>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.
Are you saying that a 486 is only faster than a 286 because of the
cache?
><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.
Isn't v7 the latest UNIX distribution?
><><>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.
I once had an old 386 with a 20MB MFM hard drive and 2MB RAM. Windows
ran OK, but Word 2.0 ran very poorly. Strange that I've never seen
3.0. Is it rare?
>
>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.
>
Actually, Windows 3.0 came with a copy of MS-DOS executive, the
precursor to the program manager, while 3.1 didn't. That's not
bad, as well as the ability to run real mode programs.
>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
Well, someone from this list let me copy his. It's not bad, but needs
DOS Version 3.3. You can use Setver for the same thing, but you will
have to disable it for Windows 95, which needs at least 7.0. I have
DOS 3.3, and it's a good DOS. If only it had MOVE...I can send anyone
who wants them some copies. I THINK I have four more boxes. Five are
already spoken for.
It's too bad that Linux needs so much space and so little RAM. I
would rather have somewhat of a greater balance... I installed red
hat recently, and it's an awful pain, just like slackware. I wish
I could install Mac System 1.0 on my PC without emulators...
>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
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Sun Apr 05 1998 - 17:49:29 BST