Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!ddsw1!vpnet!akcs.amparsonjr
From: akcs.amparsonjr@vpnet.UUCP (Anthony M. Parson, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: recommendations wanted
Keywords: pc, 286 386
Message-ID: <25c86533:4479.2comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@vpnet.UUCP>
Date: 1 Feb 90 20:00:09 GMT
References: <183@b8.INGR.COM> <4426@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Lines: 13

I can vouch for the improvement that the 8087 will make in Generic Cadd.
On an 8088 4.77 board, I thought the computer locked up when I added
alphanumeric characters to a drawing, and then either rotated it, or moved
a chunk of the info to a different spot in the drawing.
On an 8088 at 8 mhz, it didn't look like it stopped, but I could see each
individual pixel being drawn for the alphanumeric characters.
On an 8088 at 8 mhz with 8087 (8 mhz), things REALLY improved-- I found I
could live with this.  Never got to try an 80286 with generic cadd, but I
will say an 80386 (25 mhz) without a coprocessor, is STILL faster by far
than the 8088/8087 combination.  Moral: get a fast 80286 or 80386, and
possibly save the cost of buying a math coprocessor.  Of course, it depends
how complicate your ddrawings are, how large, if you use letters / fonts
to record dimensions, how many layers, etc.