastest and greatest - not unless they really need it. The Compaq 386/16 came out 3.5 years ago. It's old hat now. I don't have any 386/33s or 486/25s. Just get something that will still be useful four years from now. A 286 won't. It will be well over a decade old by then. That's about 200 in computer years. 8-) And once again. I can get a 386 for just a few hundred dollars - qty 1. The 16 MHz chip probably doesn't cost more than $200 in quantity. Having a price war won't make that much difference, unless someone pays you to use their chip. 8-) >|People who insist in investing in ancient technology are holding the >|rest of us back. >Now you're getting silly. You want the people who can least afford >a high end system, the people who are looking at 286s, to spend >more money for something that probably won't make much difference >to them, because you think it will somehow help you? Even if that >were true, which I doubt, it's a very selfish attitude. Phil - I'm not talking about poor folks. I'm talking about businesses. Poor folks don't spend thousands of dollars on software. Businesses do. If the developers have to develop software for 16-bit computers along with 32-bit, it will slow down development and add costs. I'm not talking about games. I'm talking about DTP, CAD, Advanced WP, etc. Look at all the problems Lotus is having because they had to make two versions of 1-2-3. Home PC users can't afford 1-2-3, they get a shareware clone. 1-2-3 is for businesses. As far as your "won't make any difference to them" remark, I've NEVER (not even once) met anyone who used a 386 for a while who didn't HATE going back to a 286. Low-end users think of this as being spoiled. Others think of it as being able to get more work done in less time. >|Remember folks. The CPU is a very small part of the cost of a COMPLETE >|system. When you pay more for a 386 system, you are getting faster >|memory, hard disks, etc. too - not just a faster processor. >And what if the customer doesn't need all this horsepower? The market is >made up of very different people. Not everyone is like you. It's not >much different than you telling everyone to get a 600 megabyte hard disk >because they might need it someday. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to upgrade peripherals that systems. It's not the same at all. Whether you like it or not, the world is going GUI. A 386/25 is not powerful enough to run Windows/386 even today. And please don't get me wrong. Until last year, I have used character based software exclusively. That's since '72. I don't use Macs either. As a matter of fact, I have quit using Windows because my 386/25 isn't fast enough. I can get more work done with PC Word than Word for Windows. I hope to buy a 486/33 around the end of the year. Maybe then, I'll be able to run Windows without it holding me back. As you can tell from my age, I'm an old mainframer. I used to complain to my boss that having to wait 5 seconds for response was killing me. We have a running gag about me never having enough power. I contended that if I had to wait more than a second, then I lose my rhythm. One day he came to me with an article about response time. It reported on a study by IBM (?). Their study found that if a user had to wait more than a HALF second, then their minds started thinking about other things and productivity went down. Your mind just can't keep idling for very long - it needs to keep busy. Fast response is critical in a business enviroment where time is money. Slow computers are MORE expensive the fast computers. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@wind55.seri.gov Senior Computer Engineer VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future