From: Info-IBMPC@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL ("Info-IBMPC Digest")
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest
Subject: Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #205
Date: 28 Dec 92 06:16:10 GMT
Reply-To: Info-IBMPC@wsmr-simtel20.ARMY.mil
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet
X-Unparsable-Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 00:11:54 GMT+1

Info-IBMPC Digest           Sun, 27 Dec 92       Volume 92 : Issue 205 

Today's Editor:
         Gregory Hicks - Rota Spain <GHICKS@wsmr-simtel20.Army.Mil>

Today's Topics:
                     486 heat: Worry about it???
      Bus def's ==> Re: EISA vs. ISA (& VESA, VL-bus, Local bus)
                      Character set translation
                       digitizing a photograph
                File: "IBMPC-L MAIL" being sent to you
              HELP! My 486 is slower than 386! (3 msgs)
                      Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #192
                        Jumper settings needed
                          Motherboard layers
                             Motherboards
                       Problem with WIndows 3.1
           R4400 > R4000 > P5 > 486 (Indigo kicks butt : -)
                  STACKER and New drive Installation
                         Tape drive questions
     Will PC's ever multitask well? Is it even possible? (4 msgs)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <INFO-IBMPC@brl.mil>

Send requests of an administrative nature (addition to, deletion from
the distribution list, et al) to: <INFO-IBMPC-REQUEST@brl.mil>

Addition and Deletion requests for UK readers should be sent to:
<INFO-IBMPC-REQUEST@DARESBURY.AC.UK>

Archives of past issues of the Info-IBMPC Digest are available by FTP
ONLY from WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL in directory PD2:<ARCHIVES.IBMPC>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 92 01:45:46 GMT
From: "Chad R. Dougherty" <crd6@po.cwru.edu>
Subject: 486 heat: Worry about it???

    I recently upgraded to a 486 and discovered that since my hard
drive is mounted vertically right above the cpu, the outter case of the
drive becomes a good deal hotter (not SUPER hot, though) than if the
drive is not above the CPU.  The best guess I can make just by feeling
the temp. change is probably about 20-25 degrees F.  Should I be
concerned about this extra heat with the drive above the CPU or not??
Should I mount the drive in an open bay instead??

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 16:31:06 GMT
From: Ed Hall <edhall@rand.org>
Subject: Bus def's ==> Re: EISA vs. ISA (& VESA, VL-bus, Local bus)

tomw@asd.sgi.com writes:
>This is right.  A lot of people run their ISA bus at 10 MHz.  Some even
>run it as fast as 16.  There are some cards that don't work right for
>anything faster than 8, though.  A transaction takes 4 cycles, which
>means you get a maximum throughput of 4 MB/s (8Mhz * 2 bytes / 4).

A transaction generally takes a minimum of 3 cycles on an ISA bus.  If
the motherboard and card both support the zero-wait-state signal, this
can be reduced to two.  On the other hand, cards can assert an
arbitrary number of wait-states (within reason); ten or more is not
unheard of for some slower video cards.

So the ISA bus can run at up to 8MB/s and still be within spec,
although 5.33MB/sec is a more realistic assumption for an upper bound.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:57:34 MET
From: Jim Groeneveld CMI-TNO Leiden NL <groeneveld@cmi.tno.nl>
Subject: Character set translation

Dear Marshall,

Concerning your Q in IBMPCL92.189 I suggest you to look at the package
TSFLTB14.ZIP, which may be in the <MSDOS.TXTUTL> directory on SIMTEL20.
With that package (as far as I've seen from the DOC) it is possible to
replace every specifyable character(s) by any other(s), so you should
be able to define some kind of a translation table if you know the
translation between the character sets.

Regards - Jim.
--
Centrum voor Medische Informatica TNO       <Email>              |  |  |\/|
TNO Center for Medical Informatics | GROENEVELD@CMI.TNO.NL  |  \_/  |  |  |
( CMI-TNO )    | Y. Groeneveld     | GROENEVELD@CMIHP1.UUCP | Jim Groeneveld
P.O.Box 124    | Wassenaarseweg 56 | GROENEVELD@TNO.NL      | Schoolweg 14
2300 AC Leiden | 2333 AL Leiden    | ...@HDETNO51.BITNET    | 8071 BC Nunspeet
Nederland.     | (+31|0)71-181810  | Fax (+31|0)71-176382   | 03412-60413

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 18:46:15 CST
From: Tphillip%ad4@redstone-emh2.army.mil
Subject: digitizing a photograph

HELP! HELP! HELP!

