<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
<>others.
<OK. If there's one thing that I've learned, what chip manufacturers put
<chips means nearly NOTHING. It's the software, RAM, bus and how they wor
<together that makes performance/lack thereof.
What on the chip is the design maximum (which may be exceeded by over
clocking at some risk), however the system design, wait states, bus
interface and a host of other design factor can slow the cpu down.
The cached (486) and highly piplined (pentium and friends) are more
variable as the clock speed is only an indicator of performance and if
the code runs with a log of cache misses the speed can really drop to
nothing. I know as the external cache croaked on my 486/25 and I ran
for a bit with the internal cache turned off and the performance was
worse than a 286/12! With the internal cache running it was only about
10% off the performance of the 64k external cache. Just to give you and
idea.
<>Look up ELKS.
<That's one, but there are many others. You could recompile them to be
<optimized for a 386, though.
Funny I have unix v7 running on a PDP11 with only 256kb of ram. it can be
done.
<><>Windows 3.1 does run on it with the 1meg.
<>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
<I ran Windows 3.1 from 1993 to 1997, and I'd have to say that most progra
<that I ran were fairly large, most in double-digit MB's.
IF you mean running netscape, that monster wants a minimum of 8m just to
run and will still crash if pressed. Wordperfect for windows runs great,
as does Word3.0 in 1meg. There are a lot of older packages that run real
well in winders3.1 and 2meg or less.
<>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
<owner, what they want to do, how they want to do it, and what SW they
Windoes 3.0 was not widely supported and it was upgraded to 3.1.
<already have. BTW, where can I get a lisence+docs, disks for Windows 2.x
<I need one for the above computer...
Why? For historical points but it was a dog and buggy as hell.
<Really? 3.3?
Yep!
<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 r
<7 or so distributions. If you want, I can help, although I doubt my
<usefulnes past my own machines...
Yes I did with help from a few people. The system it's on is a 386DX/33
with 128k cache and a 420mb IDE and a CDrom. I'm not running X on it as it
only has 8megs and a low end VGA board currently. I'm not that
enthusastic over it as somea re.
Allison
Received on Sun Apr 05 1998 - 17:02:16 BST