Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!milton!oregon!kuo
From: KUO@oregon.uoregon.edu (Shijong Kuo)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 386 < -- > 386SX?
Message-ID: <15878@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 04:53:33 GMT
References: <3533@uceng.UC.EDU> <25ccac6d:47.1comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@nstar.UUCP> <959@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <25CF24C7.12406@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 13


>    Well, you would get the same CPU performance.  Your disk drive, though,
> would still be run with a 16-bit controller (unless you upgrade the
> controller, too), so your disk performance would be no better, whereas if
> you bought a brand new system it would have a 32-bit disk controller.
> 
I am curious to know to who makes such 32 bit disk controllers. As far as I
know there is no industry standard on 32 bit slots in 386 clones.

kuo@oregon.uoregon.edu
"77 cents on the $ of tax revenue comes for personal imcome tax and payroll
tax vs. 11 cents from corporate tax. Has the government become a tax collector
for her corporate patrons?"