I am at my wits end trying to figure out the easiest way to digitize a
photograph.

I have an application that needs the capability to take a still
photograph and bring it into an application.

I do not know any other method besides using a regular camera and
scanning in the photograph.  The problem with this is I am not sure
what kind of quality I would get from a color scanner and a photograph.
Also, the time it would take to develop a photograph is another
problem.

Can anyone recommend a good solution to this application?

Thirston Phillips
Computer Systems Analyst

tphillip%ad4@redstone-emh2.army.mil  or tphllip@redstone-emh2.army.mil

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 09:47:34 CET
From: Pim Clotscher <clotscher@coh.fgg.eur.nl>
Subject: Re: kaypro 2 ibmpc

Todd A. Burke <burke@pepvax.pepperdine.edu> aked for a utility to read
kaypro/cpm disks on an IBM-PC.

On SIMTEL20 I found 22DSK139.ZIP, but probably this is the same Todd
has found.

I remember a program 'CONVERT' from about 1983 by Selfware, Inc. that
included Kaypro 2, 4 & 10 cp/m formats. I was sold by 'The Software
Specialist', 1625 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202)467-5727
"Washington's Computer Specialty Store". It was commercial software.

Hope this helps you a bit.
Sincerely,

Pim Clotscher
Erasmus University Rotterdam - NL
E.R.C. - Computer Support Hoboken
E-mail (Internet): clotscher@coh.fgg.eur.nl

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 14:58:25 GMT
From: Tsun-Jen Hou <thou@prism.poly.edu>
Subject: HELP! My 486 is slower than 386!

I got myself a motherboard of 486/33 from our local computerstore.  The
rest of the system I put them together by myself .

And I just bought a Norton Desktop for Windows, in there, there is a
CPU speed test, from that I notice that my computer is slower than a
Compaq 386 with a index of 25 vs. 35.

Could this be the problem of CPU ? But I did not encounter any problems
when I am running this computer.

Or just a wrong crystal, but the one on the motherboard says it is a
33Mhz.

Any response will be appreciated. Thanks!
 
Tsun-Jen Hou					Polytechnic University
						Electrical Eng. Dept.
Life is short, play hard.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 92 01:29:15 GMT
From: Joseph Chiu <josephc@cco.caltech.edu>
Subject: HELP! My 486 is slower than 386!

thou@prism.poly.edu (Tsun-Jen Hou) writes:

If your system is "rated" slower than a 386 system, there's something
definitely wrong.  MHz for MHz, the 486 should outrun the 386 by
roughly a factor of two.

Things to watch for:  make sure that the BIOS setting for your 486
system is set correctly.  _USE_ all the cache (internal and external),
_ignore_ the turbo (speed select) input  -or-  make sure the turbo
switch is in the correct place, and make sure the "default" speed is
high.

You might need to play around with the system memory/AT BUS timing
(clock divider and waitstates) as well.

Read the manual/call the vendor to get the most tweak out of your
system.

Good luck
-- 
Joseph Chiu, Dept. of Computer Science, Caltech.    josephc@coil.caltech.edu
1-57 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91126. +1 818 449 5457 
*    Now running OS/2, Windows, DOS, and UNIX (okay, well, maybe not...)   *

------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 92 19:08:31 GMT
From: The Golden Gryphon <gryphon@openage.openage.com>
Subject: HELP! My 486 is slower than 386!

thou@prism.poly.edu (Tsun-Jen Hou) writes:

You probably have one or more of the following turned off:
	The 486 internal cache
	The second level external cache
	BIOS shadowning.

Turn 'em all on and try again.

