From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Its a sad sad day...
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:00:25 GMT

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.  
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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.    

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.

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?

>  InterNET/BadNET: Hans_Bergengren@p1.thulos.bbs.bad.se (92:901/603.1)
--
Dan Stephenson, a *true* FORTRAN Hacker                        das9674@usl.edu  
"I have never understood why it should be neccessary to become irrational in
 order to prove that you care. Or indeed why it should be neccessary to prove
 it at all."  -Avon (Blakes 7 _The Duel_)               
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy