Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!midway!gargoyle!ddsw1!olsa99!ctk1!undeed!ucthpx!oct1!mason
From: mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: hardware requirements
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.162251.19808@oct1.UUCP>
Date: 3 Dec 90 16:22:51 GMT
References: <28346@usc> <1990Nov26.000804.20540@virtech.uucp>
Reply-To: mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason)
Organization: Open Computer Technology
Lines: 23

In article <1990Nov26.000804.20540@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P.
Cahill) writes:
>In article <28346@usc> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes:
>> Does X run a lot better with a co-processor?
>
>Yes definately.  However, your choice of an OS may limit you to the
>choices of graphics cards.  Currently ISC supports the most cards.

Did Ken mean a numeric or a graphic co-processor.  I thought he meant
numeric.  Can anybody tell me if a '387 makes a difference with ISC
2.2 X?  If yes, then some quantitative numbers would help.

Are graphics co-processor cards avaliable for ISC 2.2 X on a '386? 
Any particular types recommended?

Sorry if this is a simple question, but I've only got a Herculies for my
X (sniff).
--------------------
David Mason                       | "Strange the mind, 
mason@oct1.UUCP                   |    that very fiery particle,
"olsa99!oct1!mason"@ddsw1.MCS.COM |  Should let itself be snuffed out
...!ddsw1!olsa99!oct1!mason       |     by an article."       Byron