> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 07:58:25 -0500
> Reply-to: classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu
> From: allisonp_at_world.std.com (Allison J Parent)
> To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers" <classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Old, but not "Classic"
Snip!
>
> It does run win3.1 just fine and 3.11 as well but, Netscape is out of the
> question. The problem is with only 1mb of ram you swap like mad for some
> apps and others can't load enough of their resident portion to execute.
> My machine only has 1mb of ram. While 2mb would help it would still
> fall short in the ram derby as most apps want 4-8mb at least.
Partially for that reason...
> I'd advise that anything 386/8mb and above would be the minima for being
> able to run most desireable packages. Even a lowly 386sx/16 would be
> faster than any 286 and adding memory is a lot easier. It has more to do
> with expandability and availability.
I have LTE 386s/25 (souped up 25mhz not 20) w/ 10MB ram on 3.11 many
programs still crawls because of weak CPU even cached by 4K on that
notebook. Go for 386dx with at least 64k, 128K or 256K, or better
yet find a 486sx or dx 25 or 33. That is more than enough for most
uses if it's has no external cache with plentiful ram.
386sx is amittedly better than 286 but for some reason I avoid 386sx
except in early portables but grown out of it, now looking
into buying an Aero 4/25 with all trimmings.
> Oh, I've seen a 386DX/33 with 64k cache, 16mb ram running W95 and it's
> slow but very useable. More ram is needed to avoid slow swapping. It
> sounds wacky but with 386s around here bing free or nearly so they are a
> resource that is underrated.
To give you a idea where fastest 386dx 40 or rapidcad o/c'ed at 40
stands in relation to low end 486. It's tad 10% less than a 486 25
w/o ext cache, int cache on. With both caches on, performance
increases drastically.
Snip!
> The
> latter is good as here I'm inclined to swap around IDE hard drives
> and if it boots/ runs on a 486 I've never had trouble with it
> booting/running on a 386 system. The latter being important in a
> classroom enviornment where you want every one to be able to do the
> same thing the same way(and get the results at the same time!).
Exactly! IDE is subset of ISA bus and shouldn't be too hard to scare
up a interface design based on 286 or embedded 386 that makes whole
shebang act like plain old MFM or ESDI drive in brackets: (adapter,
IDE drive) and allow partition and high level format. Say: give a
614, 4, 17 to old system and get 20mb out of a 1GB hd or give a
different numbers to get larger capacity on same shebang.
The ISA to MFM or ESDI is already done on a chipset and that's where
you can find them easily on dud IDE hard drives and last generatoin
of WD MFM controllers used exactly the same type of chipset but turn
it around using "ISA" part on that side to drive IDE and present the
MFM or ESDI side to original equipment.
Better yet go deeper and fool the original machine by a digital with
same address and i/o range or something like that in place of the
original controller using embedded microcontroller better use 16bits
microcontroller and drive directly to IDE bus or SCSI interface.
I favor this design latter.
Besides, you can still use the UDMA 66 drives as lowly slower because
they must work with any machines from 286 to PII's. They will be
around for long time for several few more years let's say 10 years.
Few people who swears not to have undocumented equipment,
pester the manufacturer for it to get info so can use those
new-flranged storage otherwise accept that fact that we are totally
beyond our ablitiles on these newer drives as it's so advanced in
technologies. (FWIW, I found out that zip drives uses shappire
bearings to carry the heads, that is from newsgroups so don't take
it at face value until then).
Jason D.
>
> Allison
>
>
email: jpero_at_cgocable.net
Pero, Jason D.
Received on Thu Nov 12 1998 - 08:24:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:31:18 BST