From: IRHANV00@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: The ultimate ?!
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:47:59 GMT

In article <00002315_000735D8.0095F629D5D536E0$8_1@UK.AC.CRANFIELD.RMCS>
DAVE@RMCS.CRANFIELD.AC.UK writes:
 
>
>Hi,
>I've been struggling away using an old 286 12mhz pc with 3mb ram running
>MSDOS v5.0 and Windows v3.1.
>Finally i've just been given the go ahead to check out the neccesary spec
>of a new machine to replace the old one.
>This machine will have to be running Windows and be very capable of having
>a window into our pathworks enviroment (connecting to a VAX 8800) and another
>window into our gateway via comm ports (connecting to a Microvax 3100), plus
>running Windows usual apps in the background. DEC windows is horrendously
>slow on the current 286 so this MUST be improved to useable levels.
>I have chosen to go for a PC in preference to an X-Windows terminal so a
>lot of the features that can be performed in such an enviroment must have
>some sort of credible emulation on the PC. - Wow !!
>Am i asking too much ?
>It obviously has to be a 486DX but what about the spec after that ?
>33mhz or 50mhz because its upgradeable ?
>Obviously SVGA preferably at 1024x768 but on a colleagues machine this level
>of resolution gives slow re-draw rates. Is this usual ? What can be done about
>it ? I have seen people mentioning a new resolution of something like 1260x980
>(somewhere close to that anyway) - is this worth considering ?
>How about a graphics accelerator ?
>Bare in mind that i will need access to at least three drive bays (not
>including the hard disk) as at some time in the future i may have a CD-ROM
>as well.
>And how about RAM ?
>12mb?
>16mb?
>how much ?
>How about the 586's ?
>When are they due out (if not already) and would the inevitable price hike
>be worth the extra performance ???!
>So come on - imagine you've been given almost free hand to design your own
>desktop PC to run all the above apps and to make them very tolerable in use
>what would you suggest !?
>
Two  things I would mention about this system you are thinking of. First, I was
reading in the September issue of Computer Shopper that the 586 is due out from
Intel in either September or October, it was codenamed the P5 I think. You
might either wait for this or get a system taht will upgrade. I don't know the
specifics of the changes in the 586, but for your system, it may well be worth
the wait. Also, you should definitely consider an accelerator board, for the
video. Be sure to get one that uses a full coprocessor, rather than the s3 chip
, this chip speeds up windows, but can slow down DOS applications. What I would
suggest as a primary consideration in your new system, is what is more importan
t, speed of access to hardware (drives, etc.) or, spped of video. If hardware
is most important, then definately get an EISA system. These systems offer much
improved hardware access times and greater data transfer rates. If video speed
is the main concern, then local bus video system architecture is probably the
way to go. Local bus video offers a huge leap over the video speed of normal
systems, and even shows significant speed advantages over EISA system
architecture in video speed. Keep these things in mind when thinking about your
 system.
                                    Forrest
>Yours excitedly !!!!!!
>
>  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> <Disclaimer: as usual, all opinions expressed are my own and not neccesarily >
> <    those of my employer or any other person living, dead or un-dead !      >
> <---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> <   Janet       = Dave@rmcs.cran.ac.uk                                       >
> <   Ean         = Dave@rmcs.cran.ac.uk@ean-relay.ac.uk                       >
> <   Earn/Bitnet = Dave@rmcs.cran.ac.uk@ukacrl                                >
> <---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> <                      ...if it was so, it might be;                         >
> <                      and if it were so, it would be:                       >
> <                      but as it isn't, it ain't !!! ...                     >
>  \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU