Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:7676 comp.unix.internals:1217 comp.misc:10728 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!axion!uzi-9mm.fulcrum.bt.co.uk!beta.its.bt.co.uk!tjo From: tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.unix.internals,comp.misc Subject: Re: Jargon file v2.1.5 28 NOV 1990 -- part 5 of 6 Message-ID: <%L?^=R+@uzi-9mm.fulcrum.bt.co.uk> Date: 4 Dec 90 09:46:10 GMT References: <1990Nov30.172512.5282@sctc.com> <1990Dec03.015154.9137@kithrup.COM> Sender: news@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (News with an UZI) Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK Lines: 18 In article <1990Dec03.015154.9137@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>The 386 box on my desk at work is a comparable >>machine, with 5 times the RAM of the old 11/70, but more than 10 users kill >>it dead. And that's probably more users than the typical 386-class UNIX box >>is expected to support. > >That's because the '386 box, although it has the processing power, doesn't >have the I/O power. I.e., NO BANDWIDTH! True for a basic generic 386 box. Bung in a decent disk cache board with a few Megs and, say, a 286 and you're away. Usually. Application specific, of course. Tim. -- Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. tjo@its.bt.co.uk or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo Well, you'd have a corporate siege mentality, too. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com