-- 
The Golden Gryphon 				gryphon@openage.COM
"Mad Scientists seeks mindless brawny assistants, good pay, quiet location."
"They're not ghosts,  they're metaphysically challenged." - Me
Openage - The Premier SCO UNIX integrator in the Washington D.C. area



------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:55:29 MST
From: David <IDDWB@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Need IP aware X-Client for DOS 5 or Windows (V92 #192)

>Date: Thu, 03 Dec 92 23:09:35 EST
>From: Murph Sewall <SEWALL@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
>
>We have a visiting faculty member who needs to Telnet to her Unix host
>from a PS/2 on TokenRing with TCP/IP connectivity.  She'd like an
>X-Windows client.  Our budget is small, but bigger than zero.
>

Try DesqView /X -- I've heard it works nicely if you have enough memory
-- 8mg.

IBM TCPIP has an x window extension for os2 -- if you can run OS2 - you
by by the TCPIP base for 200, then the xwindow kit for 150..  but that
may be too much.

David Bear
Office Automation
ASU COPP (602)965-8257
... I think -- therefore I am a formal system -- I think?
IDDWB@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 0:06:52 CST
From: Kerry James Paulson <umpaul11@ccu.UManitoba.CA>
Subject: Jumper settings needed

  I have an OMTI 5510-7 Hard Drive controller attached to a 40 meg MFM
drive.  The size of the drive is selected by jumpers W1-8, and
currently jumper 4 is set.  The drive formats to 32 Meg at this
setting, but I would like to format it to the full 40.  Does anyone
else have this controller?  I bought it used, so I do not have the
manual.  I would appreciate it if someone could send me the jumper
settings (all of them in case I ever upgrade) Thanks,

Kerry Paulson
umpaul11@ccu.umanitoba.ca

------------------------------

Date: 11 Dec 92 13:30:56 GMT
From: JAMES COPELAND X3698 P6536 <ep522jc@pts.mot.com>
Subject: Motherboard layers

wilfred.wong@cutting.hou.tx.us (Wilfred Wong)  writes:
> Hello there, I was reading some motherboards manuals today and noticed
> in the specification that most of the boards are 4 layers. Does any of
> you know what that suppose to mean?

When they spec how manys "layers" a PC board is made of, they are
talking about the signal traces on the boards.  You've seen PC boards
that have the circuit signal traces running both on the top and
botom...this would be a two layer board.  ie two copper layers
seperated by PC board material.  A four layer board is simply four
layers of copper that signals can be run on.

I find it hard to believe that todays motherboards are only four
layers.  At Motorola we design with at least 6 layers.  4 signal layers
with a power and ground layer.  In fact, the higher density boards are
being done with 12 layers.  8 signal layers and 4 power layers.  I
would be interested to know if they are only talking signal layers or
if the 4 layers includes the power and gnd layers.  If you don't
"shield" the higher speed clock lines and busses between power and
ground the PC board will be very "noisy" when operating and spray radio
wave interference all over the place.

Anyway... They are talking about the number of copper layers within the
PC board.

Jim

.....Everything is just dandy down here at the old Circle M Ranch .....

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 11:18:31 EST
From: Ron Richards <ron@micros.com>
Subject: Motherboards

>     HP is known for it's printers.  Hayes is known for it's modems.  Who
> makes motherboards?  It seems like anybody with a hot soldering iron has a
> motherbord for sale.  They seem to come in all shapes and sizes.  I assume
> IBM makes their own but where do all the motherboards I see in the magazines
> come from?  Who makes them?  Is one better than the other?  What makes one
> motherboard design superior to another?  Where can I find a reliable,
> consistant source of good motherboards?
>
> David Andrew Vaughan
> GE Consulting Services

Mylex and Micronics are two well know and respected motherboard
manufactures.  Some of the other things to look for are the BIOS, the
chip set and the cache.  Phoenix, AMI and Award are the top BIOS
producers, know for good quality and compatibility.  C&T, OPTi and SSI
are popular chip set makers, thought there are scores of others.  Also,
look at the amount and type of cache on the motherboard.  It will
usually be in the 64k-256k range.

There are also dozens of asian motherboards being sold.  Most use
quality chip sets and BIOS chips so that they should be considered if
you're on a budget.  Now days most of the computer support circuitry is
contained in the chip set, so the motherboard is mostly just a set of
buses with expansion slots and i/o connectors.

My 386/40 board is a no-name asian clone.  It works fine with DOS,
Windows and SCO Unix.  I have also used DOS and Unix compilers and
debuggers with this motherboard and have never had a problem.

At work we have purchased a few 486/33 Mylex motherboards to upgrade
some old IBM AT's, they work well also.

Ask around at GE.  I bet some of your co-workers have already taken the
motherboard upgrade path.  They could give you valuable first hand
knowledge about upgrading.  BTW, it is extremly easy to install a new
motherboard if your computer case accepts standard AT or baby AT size
motherboards.  Most replacement motherboards are the baby AT size.  You
should check your case before you order.  If you have a funky case you
can order a new case with power supply and all mounting hardware for
about $60-$100, tower configurations are about $30 more.  --

|    Ron Richards  Micros Systems, Inc., R&D           |
ron@micros.com   | |    12000 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705
|   (301) 210-8139   |

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 12:23:26 GMT
From: Emmanuel Gustin <gustin@nat2.uia.ac.be>
Subject: Problem with WIndows 3.1

Thanks to all people who replied to my posting some time ago concerning
my problems with Windows 3.1. Most people advised to add more RAM, what
I did.  However, this didn't solve the problem.

The configuration of my system is:

  Processor     80386SX 20MHz
  Coprocessor   80387
  Memory        4 MB RAM
  Graphics      Trident TVGA9000
  BIOS          American Megatrend SCATsx rev 3.0 BIOS, 04/29/1991
  BUS           ISA (PC/AT)
  Ports         2 serial, 1 parallel
  OS            MS DOS 5.0
  Hard disk     (type 47) Quantum 50MB 8 sides, 750 tracks, 17 sectors/track
  Controller    IDE
  Mouse         Genius mouse, driver version 9.04, on COM1

PROBLEM:
  * When starting Windows 3.1 in (default) 386 enhanced mode, a
sequence of beeps is generated. The beeps seem to occur mainly when the
hard disk is accessed. The amount of beeps increases when adding screen
saver, desktop bitmaps, clock, and other add-ons. Starting a program
also causes beeps.

  * When continuing to run W3.1 in 386enh mode, sometimes strange
things happen. When scrolling in Notepad, numbers are inserted in the
file sometimes when pressing Up/Dn/PgUp/PgDn. Double-clicking a program
icon sometimes starts a program but then immediately iconizes it.
Pressing ALT-F4 or File... Exit in the program manager does sometimes
NOT close Windows.  When starting a large program, Win3.1 freezes and I
have to reboot the system.  * The debug switches of Windows do not
help.

  * DrWatson finds no fault.

  * I am using the Windows SVGA driver with svgamode=106 set. Changing
this or using Trident drivers (recent version from
ftp.cica.indiana.edu) didn't help.

  * I already experimented with various AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS
changes, but that didn't help either.

============
AUTOEXEC.BAT
============

echo off
SET TEMP=C:\WINDOWS\TEMP
PATH C:\WINDOWS;c:\sys;c:\batch;C:\tools\nc;
PROMPT $e[1;36;44m$P$G
rem C:\SYS\MODE CON CP PREP=((850) C:\SYS\EGA.CPI)
C:\SYS\KEYB BE,,C:\SYS\KEYBOARD.SYS
C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE 1024 0
loadhigh c:\sys\doskey
cls

==========
CONFIG.SYS
==========

files=30
buffers=10
lastdrive=d
break=on
shell=c:\sys\command.com c:\sys /p /e:512
device=C:\windows\himem.sys
device=c:\windows\emm386.exe noems 
rem devicehigh=C:\SYS\DISPLAY.SYS CON=(EGA,437,1) 
devicehigh=c:\tools\mouse\gmouse.sys
devicehigh=C:\SYS\ANSI.SYS 
COUNTRY=32,,C:\SYS\COUNTRY.SYS
STACKS=9,256
DOS=HIGH,UMB

Has anyone seen this problem before? 

Emmanuel Gustin
University of Antwerp, Belgium
gustin@nats.uia.ac.be

------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 92 17:05:39 GMT
From: Rainer Malzbender <rainer@spot.colorado.edu>
Subject: R4400 > R4000 > P5 > 486 (Indigo kicks butt : -)

The recent issue of Computer Design has a little blurb in it about the
new R4400 chip from MIPS (now part of SGI). It's an upgrade of the
R4000 and basically runs faster and has a larger primary cache. The
current R4000 runs at 50 Mhz externally, 100 Mhz internally. The R4400
has a 75 Mhz external clock. Cache has been increased from 8k/8k to
16k/16k.

Anyway, the interesting thing for this group is that the article made a
comment about even the existing R4000 being faster than the
not-released P5 from Intel, not to mention the R4400. The R4000 has
been shipping for almost a year.

Here's a data point: I took somebody else's existing Fortran code to do
numerical chaos on a PC and recompiled it on my Indigo R4K without any
changes except for replacing the graphics calls (the program is
99.99999 % floating point, including much double precision). What took
an hour on a Gateway 486DX2-66 took four minutes on the Indigo. And
this was using a compiler that only generates R3000 binaries (i.e., no
64-bit instructions).

Regarding the flame wars: I own a Mac, Amiga, and 486 and have cursed
them all :-)

Rainer M. Malzbender
Fyzzicks 
CU Boulder, 303-492-1366
             Real computers have hardware memory protection.


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:08:40 MET
From: Jim Groeneveld CMI-TNO Leiden NL <groeneveld@cmi.tno.nl>
Subject: STACKER and New drive Installation

Dear Steve,

Concerning your Q in IBMPCL92.189 I would like to ask you whether you
do not put the hard drives into the finally desired systems and then
transfer the whole contents of the "old" drive onto the "new" one
serially. There are nice utilities to transfer files or directories (or
even whole disks) via a 0-modem cable. The one I use is the package
ZIP151.ZIP, that transfers at a speed of 115200 bps, but only files or
directories. So I wrote (in BATch) a set of utilities (which I will
upload to SIMTEL20 in due time) that uses ZIP 1.51 (and another utility
DISK), to transfer a whole disk or a part of it (a specific directory
branch). If you are interested in that utility (called CLONE) drop me a
line. I'm regularly improving it.

Regards - Jim.
--
Centrum voor Medische Informatica TNO       <Email>              |  |  |\/|
TNO Center for Medical Informatics | GROENEVELD@CMI.TNO.NL  |  \_/  |  |  |
( CMI-TNO )    | Y. Groeneveld     | GROENEVELD@CMIHP1.UUCP | Jim Groeneveld
P.O.Box 124    | Wassenaarseweg 56 | GROENEVELD@TNO.NL      | Schoolweg 14
2300 AC Leiden | 2333 AL Leiden    | ...@HDETNO51.BITNET    | 8071 BC Nunspeet
Nederland.     | (+31|0)71-181810  | Fax (+31|0)71-176382   | 03412-60413

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 22:18:15 GMT
From: Bob Lee <rlee@andy.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Tape drive questions
Keywords: tape drives

I have had a CMS 250MB drive for about 4 months now. It was a MAJOR
life saver when I was installing OS/2 and I had to re-partition my hard
drive.  Just load the program, tell it to backup drive C, and go do
something else for about 1/2 hour. IMHO I think that once the drive
finds where it needs to be on the tape, the writing of the files to the
tape is faster then a floppy, even when working through a floppy
controller.

If anyone out there has a large library of diskettes with archived
programs and stuff you don't use very often, a CMS QIC-80 drive is a
great investment. Well worth the money! Not only will it eliminate that
cumbersome floppy library, it also makes backing up your hard drive
fast and easy. Also, I did some figures. Megabyte per megabyte,
cartrige tapes are cheaper then floppies.

There are still a few things about the QIC-80 that still bug me.

	1. You can't delete a saved volume unless you delete the entire
tape.

	2. This may be asking too much but I wonder why you couldn't
load and execute files off of a tape the same manner as you would a
floppy.

I talked to a CMS tech guy and he said they have been getting requests
for the ability to delete volumes off of a tape. Aparently he said that
this is strictly a software limitation. I guess they just need a large
enough demand and they'll get a team to start working on it.

-BOB

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 14:55:49 GMT
From: kevin s coupal <baloo@nx01.mik.uky.edu>
Subject: Will PC's ever multitask well? Is it even possible?

Will the IBM ever be able to multitak like a big machine.?  I mean.  A
machine like an amiga has 4 or 5 processors, a NeXT has 1 processor and
9 I/O processorsAnd the intel machines have ONE processor.  I try to
multitask and access a disk floppy drive and my machine crawls to a
halt.  Cuz the CPU has to wait for the slow flppy drive instead of
pasing the process off to an alternate processor.  So, will the PC ever
be able to multitask as well as an Amiga? Or other non-intel machine??
It doesn't seem too probable to me, but then again maybe its the
operating system.  Does UNIX make the PC multitask much better than
windows, desqview, or OS/2??

