Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!bu.edu!mirror!rob
From: rob@mirror.tmc.com (Rob Limbert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Brain-dead 286 - summary
Message-ID: <37432@mirror.tmc.com>
Date: 9 Mar 90 18:55:11 GMT
References: <8681@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> <29405@amdcad.AMD.COM> <17965@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <38299@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: rob@prism.TMC.COM (Rob Limbert)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mirror Systems, Cambridge Mass.
Lines: 43

In article <38299@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> sl197009@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chima Echeruo) writes:

>I have read many "experts" saying that the 286 is far slower than a 386.
>I have a 20Mhz 286 and I am yet to find a DOS computer in my college that
>performs faster than the 286 running DOS.

>I have read in Byte that there are going to be versions of the 286 at 25 Mhz.
>Is this true?

>If it is, won't a 25Mhz 286 outperform an equivalent 386 while in real mode?

  Running DOS code, the 286 and 386 are about the same speed, clock-per-clock.
386 machines tend to have better memory architectures, and therefore have an 
edge. There will be 25mhz (and maybe faster) 286's eventually, and they'll 
run DOS code _very_ quickly if that's all you're looking for. Only a few 
386's and 486's will be able to beat them at that task.

>The only feature that bother me in the 286 is it's lack of "flat memory" and 
>also a lack of 286 specific software.

   The 'lack of flat memory', i.e. the 64K segment limit, always a headache,
is an increasingly severe problem as applications and data grow in size and 
complexity.

   The 286's other major flaw is its inability to safely multitask real mode 
applications, or to easily mix real and protected mode code. When the 286 was
designed, no one realized this would be a serious problem, but it's turned 
out to be a critical weakness.


>When the 586 is ready for shipping by Intel, we will hear again how the 386
>is brain-damaged and not able to run the lastest sofware that is emerging.

   Not necessarily. Recall that the 386 has been around for about 4 years now,
and no one's calling it 'brain-dead' yet. By the time the 286 had been out 
even 2 years, people were tossing that and various other epithets at it. 

   You're assuming that the 286's only trouble is that it's not the latest, 
greatest chip on the block. That's partly true, but the 286 has numerous 
flaws that age alone can't explain. If age were the only problem, every chip 
would get hit with the 'brain dead' (or something similar) label eventually. 
Among the 8086 line (and even throwing in the 68000 line), the 286 has that 
title to itself.