Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!udel!rochester!rit!ultb!pad3563 From: pad3563@ultb.UUCP (P.A. Deupree ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Hacking on a shoestring budget Message-ID: <173@ultb.UUCP> Date: 7 Nov 88 14:52:56 GMT References: <1218@helios.ee.lbl.gov> Reply-To: pad3563@ultb.UUCP (P.A. Deupree (713ICS)) Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology (Info Systems) Lines: 52 In article dpz@dorm.rutgers.edu (David P. Zimmerman) writes: >I agree on too many of the points you made! '286 boxes are really a >waste, considering that the architecture is just an adolescent '86, >and that '386 machines and RAM chips should become reasonably priced >within 12-18 months. > This gets into the age old situation. By the time the price drops in 12-18 months then something better will be out and you'll all want to wait for that. Me, I just want to have something now so that there is something for me to work on, so I got an XT286. Why, you may ask. Well, for one the price on those suckers dropped way down when the PS/2's came out and I have a relative that works for IBM so I got a good deal on it. "Why not get a PS/2 since it would probably only be a few hundred more?" you may then ask. Because I don't want to deal with the damn microbus garbage. I personally plan to get into MIDI and I see the chances of there being any decent microbus midi hardware/software out there as being close to nil. "Won't you kick yourself when you find that a 386 is so much better?" Well, there's a neat invention called a processor card. When the 486 comes out I'm sure I'll get one sooner or later (heck, I've got about 5 more empty slots in my XT and the processor cards are usually short ones). Sorry, but I believe in the practicality of "usage gained by not waiting" and not in the "my box is the latest and greatest" philosophy. > >I'm not envious - I view the '286 as having all the problems of the >'88, just that it is faster. And, at this point, for what you use a >'286 for, you should really have a '386 to do a good job of it. If >I'm going to have to use a segmented architecture, I'm not going to >put out big bucks for it (including the higher price of 16 bit AT-bus >cards and higher speed peripherals to keep the system balanced). > Well, I'm just learning some of the aspects of the 286 so I'm no expert. However, from a programmers point of view, I find it an improvement over the 88 because now I can play around with the virtual memory features and the multi-tasking (and considering that I'm writing an operating system at the moment these are both big pluses). Sure, I'd like to have a 386 more (or better yet a Mac II) but as a normal hard working person I can't afford to shell out an extra $2000 (which is what it would have cost to buy a Mac II instead of my 286). Heck, the system I have is a XT286, a Tandon video card (we're talking bargain basement here), a color monitor that I just got off someone for $75, DOS 3.3 (though I would love to lay my hands on 4.0 to go with my C 5.0) and a 1200 baud modem that I've gotten on loan from a place I worked at on co-op. This whole setup has cost me about $1600 and that's put a real strain on my budget. -- Patrick A. Deupree Bitnet: PAD3563@RITVAX.BITNET UUCP: pxd3563@ultb.UUCP "I have great faith in fools. Self confidence my friends call it." Edgar Allen Poe