Minimum hardware requirements (Was: Old, but not "Classic"

From: jpero_at_pop.cgocable.net <(jpero_at_pop.cgocable.net)>
Date: Sat Nov 14 08:01:21 1998

> Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 12:10:34 -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: Minimum hardware requirements (Was: Old, but not "Classic"

> < True and that is only windows itself! To be realatisc, 12~16MB and
>
> 8-12mb is more like it. some less.

That is around right usually.

> If you want a viewer. If you want something to read text there les less
> problem.
Snip

> 386s run ok but it's not going to be fast.

Very rarely you see a cached 386sx boards. I have once or twice,
really helps. And SLT 386s/20 and LTE 386s/20 has 4K cache.
But 386sx still have no HP oomph even running netscape 3.x is like
watching the frozen molsses flow even with 10MB ram.

> Acrobat, runs on any 386 and maybe lower. Unfortunatly it's so damm big
> and slow that it's painful even on high end 486s!

No no... is there other programs that can read the PDF besides
Adobe's? That's the key.

> The 504MB boundary has never been a problem for me! It's a dos problem
> but win31 seems to have no problem.

Hehehe many may think differently this way but I have to use this if
I must.

Snip
> Cheap, the key word.

Hey, I was able to find bunches of 486 w/o cpu but has cache
chips boards and many all in one for 386dx or 486 at 5 CDN each.
Strangely, they worked with 70% chances.
You should able to find some at that value in some of susplus places.
Can you able to do that in your area even 2 or 3 hours away?
Toronto has one in canada. I pass the 286 and 386sx boards.

> w95 on most is a waste.

True... but there is many people who try to do that just to keep
their monies for no reason.

> It's slow that's all. A 286 or 386 at sub 8mhz is pretty poor too!

Lowest 386dx I saw was 12mhz lasered in and broken boards that have
bad turbo stuck at 8. Remember compaq and some machines
slow cpu to 8 when working the FD..

> Biggest problem.
This is why I steer away from those boards.

> Gads no. I have a 386sx/16 (intel inboard PC) that can march circles
> around any 286. That has to be the most handicapped 386 around.

May not be good comparsion because many low end boards often have
no cache. That board of yours must have cache which "breaks" out of
that group to between 20 to 25mhz range uncached. Can you find any
cache on yours?

Snipped about the switching for better HD's and using VLB on 386/486
boards.

I agree it's does help but those 3/486 boards is not that
common around here and very low quality usually. I avoid those and
any boards that use OPTI chipsets. UMC, SiS and few Intel boards
are fine boards along with few boards that I'm lucky to find that is
made by brand maker.

Snip about using seperate hd for swapspace.

True...but I don't want to wear out those drives from all that
seeking, used ram is cheap, try to pile up on that one much as you
can afford. Ram is faster than any drives by long run.

>
> Allison

Jason D.
email: jpero_at_cgocable.net
Pero, Jason D.
Received on Sat Nov 14 1998 - 08:01:21 GMT