HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msimmons@ec.uwa.oz.au (Michael Simmons - mgmt_staff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Overdrive for the 486/50??
Date: 15 Dec 1992 01:49:39 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: decel.ecel.uwa.edu.au

sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:

>In article <8f9__KS00WB5Qu_ogq@andrew.cmu.edu> Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>msimmons@ec.uwa.oz.au (Michael Simmons - mgmt_staff) writes:
>>> Why shouldn't this also work for 486DX/50 (50Mhz clock) -> 486DX2/66 (33Mhz
>>> clock)
>>
>>Well for one thing, the dx50 and the dx2/66 are different chips
>>needing different motherboards, so it's quite possible that to switch
>>chips like that could be hazardous...

Is the pin out on the dx50 the same as the dx33?
Can you put a dx33 and slower clock into a dx50 motherboard?
Isn't there a DX2, Overdrive ,whatever that has the same pinout as the dx33
I was told by an intel dealer that I can buy a dx2/66 (overdrive ...) and
plug it straight into my dx33 motherboard.
The clock doubling is done internal (via a PLL) to the dx2/66 (overdrive etc).
Hence the motherboard is not required to provided a 66Mhz clock signal?
Maybe a dx2/66 requires the board manufacture to provided a 33/66Mhz jumper
where as a overdrive chip does the 33MHz to 66MHz conversion internally.
I have read somewhere that either the dx2 or the overdrive (?) has an extra
pin. What signal is on this pin? Is the rest of the pinouts/signals the same?

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU (Deac Moo of the UGC)
Subject: Re: Intel's new performance test iCOMP
Reply-To: doug@UC780.UMD.EDU
Organization: The University of Maryland, University College
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:56:02 GMT

In article <92353.39992.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>Now I know where my new 486SX/33 stands.  Where is my old 386DX/20??   :-)

Hell with that, let's talk CLASSIC computers. IBM PC. PC-AT. And yes,
let's roll out the '386DX/16!


                               ******
   Net postings: Demonstrating the lack of quality psychotherapy in the world.
From: tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Overdrive for the 486/50??
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:30:06 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

In article <1gjdjjINNjcq@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> msimmons@ec.uwa.oz.au (Michael Simmons - mgmt_staff) writes:
>Is the pin out on the dx50 the same as the dx33?

Yes, except that my public domain dx50 manual states that it has jtag
complient test pins.  For those and any other NCs which may not be NCs,
it would appear that leaving the pins alone makes it pin-compatible.

>Can you put a dx33 and slower clock into a dx50 motherboard?i

Yes, except you will be detuning the clock circuit which *may* cause
the machine to no longer be FCC/VDE complient... regardless, you would 
probably void any warentee.

>Isn't there a DX2, Overdrive ,whatever that has the same pinout as the dx33

The original intent was to sell the OverDrive(tm) direct and have an
OEM version, too.  The OverDrive(tm) went into the blue zip socket and 
the OEM version was for companies like Tandy who offer DX2 machines.  The
pinouts are slightly different.  There is a 169th pin along with slightly
different locations for other pins... telling you leaves me open for 
liability if you go and try to make modifications to your board.  You
can find the information yourself by finding the pinouts for the DX and 
the 487sx and comparing them.

>Hence the motherboard is not required to provided a 66Mhz clock signal?

This is true.

-- 
| Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer | tom.barrett@amd.com
| AMD PCD / Austin, TX  78741        | v:512-462-6856 / f:512-462-5155
| "No is Yes, and We are All FREE!"  | CO made a #2 no-no... PU!
| My views may not be shared by the organization of origin
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2680 comp.sys.mac.hardware:24013 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:33049
From: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu (Faisal Nameer Jawdat)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 486SLC chip.... what it it?
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:49:01 GMT
	<Bz89I7.23u@hfglobe.intel.com>
Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

sting@hfglobe.intel.com (Joe Bennett) writes:
> NeXTStep is the first, to the best of my knowledge, 32 bit
> anything for the general PC market since Cyrix and AMD started
> their clone operations.  I don't believe that Cyrix could have
> possibly tested 32 bit stuff adequately, because there was very
> little of it out there, and they were aiming for the entry level
> market as well.

OS/2 has a fairly wide user base, and has for a while.  Nothing the
size of DOS or Windows, but a reasonably following nonetheless.
There are a fairly large number of unixes out there too.


