Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!agate!e260-1e.berkeley.edu!c60b-1eq From: c60b-1eq@e260-1e.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems Message-ID: <1991Apr11.073556.9556@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 11 Apr 91 07:35:56 GMT References: <1991Apr6.191106.5863@cc.helsinki.fi> <1991Apr7.033635.18412@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr11.001619.6952@holos0.uucp> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 32 In article <1991Apr11.001619.6952@holos0.uucp> lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes: >In article <1991Apr7.033635.18412@agate.berkeley.edu> c60b-1eq@e260-1f.berkeley.edu (Noam Mendelson) writes: >>Just a technical point--UN*X Sys V can run on an 8086. >Of course a stray pointer can bring down the whole house of cards. Yep. >>And an 80286-based system can make a workable multi-user UN*X system. >But the point being made was that 16-bit addressing really cripples you. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On a 286? 24 bits. >Once upon a time Unix ran on PDP-11's, but system V really doesn't work >too well on anything less than a 32-bit processor. Agreed. >Of course, I can't imagine why anyone would buy anything less than a >80386-SX even for a home computer running DOS; they've become so cheap that >arguing over whether a 286 is adaquate [sic] is as dumb as arguing if an 8080 >would do the job. Who cares? Maybe you don't, but for others it's a prime consideration. For example, if you use your PC mainly as a terminal, the speed of the CPU won't help you much. It all depends on what applications you use it for. +==========================================================================+ | 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." |