27 Dec
1998
27 Dec
'98
9:51 a.m.
If Intel's 8088 was stripped of half it's bus width, why was it used so much
more than the 8086? One of the few computers that I've seen with an 8086 is
the WANG WLTC (in the SCSI drive string). With being only 4 MHz (I think),
it way out-performs my 8088 8MHz Zenith (I just wish it wasn't so dang big).
I remember someone on here saying that an 8086 and 8088 were
interchangeable. Is this true, and would there be an advantage?
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hotze <tim(a)thereviewguide.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: OT, but info needed: RAM uprade
That's why it's Windows 95. It takes forever to boot. Anyway, cache's the
only thing that makes the K6-2 slower than a PII at the same clock speed.
If I remove my cache entirely on my 200MHz MMX system, then it performs
considerably slower than my 486 with 136K (IE 8K on chip, 128K on the
motherboard) cache. Also the bus speed matters a lot, especially on a
pre-486 (or 486SX with 487) system if you're doing heavy math, etc. I
don't know why Intel's 'low cost' processors are always so bone headed:
486SX, which removed the one true thing that made it a 486, 8088, removing
the crucial 16-bit bus of the 8086, 386SX, which worked pretty well, but
still halfed the external bandwidth (did Intel ever make a cheap version of
a 286?), and now we've got Celeron: Until the Celron A, no cache at all...
Tim
------------------------------------------------------*
*Ever onward, always forward. *
*Tim D. Hotze Panel Member, The Ultimate Web Host List*
*http://www.webhostlist.com worldsfate(a)geocities.com *
------------------------------------------------------*