Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!linus!agate!e260-3e.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq
From: c60b-1eq@e260-3e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Keywords: 486 386
Message-ID: <1991Apr9.234919.24985@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 91 23:49:19 GMT
References: <1991Apr7.170017.23962@news.cs.indiana.edu> <1991Apr7.232941.21382@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr8.154643.784@saturn.uucp>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16

In article <1991Apr8.154643.784@saturn.uucp> martin@saturn.UUCP (Martin J. Schedlbauer) writes:
>In article <1991Apr7.232941.21382@agate.berkeley.edu> c60b-1eq@web-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes:
>>In article <1991Apr7.170017.23962@news.cs.indiana.edu> mikes@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Squires) writes:
>>>In article <1991Apr6.045408.15395@agate.berkeley.edu> c60b-1eq@e260-1d.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes:
>>>>Perhaps, but since the majority of MSDOS software contains 16-bit code,
>>>>the 486 does not offer much realistic speed improvement.
>If you are running mainly 16bit DOS (i.e. no 386 extender DOS) and you don't
>need floating point hardware, a 386-25 is the most economical.
>If you do need FP performance, go for a 486. It's cheaper than a 386+387.

That's exactly the message I tried to get across.

+==========================================================================+
| 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."             |