lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) (09/27/89)
Here is a question that's been sparking debate in the office here.
I'll toss it out to the net.
Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got?
I don't see many ads for or hear much about XT's in the magasines lately.
Many people are saying that since XT's can't run OS/2 or certain DOS
programs today, that soon they won't be able to run most new software
and as such represent a bad investment at any price.
Others say that's just industry hype and a machine that does what you
want today will still be able to do so as long as it holds together...
"and who needs OS/2 anyway".
Others say it doesn't matter what you buy, its going to be obsolete
before you get it out of the box...well, sooner than you think, anyway.
But that doesn't really help you decide what to buy now.
Certainly XTs are cheap. An XT is half the price of a 286 which is
half the price of a 386 (roughly of course). One dealer told me that
they don't like selling XTs anymore because there's no profit in them.
I guess for us the turning point would be when the latest release of
WordPerfect doesnt run on an XT. Of course we're already there with
Lotus 123 rel 3.
Suppose you have relatively light duty tasks that, today, would be served
adequately by XTs and don't anticipate your basic tasks changing a great
deal, and you need several such machines, what do you buy if you want to
invest wisely? Where's the "smart" money going!
Ancillary question: How far behind the 8086 is the 80286? People have
been calling it a brain-damaged dead-end since the day it was released.
There is certainly software around that runs on 386's but not 286's.
Note: I'm trying to remain neutral in asking this question so don't
flame me for being on one side or the other.
--
John Wright ////////////////// Phone: 902-424-3805 or 902-424-6527
Post: c/o Dr Pat Lane, Biology Dept, Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S., CANADA B3H-4H8
Cdn/Eannet:lane@cs.dal.cdn Uucp:lane@dalcs.uucp or {uunet watmath}!dalcs!lane
Arpa:lane%dalcs.uucp@uunet.uu.net Internet:lane@cs.dal.ca
--
John Wright ////////////////// Phone: 902-424-3805 or 902-424-6527
Post: c/o Dr Pat Lane, Biology Dept, Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S., CANADA B3H-4H8
Cdn/Eannet:lane@cs.dal.cdn Uucp:lane@dalcs.uucp or {uunet watmath}!dalcs!lane
Arpa:lane%dalcs.uucp@uunet.uu.net Internet:lane@cs.dal.carbq@iforgetmyname.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Robert Quattlebaum) (09/27/89)
In article <1989Sep27.104957.24581@cs.dal.ca> lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes: >Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got? >I don't see many ads for or hear much about XT's in the magasines lately. >Many people are saying that since XT's can't run OS/2 or certain DOS >programs today, that soon they won't be able to run most new software >and as such represent a bad investment at any price. >Others say that's just industry hype and a machine that does what you >want today will still be able to do so as long as it holds together... >"and who needs OS/2 anyway". >Others say it doesn't matter what you buy, its going to be obsolete >before you get it out of the box...well, sooner than you think, anyway. >But that doesn't really help you decide what to buy now. >Certainly XTs are cheap. An XT is half the price of a 286 which is >half the price of a 386 (roughly of course). One dealer told me that >they don't like selling XTs anymore because there's no profit in them. This doesn't seem to hold true in the ads I've seen and the stores I visit. The XT's seem to have bottomed out at roughly $550 with everything but a hard drive and monitor. The 286's are roughly $50-$100 more in the same configuration (and they have a built-in hard drive controller). This difference is really negligible -- especially considering performance/$. The 386SX's go for right at $1000 in the above mentioned configuration. A true 32-bit 386 is gonna be about $1500. So, my point here is (I guess) that the price gap is very close. The difference in an XT and an AT is negligible. XT's won't drop out of existence any time soon because of the number of price-sensitive persons in the market. XT's have no place in businesses, in my opinion, because of the drastice performance/$ ratio. >Suppose you have relatively light duty tasks that, today, would be served >adequately by XTs and don't anticipate your basic tasks changing a great >deal, and you need several such machines, what do you buy if you want to >invest wisely? Where's the "smart" money going! In large quantities you might save some dollars with XT's. Smaller quantities: why not go ahead and get the AT? Of course, the decision WILL hinge on exactly what you choose to do with the machine. You don't really need an AT for a secretary doing occasional tasks. >Ancillary question: How far behind the 8086 is the 80286? People have >been calling it a brain-damaged dead-end since the day it was released. >There is certainly software around that runs on 386's but not 286's. The AT is definitely headed the way of the '86, but there's YEARS of life still in it. I wouldn't mind a '386 but I am really quite satisfied with my '286 and see no reason why it won't provide many years of service. R. Quattlebaum My employer doesn't CARE what I think. "God is love, not religion" So what does it matter what I say? gatech!galbp!iforgetmyname.LBP.HARRIS.COM!rbq
tims@starfish.Convergent.COM (Tim Simmons) (09/28/89)
