Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rphroy!caen!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!e260-1f.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq
From: c60b-1eq@e260-1f.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <1991Apr7.033635.18412@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 7 Apr 91 03:36:35 GMT
References: <1991Apr4.062503.1325@agate.berkeley.edu> <27865@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1991Apr6.191106.5863@cc.helsinki.fi>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20

In article <1991Apr6.191106.5863@cc.helsinki.fi> torvalds@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>... But why do you think there are a LOT
>of programs that simply won't work on a 286 or less? (windows "kind of"
>works on these, but most u*ix etc want a 386 at least).

Just a technical point--UN*X Sys V can run on an 8086.  And an 80286-based
system can make a workable multi-user UN*X system.

>  Fos a machine running just dos, the only NOTABLE difference between
>ANY x86 is speed, so there you could use a 8088 at 500MHz if they made
>them.

A few years ago I read about a 50 MHz 80286 system created by a Japanese
designer.  The only major modification was the addition of a heat sink
to the CPU.

+==========================================================================+
| Noam Mendelson   ..!agate!ucbvax!web!c60b-1eq | "I haven't lost my mind, |
| c60b-1eq@web.Berkeley.EDU                     |  it's backed up on tape  |
| University of California at Berkeley          |  somewhere."             |