Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pmafire!russ
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Comparing 486 to 386 Systems
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.222430.28425@pmafire.inel.gov>
Date: 15 Apr 91 22:24:30 GMT
References: <1991Apr6.191106.5863@cc.helsinki.fi> <27899@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <2326@pdxgate.UUCP>
Organization: WINCO
Lines: 28

In article <2326@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes:
>brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Apr6.191106.5863@cc.helsinki.fi> torvalds@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>>>In article <27865@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, brandis@inf.ethz.ch (Marc Brandis) writes:
>>>  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. For anything else (read unix, windows, etc) you want a 386 or a
>>>486 (yes I'm oversimplifying). The 286 just won't cut it.
>
>  Sigh... Must be nice to spend several thousand dollars on a 486 system to
>run MS-DOS. <grumble...>
>
>==============================================================================
>  Eric Berggren             |         "Life is a Turing Test;

If you have stuff that can be done best on DOS, why not.  I have an
80486-33 Dell 433TE; runs UNIX V 5.4 (upgrade due out any day now)
**and** MS-DOS under DOSMerge.  Some of the DOS database and graphics
conversions typically ran 40 minutes and one job took 6.5 hours on an 80386-20.

The 486 saves lots of time.  My DOS database is so highly customized
that it could not (at least now) be done on any other operating system. 
My graphics involve the serial product of two databases and a DOS
graphics program, which convert 30 years worth of U.S. cancer mortality
into 3-d color-coded topo maps.

I could use an 80586-100 if it were available....(with refrigerator; :<)).