From: skip@cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Its a sad sad day...
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:46:16 GMT
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science

In article <1992Oct10.210025.15846@usl.edu> das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>In article <OA92-901-306p1_59F96F10@piraya.bad.se> Hans_Bergengren@p1.thulos.bbs.bad.se (Hans Bergengren) writes:
>>
>> SD> >In Windoze - most things are "intensive" (like moving the mouse)...
>>     < Stuff deleted ... >
>> SD> Give me a break.  You write as if Windows is slow on a 386!
>>
>>But it IS slow! Haven't you NOTICED?
>
>For the amount of infomation it has to move, Windows 3.1 is pretty fast,
>RUNNING UNDER OS/2 2.0 on my system.  And that's not the final release even.
>I really bother me that people post 'Windoze is dog slow', without any 
>qualifications.  

You bother yourself?  :-)

Seriously, what sort of qualifications do you need?  I think that Windows
is slow and will be happy to provide any sort of qualifications that you
require.

>For all we know, he's running at 1024X768X256 unaccelerated on an 80286.
>Windows 3.1 is not slow on any system I've seen.

I don't have any idea what he is using, but I've been using Windows on 
a 50MHz 486DX with Tseng 4000 SVGA, 16M RAM, ethernet, and 2 245M 12ms
IDE drives.  Great DOS machine, but it sucks under Windows.  At 640x480
16 color it is no slower than my A3000 in 696x480 16 color, but it is
not any faster either.  Compared to a wimpy 386 it flies, but it is not
fast enough for me to want to use Windows all the time.  

>> SD> Windows 3.1 is pretty fast on all the systems sold remotely recently.
>>
>>It OUGHT to be! FAST (33MHz 3/486DXs) are pretty cheap and popular nowdays,
>>but I still think that there's a noticeable lag in everything you do. Maybe
>>that has something to do with that the machines I've tested Windoze on only
>>has ordinary VGA/SVGA cards, without any kind of graphics accelerator.
>
>What?  Now you agree that it can be fast?  Oh, but there is still lag? How?
>My 386/33 has no accelerated video card, yet IMO Windows is indeed pretty
>fast.  Note that is for a full screen session - running seamlessly on the
>OS/2 desktop _is_ slower.

Fast compared to what?  A Mac Plus?  An Amiga A500?  A 286 with EGA?

>> SD> All I was pointing out was that there were ZERO hassle in upgrading CPUs.
>>
>>So what? Isn't this how things SHOULD be? Is it something to boast about?
>
>Sure, it's a great thing.  Now people can upgrade CPUs only, without buying 
>the extrea hardware.

The fact that you and others hold this opinion proves that Intel's little
scam is working perfectly.

>> SD> Keep in mind here that there is no slot taken up, no especial room needed
>>
>>But then, it's just the CPU you upgrade. On the Amiga, recent CPU accelerators
>>features not only a fast CPU and many megs of fast RAM expansion, but SCSI-2
>>harddisk controllers, and parallel/serial connectors. I'd like to see that be
>>done with your Intel Overdrive socket...!
>
>For the system's this discussion concerns, the other equipment is usually top
>notch anyway.  There is certainly an advantage to getting a double-clocked
>486 with out dumping your old non-doubler 486.

Again, Intel has suckered you and several others into believing that the
Overdrive chip is some sort of great bargain.  Hell, they are only doing it
so that you'll spend you'll buy a chip from them at the single unit price
instead of buying a new machine from a manufacturer who purchase the chips
in quantity.

>> SD> just buy the actually CPU itself and drop it in....simple.
>>
>>"Actually CPU"? :) Yes, quite simple. About as simple as slotting in a card
>>and tightening a fastening screw...
>
>Heh he, trust me on this one.  The zero insertion CPUs are SO SIMPLE,
>even my MOTHER could do it.  And that is saying a LOT.

Watch it, you're starting to type like Jeff Young.  :-)

>> SD> *I* think this is very slick.
>>
>>But limited. The CPU won't run at maximum performance in many configurations,
>>so much of the upgrade would be wasted! Not so in the Amiga environment!
>
>Look, we're talking about using Overdrive sockets and zero insertion
>force CPU ungrades here.  I would hardly say that switch a 486/33 CPU
>to a 486DX2/66 CPU would *waste* a lot of the better CPU.  The other
>components wouldn't be BAD.  Of course, one can upgrade memory/HD, etc etc
>whole motherboards if they want, but CPU-only upgrades a re very efficient.

What makes it so efficient?  BTW, the "Overdrive" idea is hardly a new one.
I've got an old 68000 accelerator that runs at 14.32MHz versus the original
7.16MHz on the A1000, but it too slows down to access the rest of the machine.
Just like Overdrive, it was a hack that the marketing folks sold to a bunch
of suckers like myself.

>> SD> Windows is/will be so big for some of the same reasons OS/2 2.0 and UNIX
>> SD> can be so big - there is a shitload that comes with it.
>>
>>How many users actually NEEDS 60 megs of Windows NT? OK, so you don't need a
>>full installation, but what does all those megs contain?
>
>I don't know all th ins and outs of NT, but from what I have read, it will
>offer all that UNIX provides, with the exception of remote displays.  Plusses
>to NT include Windows, DOS and probable OS/2 compatibility.    

UNIX provides remote displays?  I always thought that the X Window System
provided that.  NT sounds pretty nice, but they're crippling it if they
are including DOS and Windows compatability.

>I cannot tell you, for however many times I've played dopey black and white
>'asteroid' type games on a DEC or Sparc and think 'gosh, this machine is being
>wasted wrt games potential'.  Not to mention the zillions of (more boring)
>bussiness apps.

What are you trying to say?  You been drinking some of that Abita pisswater
that the coon-asses brew down there or something?  :-)

>Keep in mind that NT is meant to run on powerful 486, 596s, Alpha, MIPS R4000,
>and multiprocessor machines.  We're not talking about average 'users'
>using a MIPS R4000 , are we?

Which means that you and all the poor slobs who are buying the cheap-ass
clones shouldn't worry about NT.  The only way that most Clone users are
going to get NT on their machines is by stealing it from work like they
do everything else.

>>  InterNET/BadNET: Hans_Bergengren@p1.thulos.bbs.bad.se (92:901/603.1)
>--
>Dan Stephenson, a *true* FORTRAN Hacker                     das9674@usl.edu  

Ugh.  I hope that you're only kidding about the FORTRAN part.  Of course,
if you're an engineer, I guess you can't help it as that seems to be the
only thing that they teach you guys.  :-)

Skip Sauls
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu