Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars!kaleb
From: kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: 386 < -- > 386SX?
Message-ID: <2761@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 7 Feb 90 16:24:13 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>
Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Reply-To: kaleb@mars.UUCP (Kaleb Keithley)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Lines: 19

In article <25CF24C7.12406@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) writes:
>   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.

Who's got 32 bit disk controllers?  Since most DX mother boards only come
with one 32 bit slot, would you want to use it for your disk controller?
Maybe you'd save it for a 486 plug in board, if and when they get all the
bugs out of the 486?  I don't think that most of the low end (price) units
are supplying 32 bit disk controllers; maybe Compaq and IBM are on their
$8000 systems, but who buys those, fools?  I wouldn't pay $8000 for a DTK
based 386.

Just my two cents worth!
Chewey, get us outta here!
                 
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov            Jet Propeller Labs
Kaleb Keithley