Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!crackers!cpoint!frog!rmkhome!rmk
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: NeXT/Amiga Flamage: Get a life.
Message-ID: <9104261620.26@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: 27 Apr 91 01:38:00 GMT
References: <6hdG18ik1@cs.psu.edu> <1748@sjfc.UUCP> <20875@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Apr23.201029.9844@wpi.WPI.EDU> <12764@aggie.ucdavis.edu>
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Lines: 48

In article <12764@aggie.ucdavis.edu> s110a010@deneb.ucdavis.edu () writes:
>In article <1991Apr23.201029.9844@wpi.WPI.EDU> jdutka@wpi.WPI.EDU (John Dutka) writes:
>>In article <20875@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
>>>IBM PC, or the eventual clones, were worth of business computing.  Any other
>>>system would be written off as a game machine, or a computer for hippies, or
>>>a hacker's machine, etc.
>>>Now does it all make sense?
>>
>>Much clearer now :)
>>So how can the 80486 be explained?  I can't wait (grin)
>>
>>-- 
>>| jdutka@wpi.wpi.edu   |  Heh, heh, heh!"                                    |
>>| John Dutka, Jr.      |     -Mechanical Engineers On The Prowl              |
>Do you know anything about the ORIGINAL 8086 architecture?  It's a bunch
>of kludges so Intel could get peak performance out of the chip since at
>the time it was made, the number of transistors that could be put on the
>little piece of silicon was rather small (relatively.)  While the 80486
>is a very nice chip indeed, it still needs to be binary code compatible
>with the 8086 and all of its wierdness.  That's how the 80486 can be
>explained ;-)  The 68000 family (released about a year later) is a more
>orthogonal architecture, so expanding it has been less painful than the
>Intel 80X86 series.  Now put the 80486 in protected mode and it's REALLY
>nice, but unfortunately DOS still operates in real mode.  So does it all
>make sense?


That's the horror of MSDOS and INTEL.  No matter which Intel processor
you use, you are always in 16 bit 8086 "real mode".  The best thing for
MSDOS would be 33 mhz 80286's.  People who buy 32 bit processors to run
MSDOS are only getting clock speed for their money.  At on point, CompuAdd
was selling a 20 mhz 80286 (made by Harris) AT.  They put it up against
their own 80386SX 20 mhz AT, and ran some benchmarks.  The 80286 box was
faster.  If you want to run MSDOS get the fastest 80286 box you can find.
8086 "real mode" is not as efficient as a 8086 or 80286.  That is the bottom
line.

I have 2 systems here at rmkhome.  An AMIGA and a AT clone running Coherent.
When I switched from MSDOS to COHERENT it was as if I had put a supercharger
on my AT.  MSDOS was optimized for the 8088 and 8086.

I know that when I upgrade my AMIGA to a faster processor, I will get a good
linear increase in the speed of AmigaDos.

I would feel like a fool using a 80386 or 80486 to run MSDOS.  What a waste
of money.

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	frog!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP