Nice Find

From: Hotze <>
Date: Sun Apr 5 14:15:07 1998

><Yeah, but with extra RAM, etc. it could very well benchmark as a higher o
><lower MHz, even with today's Winbench's.
>Lower mhz yes faster never. Faster means a timer error or the program is
>broken. The 386 implmentation on that card is very vanilla and no cache.
Ok. Than what the heck is all this about AMD's and Cyrix's having LOWER
megahertz (the Cyrix PR233's only 187.5) and actually benchmarking and
performing like an Intel at a higher speed?
>Besides it's checkes out on mine at 16 using norton, QAFE+ and a few
OK. If there's one thing that I've learned, what chip manufacturers put on
chips means nearly NOTHING. It's the software, RAM, bus and how they work
together that makes performance/lack thereof.
><Linux won't run XF86 even in mono mode with less than 8MB RAM, which make
><zero sense because any PC that shipped with 8MB RAM and a mono card was
>Whatever you do don't tell my 386sx/33 that! It might stop working.
OK. At our school, we've got some NICE 386's. SVGA video cards w/2MB RAM,
16MB RAM each, and an interesting way to put a 3.5" drive in a 5" bay. Now,
I really need a small IDE HDD or a 3.5" MFM HDD and controller for one...
>< There are several projects going on to have Linux run on 286 and lowe
><machines, and, of course, lowering RAM consumption. There's an 8MB
><distribution that only requires 512K (I believe) RAM, if you give it enou
><swap space (in that case, it would be 3.5MB)
>Look up ELKS.
That's one, but there are many others. You could recompile them to be
optimized for a 386, though.
><>Windows 3.1 does run on it with the 1meg.
><It'll run, but in my experience, Windows 3.1 doesn't do to much with it.
><friends 286 (they were still using it last summer when they moved, but i
><was retrofit with MY 210MB HDD, and a SVGA monitor and graphics card) Yo
><can't extract files, run most software that was designed for Windows 3.1
>Runs good and most software that will fit in 1meg runs ok. Swapping is
>heavy though so a fast disk helps.
Yeah, but how much Windows 3.1 software fits on a meg? I'd say at least 2.
I ran Windows 3.1 from 1993 to 1997, and I'd have to say that most programs
that I ran were fairly large, most in double-digit MB's.
>3.0 is ok but it will not run some apps at all!
Yeah, and Windows 3.1 won't run a lot of apps. It really all depends on the
owner, what they want to do, how they want to do it, and what SW they
already have. BTW, where can I get a lisence+docs, disks for Windows 2.x?
I need one for the above computer...
><I'd go with 3.0, if I had a choice. If I was you, I would just upgrade t
><DOS 5.0 or so. It'll run loads of software, and is more consistent with
>I'm running 6.22 and LW had 5.x on his.
I like DOS. It's a good OS. If it were kept more alive today...
><hardware that you have, minus the 386CPU. And, it's smaller, so you coul
><actually have more software on it. Come to think of it, I believe that
><Windows 3.1 is like 25MB, plus the DOS 5.0 that's required to run it, whi
><fits on 5 720K floppies, I believe.
>Huh? I had 6.22, win3.1, procomm+, and a few other things and had about
>4.5mb free on a 20mb drive. DO5.0 would reduce it some but not alot, 3.3
>would be far smaller and still run w3.1.
Really? 3.3? BTW, did you ever get that Linux box working? I just started
w/Linux in Jan. and since then, I've installed, removed, reformated and ran
7 or so distributions. If you want, I can help, although I doubt my
usefulnes past my own machines...
    If Linux/UNIX clones were really wnated, Minix is free for personal
use... a older version, if it can be found, would probably work.
    Tim D. Hotze
Received on Sun Apr 05 1998 - 14:15:07 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:30:39 BST