Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!parcvax!burton
From: burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 386 in IBM AT?
Message-ID: <407@parcvax.Xerox.COM>
Date: Tue, 4-Aug-87 16:47:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: parcvax.407
Posted: Tue Aug  4 16:47:16 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 01:56:10 EDT
References: <1272@killer.UUCP> <503@wolf.UUCP>
Reply-To: burton@parcvax.xerox.com.UUCP (Philip M. Burton)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Lines: 23
Keywords: 386, 20mMHz

In article <503@wolf.UUCP> enped@wolf.UUCP (Eric Pederson) writes:
>
>Most of the speed ratings put 386 machines with the same bus and the same
>clock speed slightly above the compared 286 machines.  The added speed
>isn't neccesarily worth the extra cost in getting the 386 add-on.  You'd
>want it most likely for the ability to run multiple copies of DOS, a nice
>linear UNIX, etc. etc.  You can speed up your AT machine with a faster
>disk and a decent cache program.

I agree.  My preference for a new term solution would be to replce  the 286
with a 386, and leave everything else alone.  EGA, AST multifunction card,
disk controller, etc.

Has anyone actually installed the Cheetah upgrade?

Does anyone know about the rumored Intel special 386 that would plug into an
AT motherboard directly?


-- 
Philip Burton
Xerox Corporation    408 737 4635
 ... usual disclaimers apply ...