Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!pdxgate!eecs!berggren
From: berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <2328@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: 11 Apr 91 08:57:46 GMT
References: <27865@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1991Apr6.191106.5863@cc.helsinki.fi> <1991Apr7.033635.18412@agate.berkeley.edu> <1991Apr11.001619.6952@holos0.uucp>
Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP
Lines: 31

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.

>>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.

  That's 64k, is that what you mean? 8088/86 use 20-bit addressing. (just
nit picking..)

>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.

>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 is as dumb as arguing if an 8080
>would do the job.  Who cares?                                       ^
                                                                     |
  Ahhh, the origins of our wonderful and ubiquitous MSDOS!           |

-e.b.

==============================================================================
  Eric Berggren             |         "Life is a Turing Test;
  Computer Science/Eng.     |           We're all automatons!"
  berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu  |              - (click, whir, buzz, chirp)