>Yes. I've been using a 386DX with 128k cache with Win3.1 and Netscape 3.0.
>Doesn't seem significantly slower than my friend's P90 with W95. Sometimes
>Netscape crashes with some .JPG files (GP fault in the VGA driver) and I
>have to start over.
>Haven't tried much newer, it doesn't seem right to require a 300MHz
>processor and 64MB ram to mostly read email, much less type mail messages!
>I did adjust several things, like remove smartdrv's "buffering" for the
HD, etc.
>-Dave
That's why it's Windows 95. It takes forever to boot. Anyway, cache's the
only thing that makes the K6-2 slower than a PII at the same clock speed.
If I remove my cache entirely on my 200MHz MMX system, then it performs
considerably slower than my 486 with 136K (IE 8K on chip, 128K on the
motherboard) cache. Also the bus speed matters a lot, especially on a
pre-486 (or 486SX with 487) system if you're doing heavy math, etc. I
don't know why Intel's 'low cost' processors are always so bone headed:
486SX, which removed the one true thing that made it a 486, 8088, removing
the crucial 16-bit bus of the 8086, 386SX, which worked pretty well, but
still halfed the external bandwidth (did Intel ever make a cheap version of
a 286?), and now we've got Celeron: Until the Celron A, no cache at all...
Tim
------------------------------------------------------*
*Ever onward, always forward. *
*Tim D. Hotze Panel Member, The Ultimate Web Host List*
*
http://www.webhostlist.com worldsfate_at_geocities.com *
------------------------------------------------------*
Received on Sun Dec 27 1998 - 10:51:22 GMT