-- faisal jawdat                  | "Certainly the game is rigged.
email: fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu       | Don't let that stop you;
if mail handler barfs             | if you don't bet, you can't win." 
fj05@andrew.cmu.edu               |        -Lazarus Long
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: korte@alhena.itp.uni-hannover.de (Gerd Kortemeyer)
Subject: PARITY ERROR, SYSTEM HALTED ... ????
Summary: Strange things happen.
Organization: Institut fuer Theoretische Physik, Uni Hannover
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:09:51 GMT

Hi. 

We have got a problem with a 80286 PC, 4 MB RAM running DOS 5.0. We use
DOS in the HIGH-mode and use only the standard HIMEM-driver.
After about 1 minute of 'work' the system suddenly tells us
'Parity Error, System halted' or 'Ueberlauf des internen Stapelspeichers'
which should be something like 'Internal stack overflow'. This message
has got nothing to do with what YOU actually do. I understand
the first message comes from the BIOS while the second one comes from the
operating system.

When resetting the machine afterwards the computer will stop while doing
it's memory check at some changing numbers. When switching off and then on
again within about 10 seconds the computer will be completely death.

If you wait for a few minutes, everything will again 'work' in the above
sense. Running the BIOS-DIAGS will show no errors. Since that old computer
has no SIMMs or SIPPs I pressed down every single memory-chip into it's
mounting, but this had no effect, either. After all of this trial
and error I thought it might be some virus writing perhaps into the CMOS
which might have caused confusion even after RESET, so I initialised the
harddisk again installing DOS 5.0 again - no effect. Strange: During the 
whole installation things worked properly.

I don't have any more ideas, does anyone else have?

Merry christmas

Gerd

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: wiltinkm@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl (M. Wiltink.a73A.telnr-015-138378)
Subject: Re: CS and IP problem
Keywords: What's stored on INT
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:43:48 GMT

In article <Bz3pp5.AAw@bailgate.gpsemi.com> lee_b@sn4901.oldham.gpsemi.com (Lee Burley) writes:
>Are the SC:IP pair pushed onto the stack after an interrupt??
>
>if so then
>
>  POP AX
>  MOV AX, {cs store}
>  POP BX
>  MOV BX, {ip store}
>  PUSH BX
>  PUSH AX
>
>might work??
>
>PS I might have got the mnemonics a bit wrong, it has been a long time
>since I did any assembler on the 80X86!!

If I'm right, the top of the stack will look like this after an interrupt:

	+----+
	| IP |
	+----+
	| CS |
	+----+
	| SR | Read Flags-register
	+----+
	| .. |

Near Call will push IP
Far call will push CS, IP
Interrupt will push Flags, CS, IP

RTI will pop IP, CS, Flags
Far Ret will pop IP, CS
Near Ret will pop IP

An assembler I know actually emulated Far call by PUSH CS, NEAR CALL. It works.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wiltinkm@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl
Maarten Wiltink

Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science
Delft University of Technology
The Netherlands
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: root@candle.uucp (Bruce Momjian)
Subject: 386 TLB uses LRU discard, how?
Organization: a consultant's basement
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:10:28 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

This 386 page Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB) discards the least
recently used (LRU) buffer entry when the tables fills.

How does it do that?  If it was was plain access counter, it would be
"least used", which isn't as good.  How do you implement "recent" in
silicon?

BTW, Turley's "Advanced 80386 Programming", 1988, ISBN 0-07-991342-5 is
perhaps the best book on 386 OS-level programming.  The chapters headings
are:

   Basics, Memory Segmentation, Privilege Levels, Paging, Multitasking, 
   Communication among Tasks, Handling Faults and Interrupts, 80286     
   emulation, 8086 emulation, Debugging, 80387 Numeric Proccessor,      
   Programming for Performance, Reset and Real mode, and Hardware.      

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
root%candle.uucp@bts.com               |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (215) 353-9879(w) 
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (215) 853-3000(h)
From: matthias@nsr.hp.com (Matthias Kamm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486DXn
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:32:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Santa Clara Site
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpmvd069.nsr.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.2 PL7]

THOMAS LUNDQUIST (thomasez@dhhalden.no) wrote:
: 
: A question.
: 
: Have you seen the 486DX2 100 (50x2) ??
: When will it be in massprodution, or is it already ?
: It shouldn't be any problems using it with a 50MhzDX board, just with a CPU 
: fan (should be used anyway on 50 Mhz(my .20))
: 
: And how about the DX3 ???? (or DX4 for that's sake :=)
: I've heard about a DX3, but when, and possible cost ?
: It could be up to 150Mhz, quite fast. But I guess Intel don't know how to 
: handle such speeds :=)

I think the internal speed on chip is not the issue.  The DEC Alpha is
200Mhz on chip!  

