Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000) Message-ID: <1991Mar9.054026.15304@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 9 Mar 91 05:40:26 GMT References: <1991Feb22.014212.681@NCoast.ORG> <1991Mar1.120528.2418@sugar.hackercorp.com> <44970@ut-emx.uucp> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Lines: 33 In article <44970@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > So what if the SX is 32 bits internally? The 68k is too, and that doesn't > make it fast. Fast enough for me. The system speed is more related to the operating system, and for UNIX it's also highly correlated with amount of RAM and the speed of the hard disk subsystem. The NeXTstep overhead costs you, and both the ISA machines and the NeXT get the same disk throughput out of the disk drive. > 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. You can make the overall system cheaper by leveraging off the slower speed and narrower bus. If it's fast enough for what you want to do (and for a UNIX system it is) and you have a limited budget then it's a viable option. It's still faster than an 11/780, remember. > 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. Acceptable to who? 8088 based machines are still selling. Commodore-64s are still selling. You're like an audiophile wondering why someone would ever buy a boom-box. People have different needs and different budgets... and the lower the budget the bigger the market. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .