From: 5916rahmank@vms.csd.mu.edu ( )
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
Subject: Re: DOES A 387 HELP WIN/3.1?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 17:59:03 GMT
Organization: Department of EECE, Marquette University
Reply-To: 5916rahmank@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsf.csd.mu.edu

In article <iH6swB2w165w@salzo.Cary.NC.US>, charvel@salzo.Cary.NC.US (Jeff Cogswell) writes:
->michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
->
->> In <1992Dec29.151718.6115@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j
->> >In <1992Dec29.004615.20098@netcom.com> ergo@netcom.com (Isaac Rabinovitch) w
->> >>In <1992Dec28.185555.16798@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fre
->> >>>In <1992Dec22.194817.25666@kodak.kodak.com> thomas@acadia.Kodak.COM (Thoma
->> >>>>    "A Friend" told me that an 80387 would help Windows/3.1  run  faster
->> >>>>    because there are a lot of floating point calculations involved.
->> >>>>    Can anyone verify this?
->> >>>No, because it isn't true.  A math coprocessor will do absolutely
->> >>>nothing to improve Windows performance.
->> 
->> >>*Almost* true.  
->> 
->> >Well, no.  What I said is exactly true.
->> 
->> Ah but he was referring to what the first person said.  And he meant that
->> the idea had merit but didn't apply in this case.  You are being over
->> defensive.
->> 
->> True, but this explanation does serve to explain why the reasoning may
->> be sound in many cases but not in this one.  Relax.  Just because someone
->> answers a question differently, doesn't mean that you need to defend your
->> first answer.  No one attacked you. :)
->> 
->>     Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
->
->I'm posting this rather than mail it so everyone can see.  I'm sure
->there are many other people who get sick of reading such defensive
->postings.  Michael's right.  "No one attacked you."  The fact is,
->Windows is so large, even Petzold doesn't know everything there is
->about it.  When someone says "I'm right" he/she is just asking for
->trouble.  There's always exceptions to the rule, especially in a
->complex multitasking environment.  Besides, unless the people claiming
->to be exactly right have completely traced through the assembly code
->comprising Kernal, GDI, User, and all other modules, then they can
->not say with certainty that they are exactly right.
->
->Come on, everyone.  We all have weaknesses. 
->
->Jeff Cogswell
->charvel@salzo.Cary.NC.US
->
--------------------------------------------------

	The issue of math coprocessor should not be the case of
	a square peg and round hole situation. BTW, this has been
	discussed in a long thread before and I recollect the outcome
	was that - a coprocessor does help speed up windows performance.
	A very simple experiment that I did to find out this fact is
	the following:

	a) Take a 386 pc/clone with a math coprocessor installed. Load
	windows and measure the time it takes to load. Repeat the
	measurement of time for few other of your favourite applications
	WfW, excel, CAD, ... Don't forget to note them down.

	b) Now open the box and pull the coprocessor off (make sure you
	ground yourself properly). Run the windows again and repeat the 
	steps of a) by noting the time taken in the respective application.

	The role of the coprocessor becomes obvious!

	-Anis.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy