Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!equinox!jimi!reed!whitney
From: whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Question: How fast must memory for 12Mhz At be ?
Message-ID: <1991May29.190917.1031@unlv.edu>
Date: 29 May 91 19:09:17 GMT
References: <10158@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> <1991May22.185140.27586@amd.com> <1991May28.205121.9184@unlv.edu> <1991May29.004827.4423@amd.com>
Sender: news@unlv.edu (News User)
Organization: UNLV Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
Lines: 51


whitney@reed.cs.unlv.edu (Lee Whitney) writes:
>>To answer your question, you would be better off using your RAM for an
>>XT (8086 based) computer.  150ns is generally too slow for a 286
>>computer.

Phil writes:
>Gosh, I guess C&T must be lying when they say on the front of their
>CS8221 NEW ENHANCED AT DATA BOOK that they support 12 MHz operation
>with 150 ns DRAMs. But then, you probably don't know what page mode
>or interleave operation are. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a dollar
>that you've never even read the C&T NEAT data book.

Did I say 150ns RAM would not operate in any 286?  No.  I said 150ns
RAM is generally too slow for a 286, which I still stand behind.
Consider this:

     1.)  Not everone has a 286 board with the features you speak of,
          and on many 286-12 boards, 150ns memory CAN and HAS caused
          problems.

     2.)  Even if the board does have interleaved memory (which, by
	  the way, your on for any monetary bet you would like to
	  wager on my knowledge of this subject) this DOES NOT
	  GUARANTEE that you will get the best performance from your
	  system.  If simple memory tricks like that were the end all
	  answer, we would not need more advanced schemes to reduce
	  memory access such as caching and RISC's register based
	  architecture. 

Under these circumstances I feel the original answer had a little more
than "an accidental relationship with reality".



>>If everyone on the net tries to help a little rather than
>>mock someone trying to learn, we can have most of our questions
>>answered.

>Yes, and with answers like yours, whose relationship with reality is
>only accidental. Any answer is better than no answer, whether or not it
>is correct?

My point was not argue answer validity with you, although I will if
your goal is to contribute to everyone's knowledge.

My point was that even though you are someone who has apparently
attained some degree of technical knowledge, instead of helping to answer
a simple question, or ignoring it, you chose to try to belittle and
make fun of a less experienced user.  I cannot see how your initial
response was helpful, or even funny.