And you'll have to pardon my ignorance of the
Intel parts after the 8085,
but why wouldn't a 386 work if the 486 works? (Other than the speed
difference.) It has always been my impression that few OS's/applications
need whatever extra software features that differentiate the 486 from the
386.
I believe the 486 was supposed to be just a 386 with a built-in math
co-processor. Then Intel came out with the 486SX. Which was really just a
broken DX, a 486 in which the built-in math co-processor didn't work.
-- Kirk
Not very much difference but 486 is really ahead in getting more of
performance usually runs at least 1 cycle per instruction.
The 386dx excutes instuctions all over the map between 5 and 15
(guessing). Example: 386dx/387 33mhz bit slower than 486dx 25.
Remembering from years gone by in clone/brands world...
First, before I'm done, for clock to clock cycles, 286 and 386 is no
better at excuting instructions most of time usually but buyer opted
for XT's and 286's because Intel was asking Too Much for 386, the
387 chip actually cost 2k at that time. This is why 386 is
sooo late becoming popular when win 3.1 came out. At that time, in
late 91s loads of users were still on XTs and we upgraded them to
either 286 boards (286/20mhz PcMate yuk!) and once in awhile series
of 386sx or rare 386dx for other upgrades. Within short time later
about half a year boatloads of 386dx 33/40 and few 386sx thrown in
now and then were sold for either pc and upgrades when the price is
Right Thing.
After 93-94ish, things lost their luste n' fun then became very
common thing. (yawn) while we sold long series of 486 machines
then P5 ever since. I have NOT remembered how CHEAP, useful real
and good pc anywhere or when til now. 1~2k CDN gets you *VERY*
decent complete P5 or PII machine with 14" color monitor now. I'm
kicking PS/1 original 2011 because it has no hd and too little ram
and it did sport 1k price tag but!
That old days is very interesting time indeed!
Jason D.
email: jpero(a)cgo.wave.ca
Pero, Jason D.
