OT, but info needed: RAM uprade

From: Jason Willgruber <roblwill_at_usaor.net>
Date: Sun Dec 27 17:51:44 1998

If Intel's 8088 was stripped of half it's bus width, why was it used so much
more than the 8086? One of the few computers that I've seen with an 8086 is
the WANG WLTC (in the SCSI drive string). With being only 4 MHz (I think),
it way out-performs my 8088 8MHz Zenith (I just wish it wasn't so dang big).
I remember someone on here saying that an 8086 and 8088 were
interchangeable. Is this true, and would there be an advantage?
                 -Jason Willgruber
                  ICQ#: 1730318
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hotze <tim_at_thereviewguide.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
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...
>*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