--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill_at_usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hotze <tim_at_thereviewguide.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: OT, but info needed: RAM uprade
>
>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 - 17:51:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:30:50 BST