I also read that the initial silicon runs of the 486 REALLY ran at 50Mhz,
but the problem was designing a backplane and/or motherboard that wouldn't
"make like an antennae" at those frequencies.  Even though the digital
clock rate is 50Mhz, all kinds of frequencies up into the gigahertz are
being generated, and microwave simulations are required just to run
traces correctly on a motherboard.  Has anyone heard the same thing?

MK
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.arch
From: prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener)
Subject: Re: Superscalar vs. multiple CPUs ?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:01:23 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<1992Dec10.101343.4381@shannon.ee.wits.ac.za>
	<1992Dec10.173032.1418@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
	<1992Dec11.060038.27494@netcom.com>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, New York

In article <1992Dec11.060038.27494@netcom.com> norm@netcom.com (Norman Hardy) writes:

> How about sharing expensive functional units (multiply, divide, 
> DES) between processors on the same chip. This gives the economic 
> advantages of heterogeneous processors (division of labor) without 
> the software pain. The processors would appear to the operating 
> system as CPUs sharing memory. Indeed this approach makes special 
> purpose hardware more attractive as functional units.

Doesn't that make saving the state of a processor somewhat complicated?
--
                                   Dan Prener (prener@watson.ibm.com)
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2791 comp.arch:11802
From: grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (Vinod Grover)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Superscalar vs. multiple CPUs ?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 16:18:21 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: brahmand

In article <PCG.92Dec19165907@decb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>As far as I have read and seen with my eyes, let me insist, most
>"general purpose" codes have limited degrees of exploitable micro/macro
>parallelism, say 2 to 4. The underlying reason is that most such codes
>are about is serial tree/graph walking/updating.

I suggest you read the Butler et. al. paper cited [1] earlier by someone
in this thread. These authors claim that on an unrestricted data flow
machine, *general purpose* codes like gcc, li, eqntott, (taken from
SPEC89) have pretty high degree of parallelisms in them. Measured in
terms of IPC:

  gcc - 38
  espresso - 179
  eqntott - 300
  li - 162

Judging from these claims, the issue is not how much parallelism there
is but how cost-effective is it to extract it. As CPU resources
approach realistic values the sustainable issue rates on these codes
fall dramatically, (2-4). These are limits imposed by the
hardware/compilers. 


Vinod Grover

-not speaking for Sun.


[1] Butler, Yeh, Patt, Alsup, Scales, Shebanow, "Single Instruction
Stream Parallelism is Greater than Two", Intnl. Symp. on Comp. Arch
1991. 


Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
From: vpham@cs.ulowell.edu (Kernel hack)
Subject: C code to drive Intel EtherXpress
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:32:19 GMT




	hi,
	i am looking for some C code to initialize and drive the
	Intel Etherxpress ethernet card. I know of the Clarkson's
	drivers but I am not much of an assembly programmer. :-)
	thanks much in advance.
	vp
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Fred Bent)
Subject: Re: PARITY ERROR, SYSTEM HALTED ... ????
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:09:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.090951.24678@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de> korte@alhena.itp.uni-hannover.de (Gerd Kortemeyer) writes:
>Hi. 
>
>We have got a problem with a 80286 PC, 4 MB RAM running DOS 5.0. We use
>DOS in the HIGH-mode and use only the standard HIMEM-driver.
>After about 1 minute of 'work' the system suddenly tells us
>'Parity Error, System halted' or 'Ueberlauf des internen Stapelspeichers'
>which should be something like 'Internal stack overflow'. This message

[stuff deleted]


This is most certainly a memory problem, either the main system memory, or
the memory on one of the cards in the system.  however, the stack overflow
is probably due to an interrupt handler routine being called to often.

>
>When resetting the machine afterwards the computer will stop while doing
>it's memory check at some changing numbers. When switching off and then on

This would indicate a main memory problem....

>
>I don't have any more ideas, does anyone else have?

