Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000) Message-ID: <44970@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 2 Mar 91 05:00:16 GMT References: <1991Feb16.014403.11533@NCoast.ORG> <1991Feb17.004210.5827@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Feb22.014212.681@NCoast.ORG> <1991Mar1.120528.2418@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 29 In article <1991Mar1.120528.2418@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb22.014212.681@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >> Sure you can, and it will be: >> 16-bit, with no way to ever go to 32-bit. > >What do you mean by this? The 80386SX is *purely* a 32-bit CPU inside. This >is strictly a performance consideration... the VGA sucks from that viewpoint >too. The point I'm making is that it *is* available, and *does* work. And the >80386 is far enough up the curve of intels slugfest with real processors that >you won't be hurting too much. So what if the SX is 32 bits internally? The 68k is too, and that doesn't make it fast. I think the point here is that if you get into an ISA bus system, even if it has a true 32-bit 386 in it, you're going to have to deal with the slowness of the 16-bit bus. The 386SX is a crippled chip that Intel made to satisfy a market need for cheap, low-end architectures. It's not even competitive with a real 386. If internal 32 bit, external 16 bit was an acceptable setup Sun would still be making and selling Sun 2/50's and the like. Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd