Re: Expanding Focus Capacity (was Re: Please Help w/purchase.)

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <34E47E3C.7397@library.ucla.edu>,  <pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:
>I'm talking about my own 486, which I previously acknowledged
>was somewhere between the performance of an i486 and i386
>(it is a Texas Instrument 486SLC-25 chip).  Still, you have
>to remember that this was 1991-1993 PC technology.  The GS
>was introduced in 1986.  That 1986 technology could keep
>up with 1991-1993 technology is quite impressive.  :)

   Would you please get the slightest clue as to what PC hardware is
before you comment on how your accelerated GS can do relative to it?
You kept spouting "facts" about speed of your 486 without disclosing
what you really had in your system, and it sure ain't a 486.

   A 486SLC is a 386 core with 486 pinouts. You've been suckered in by
marketing, and it's no surprise that a 386/25 in your hands is pretty
glacial. Now that you know what's really inside that laptop, call it
by its true name-- a 386/25. True 486 processor cores are roughly
twice as fast on integer stuff as 386 cores at the same Mhz, so you're
running much slower than a real 486. 

   The AMD 386DX/40 in my linux ethernetted semi-dumb terminal smokes
the GS on a much more processor intensive benchmark such as compiling
C code-- on unofficial tests, gcc on a 386/40 is probably at least 10x
faster than Orca/C on my zip 9/32 at home, and I've got no caching HD
controllers or anything else. 

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? -R.A. Heinlein