From: stuarta@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU (Stuart Andrews)
Subject: Re: Request for general information on PCs ...
Organization: CSIRO Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:42:03 GMT

Somewhereorotherrecently william@natimuk.acci.com.au (William Lo) wrote...

> In article <frankiel.14.721288580@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> frankiel@extro.ucc.su.OZ.A
> U (Frankie Lam) writes:
>>>Is the 486SX25 a 32 bit or 16 bit machine ? If I intend to run OS2
>>>later should I settle for the 386DX or the 486SX ?

Methinks the 386DX, performance is pretty similar to 486 (slightly
slower @ the same clock speed) and about $600 cheaper. At the end of
the day, your s/w will take care of what features the 386DX lacks
so you won't notice much difference.

>>>What am I trading off if I settle for the 386, apart feom the
>>>speed of course.

Well, you're not actually losing a significant amount of speed. Some
speed trials I conducted recently, 386SX-16 vs 386DX-33 vs 486DX-33
saw the 386SX come out an *absolute* dog, but the DXs were actually
*very* close (within 1 second on operations taking 25 seconds)
On that alone, *I* would buy 386DX (if I didn't need the co-pro)
against a 486 for the $ saving.

Note that a lot of new stuff (like MS-Word etc) uses the co-pro
for graphics mapping (A vicious rumour, I'll admit!)

>>Unlike the 386 CPU, 486SX is exactly like 486DX but with the math
>>co-processor disabled. Therefore, it's a 32-bit machine.
> 
>         But 386s are 32-bit chips, too! Although 386SXs have only
> 16-bit data paths, they're definitely 32-bit. 

On the inside, yes. The 16 bit external bus on the SX is a real
cow in terms of restricting the guts of the thing from doing it's
stuff.

>>Why OS2? Software developers are putting more efforts to Windows!

Yeah, Why?

>         OS/2 is a 32-bit *Operating System*. Solid and nice.

True.
>         Win 3.1 is a 16-bit *Operating Environment* that runs on the

True. (But don't forget 'solid, and nice')

> top of DOS. (And Win NT will be the 32-bit OS version of MS Windows) 

False.
Windows NT will be a 32bit Operating system in it's own right. No DOS.

And, if you have your ear to the ground, you will know that WinNT
*is* OS/2 *is* WinNT. Microsoft and IBM have an agreement whereby
all source code the two companies 'generate' within the next 18 months
is fair game to each other. They *are* sharing the same source for the
two products. Got it?

> So, it inherently possesses some of the limitations and disadvantages
> of DOSs

Complete and utter crap. (sorry!)

> ---Cheers,
>         Bill

Oh, cheers Bill

And now for some personal opinion (all that other stuff is published,
documented truth)

Win3.1: "A very impressive package. Much more powerful than Win3.0,
         stable, nice. Very good."

OS/2  : "A half-a-job, poor-man's GUI based OS. Feels shoddy, looks
         like it was banged together in a fortnight. Stuff all useful
         features. Un friendly. A crock of shit. Takes the wonder out of
         why they signed that agreement w/ Microsoft doesn't it?"


au revoir

stuartb, a psuedonym
stuarta, the *real* stuarta



-- 
"Somebody thought of it                 #    "I do not agree with what you say
 And someone believed it                #     But I will fight to the death for
 And look what it's done so far"	#     your right to say it"
                  (Kermit the Frog)     #               (Rumpole of the Bailey)
################################################################################
Stuart Andrews
stuarta@syd.dms.csiro.au
Opinions posted here are mine and do not necessarily comply with those of CSIRO
From: Scott.Pitcher@f367.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Scott Pitcher)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au