------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 16:35:45 GMT
From: Tony Quan <quan@xenon.stanford.edu>
Subject: Will PC's ever multitask well? Is it even possible?

baloo@nx01.mik.uky.edu (kevin s coupal) writes:

The problem of course is the operating system.  The DOS/Windows
combination will never multitask well because of it's fundamental
design.  With the right operating system, even middle of the road
machines can multitask well.  I use OS/2 2.0, which is an excellent
multitasker.  Yesterday as an experiment, I did the following all at
the same time:

	Format a floppy in drive A:
	Format a floppy in drive B:
	Run PMGlobe (program that draws different views of earth)
	Run a download at 14.4Kbps
	Telnet & FTP over ethernet from a Unix machine
	Run Word for Windows 2.0 and format documents

I have a 386/33.  Everything worked fine, all at the same time, even
the downloads and FTP.  The modem download was done at over 1300
characters per second and the FTP went at about 45K per second even
while all of this was going on.  I know from personal experience that
this would have been too much for Windows on the same machine.  So with
the right OS, yes, it is possible.

--Tony
quan@cs.stanford.edu

-- 
"Where the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons,
computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 
tons."				---Popular Mechanics, March 1949



------------------------------

Date: 9 Dec 92 16:29:22 GMT
From: "H.C. Pulley" <hcp@csx.cciw.ca>
Subject: Will PC's ever multitask well? Is it even possible?

Coherent 4.0 is a multitasking, multiuser, protected mode, 32-bit
operating system that resembles SVr3 unix.

I run Coherent 4.0 on my 386dx/40 with 8MB of RAM.  I can format both
floppies at the same time, and have two make/cc/as/ld sessions as well
as several interactive users logged in at the same time, and all my
cron jobs (jobs executed periodically by the CPU).

PC's multitask very well.  The floppy controller can operate in
parallel with the CPU; so can the hard drive controller, etc.  If you
want fast video for a PC you can get a card with an additional
processor.

The problem is DOS programs; they busy-wait whenever they are waiting
for I/O, keystrokes, disks to spin up to 3600rpm etc.  Under Coherent
(and all unixes), process can wait on events.  When a process is
waiting, the CPU switches to another process.  When the event occurs,
the CPU puts the waiting process back into the list of runnable
processes.  Thus editors wait on the keyboard, a copy to floppy will
wait on disk spin up, download programs will wait on the com port.
Only programs that do large amounts of number crunching are ever
interrupted due to priority (because they have had too much CPU time).

Harry
-- 
         hcp@csx.cciw.ca          |This message released|It takes all kinds,
   hcpiv@grumpy.cis.uoguelph.ca   |to the PUBLIC DOMAIN.|and to each his own.
----------------------------------+---------------------|This thought in mind,
Stay away from the DOS side, Luke!|Un*x don't play that.|I walk alone.



------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 92 19:04:32 GMT
From: The Golden Gryphon <gryphon@openage.openage.com>
Subject: Will PC's ever multitask well? Is it even possible?

baloo@nx01.mik.uky.edu (kevin s coupal) writes:

I think you know not of what you speak,  I'm running SCO Open Desktop
on 3 PC's on my machine.  I have 3 IO subprocessors in the compaq, 2 in
the Zenith, and none in the Daly.  This all has to do with what kind of
hardware you put in your PC.  Multitasking has nothing to do with your
floppy being slow.  It has to do with you not having a separate
processor memory bus.  When you access any peripheral in your bus you
processor must slow to the bus speed (8MHz for [E]ISA, and 10 MHz for
MCA).

Multitasking is an OS feature which the intel fully supports.

The Golden Gryphon 				gryphon@openage.COM
"Mad Scientists seeks mindless brawny assistants, good pay, quiet location."
"They're not ghosts,  they're metaphysically challenged." - Me
Openage - The Premier SCO UNIX integrator in the Washington D.C. area

------------------------------

End of Info-IBMPC Digest V92 #205
*********************************
-------