Try replacing the memory in your computer, or actually removing and
re-inserting the memory.  You might also want to run a memory checker
over night to try and find the problem.  It seems to be happening
often enough for you to be able to find it.

>
>Merry christmas
>
>Gerd
>

---
Fred Bent			Department of Computer Science
fwbent@plg.uwaterloo.ca		University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: 486SLC chip..NextStep on Cyrix
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:23:52 GMT

In <QfARNru00WB6Ie02BI@andrew.cmu.edu> Faisal Nameer Jawdat <fj05+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>sting@hfglobe.intel.com (Joe Bennett) writes:
>> possibly tested much that was written for the 486 with its changes to
>> the supervisor mode/exception handling/etc. because *there* *was* *not*
>> *much* *out* *there* that a general PC user would use.

>One somewhat related question:  Did they test NT on it?  Doesn't NT
>require a 486?  ( I could be wrong on this...)

You are.  Hardware target for NT is a fast 386 or 486.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: davison@blueridge.fibercom.com (Mike Davison)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Microsoft Flash File System
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:58:15 GMT
Organization: FiberCom, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia

The Intel data sheets for flash memory mention the "Microsoft Flash
File System." Anyone have any experience with this animal? Anyone
know where I can get the spec for it? 

Thanks,
Mike

--
Michael Davison            |  internet: davison@fibercom.com
FiberCom, Inc.             |  voice:    (703) 342-6700, extension 349
Roanoke, VA 24022-1966     |  fax:      (703) 342-5961
-- 
--
Michael Davison            |  internet: davison@fibercom.com
FiberCom, Inc.             |  voice:    (703) 342-6700, extension 349
Roanoke, VA 24022-1966     |  fax:      (703) 342-5961
From: thomasez@dhhalden.no (THOMAS LUNDQUIST)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: 486DXn
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:38:26 GMT
Organization: Ostfold College


A question.

Have you seen the 486DX2 100 (50x2) ??
When will it be in massprodution, or is it already ?
It shouldn't be any problems using it with a 50MhzDX board, just with a CPU 
fan (should be used anyway on 50 Mhz(my .20))

And how about the DX3 ???? (or DX4 for that's sake :=)
I've heard about a DX3, but when, and possible cost ?
It could be up to 150Mhz, quite fast. But I guess Intel don't know how to 
handle such speeds :=)


   ThomasEZ.

     ' I'm not perfect, but I'm perfect for you. '
From: adykes@jpradley.jpr.com (Al Dykes)
Subject: Has Intel shipped engineeering samples of Pentium ?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:38:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Unix in NYC


Has Intel shipped any sample parts for P5/Pentium ? I'd expect a big
splash in the trade press and some noise in this group if it's happened.
Did I miss something :

Did I spell "pentium" right ?

Al Dykes
--------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Can 16MHz 80387 be installed in a 33MHz 80386 system?
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:23:40 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1gqvidINNiel@hpscit.sc.hp.com> matthias@nsr.hp.com (Matthias Kamm) writes:
>|S| Norbert Juffa (S_JUFFA@iravcl.ira.uka.de) wrote:
>: In <1992Dec15.101259.6401@sei.cmu.edu> griest@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu writes:
>: 
>: > I have been told that you can install a 16MHz '387DX in a coprocessor
>: > socket to work with a 33MHz '386DX and it will work ok (running Math
>: > instructions at the 16MHz rate).  I am not convinced.  Has anyone done
>: > this?  How does it work?  Are their any jumpers that must be set?
>: > 
>: >    Tom
>: > 
>:
>You're probably mixing up the 287 with the 387.  The 286 coprocessor, the
>287, runs asyncronously to the motherboard clock, and therefore can be
>used at different speeds than the main cpu clock.  In fact, my 4 year
>old 386 20Mhz motherboard has a 287 socket in it, and I'm using an Am287
>12Mhz.  It works great, and is cheap as heck ;->
>
>The 387 is syncronous, and therefore must be rated at the same speed as
>the motherboard cpu i.e. you need a 387DX-33.  


You should tell this to Micronics who have sold 386/33 mother boards
that could use 387's of various speeds, all you had to do was change
the xtal for the 387, and set a jumper.

It's a simple question of motherboard design.

-- 

Rick Kelly	rmk@rmkhome.UUCP	unixland!rmkhome!rmk	rmk@frog.UUCP
From: matthias@nsr.hp.com (Matthias Kamm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Intel claims the Pentium is 64-bit! (who cares if it real
Date: 17 Dec 1992 22:28:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Santa Clara Site
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpmvd069.nsr.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.2 PL7]

MORTEN KNUDSEN (mortenk@dhhalden.no) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec10.003011.14950@news.tufts.edu> pmorvill@jade.tufts.edu (Paul Morville) writes:
: >From: pmorvill@jade.tufts.edu (Paul Morville)
: 
: Is the 8088 a 16 bit or 8 bit micro? I seem to remember that Intel's 
: referance manual described it as a 8 bit micro.

The 8088 was a 8 bit "version" of the 16 bit 8086.  When talking about
a processor, you need to talk about internal architecture and external
bus width.  The 386SX is 32 bit internal, with a 16 wide bus.  

Don't assume 'SX' means 1/2 the internal bus width, though.  The 486SX
actually has the full 32 bit bus, but is missing the coprocessor ("actually"
the 486SX is a product entirely conceived by a marketing manager!).

I think it's like this.  Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong...

	processor   internal    external     coprocessor
	  8086        16          16            nope
	  8088        16          8             nada
	  80186       ?           ?             nix
	  80286       16          16            nyet
	  80386       32          32            na
	  80386DX     same as 80386
	  80386SX     32          16            no
	  80486       32          32            yup
	  80486SX     32          32            nope *

 * to show what a scam intel pricing is, the first 80486SX's
   had the math coprocessor on chip, but disabled!
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2703 comp.sys.mac.hardware:24201 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:33272
From: UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 486 vs. Mac Benchmarks
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:59:10 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <BzAD75.Fzq@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
 
>
>In article <Bz2C4s.FqE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov26.000926.9507@doug.cae.wisc.edu> jimy@cae.wisc.edu (Jim Yu) writes:
>>Hardware: IBM PS/2 Model 56Slc (386SLC, not sure about MHz)., ATI 8514/
>>          Ultra video, 1024x768x 256 colors (running 8514 driver). 12
>>          Meg. RAM.
>>
>>          Macintosh IICi, built-in Apple video, 680x480(yuck)x256 colors.
>>          32 bit addressing turned on, VRAM on, 16 Meg available, disk
>>          cache 384K.
>>
>>          In the wings (have to try this later): Clone 386-40, 4 Meg RAM,
>>          Diamond Speedstar 800x600x256 color video.
>>
>>Software: Excel 3 (I will try it with Excel 4 in the next couple days).
>>
>>The test: Put an integer into cell A1. Cells B1 -> Z1 are cell to the left
>>          + 1. Cells A2 -> Z1000 are cell above +1. See how long it takes
>>          to recalc the sheet after changing value of A1.
>>
>>Results:  Under Windows recalc took 3.3 seconds. On the Mac, 7.5 seconds.
>
>Another data point:
>
>AMD 386-40, 4 Meg RAM. Excel 4. 2.2 - 2.3 seconds.
>
>(On an Amiga 2000 - machine locked up copying 100 cells 9-) )
>
>Next thing to try:
>
>Excel 4 on Si.
>Excel 4 on Ci.
>Excel 4 on PS/2 Model 70 (20 MHz 386)
>1234W on PS/2 Model 70.
>Excel 4 on Gateway 486/33
>1234W on Gateway 486/33
>
>What I'd like others to try (I don't have the hardware/software):
>
>Quadra 700/900
>WingZ for Windows and Mac
>123 4 Mac on various Macs.
>
I did the benchmark on my IIsi with % meg RAM and an FPU using
123 v.1.0 ---> a whopping 16 seconds! 123 kept complaining about
low mem, and I do have a lot of extensions running. I can't
explain such poor performance tho... shrug
 
>Haven't devised it yet but some silly trig-based floating point
>spreadsheet. This should show a big 486 vs. 386 (no 387) speedup.
>
>Some kind of equally silly wordprocessing task on all the platforms.
>
>
>By the way the scrolling in Excel while I was doing this was pretty
>fast (Diamond Speedstar card). Not as fast as Lotus 2.0 under DOS
>on the same machine but who cares?
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
>Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
>Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Eaton                    | Opinions? We're not allowed to have
UC525655@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU | opinions at Mizzou... get back to me
                              | in '94 when I graduate... ;)
Xref: sparky comp.sys.intel:2790 comp.arch:11801