From article <1989Sep27.104957.24581@cs.dal.ca>, by lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane): > > Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got? Yes in IMHO they have been obsolete for over a year. Reason being is that they are so slow that most of the "good" software packages can not be run efficiently. XT's can't use 800x600 (16 bit) VGA cards and monitors. > > I don't see many ads for or hear much about XT's in the magasines lately. > Many people are saying that since XT's can't run OS/2 or certain DOS > programs today, that soon they won't be able to run most new software > and as such represent a bad investment at any price. The reason they are a bad investment is that you can purchase an AT for as little as $800. I don't think the issue is if it can run OS/2 or not, but can it run programs that require +1MB RAM, which more and more is becoming the minimum requirement for many business applications. > > Others say that's just industry hype and a machine that does what you > want today will still be able to do so as long as it holds together... > "and who needs OS/2 anyway". > This is true if all you want to do is some basic word processing and maybe a small spreadsheet, and don't expect to use anything more powerful in the future. But the industry (software) passed this point long ago. People want super VGA, and to run VENTURA and PAGEMAKER and DBASE IV at a speed that is acceptably fast, vs. the XT's intolerably slow speed. > Others say it doesn't matter what you buy, its going to be obsolete > before you get it out of the box...well, sooner than you think, anyway. I think if you buy a 386 it will not be obsolete for at least 5 years > they don't like selling XTs anymore because there's no profit in them. > This is true, dealers make < $100 The bottom line is, if you are looking for a new PC don't even think about an XT. They are obsolete. -- ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] TIM SIMMONS (408)434-2843 Unisys Network Computing Group - San Jose CA tims@starfish.convergent.com
plim@hpsgpa.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (09/28/89)
Here's my 0.00000002 million dollar opinion: > / hpsgpa:comp.sys.ibm.pc / lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) / 6:49 pm Sep 27, 1989 / > Here is a question that's been sparking debate in the office here. > I'll toss it out to the net. > > Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got? > > I don't see many ads for or hear much about XT's in the magasines lately. > Many people are saying that since XT's can't run OS/2 or certain DOS > programs today, that soon they won't be able to run most new software > and as such represent a bad investment at any price. > > Others say that's just industry hype and a machine that does what you > want today will still be able to do so as long as it holds together... > "and who needs OS/2 anyway". > > Others say it doesn't matter what you buy, its going to be obsolete > before you get it out of the box...well, sooner than you think, anyway. > But that doesn't really help you decide what to buy now. > Which is true :-). > Certainly XTs are cheap. An XT is half the price of a 286 which is > half the price of a 386 (roughly of course). One dealer told me that > they don't like selling XTs anymore because there's no profit in them. > Well, I don't know how the situation is in the States. Over here in Singapore, AT prices are not holding up. In fact, over here, no one should be bother with XT anymore, the price of ATs are getting so low that there's almost no difference in price ! For some local "brand name" AT like say Datamini (I have nothing to do with them and in fact I will buy a much cheaper no name clone given a free choice), a 16 MHz 0 waitstate AT with 1MB RAM, 40 MB 28 ms hard disk with EGA card and monitor is selling for below S$3,000 (which is about US$1,500). Actually, 386 prices are also land-sliding in the Asean region. Take away the hard disk and EGA card and monitor, you can almost get a 20-25 MHz 386 machine for the same price. > I guess for us the turning point would be when the latest release of > WordPerfect doesnt run on an XT. Of course we're already there with > Lotus 123 rel 3. > FYI, according to PC Magazine (and some may be not so reliable sources), Lotus 123 rel 3 runs like a dog even on AT's and slow 386's. > Suppose you have relatively light duty tasks that, today, would be served > adequately by XTs and don't anticipate your basic tasks changing a great > deal, and you need several such machines, what do you buy if you want to > invest wisely? Where's the "smart" money going! > > Ancillary question: How far behind the 8086 is the 80286? People have > been calling it a brain-damaged dead-end since the day it was released. > There is certainly software around that runs on 386's but not 286's. > A correction is in order here. 8086 is not brain-damaged, its problem is only its time has long passed. 80286 is the brain-damaged one. Refer to PC Magazine for Bill Machrone's comments (I think you should be able to find it in the April '89 issue, the one where they reviewed 110 80386 machines). > Note: I'm trying to remain neutral in asking this question so don't > flame me for being on one side or the other. > Sticks and stones may break my bones but FLAME never hurt me :-). My very personal opinion is that you should get a 386 or 386SX if you can find one that's cheap and reliable. 80286 is just a passing fair and 386 programs are just around the corner (even if the corner is further than expected, you can at least do some crude but real multi-tasking with environment like DesqView). Then again, it depends on what is the price difference you can get in the States. Regards, Peter Lim HP Singapore IC Design Center Disclaimer: Whatever I said is my own opinion and has nothing to do with my employer (in fact they probably don't know about this message).
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (09/28/89)
John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane writes:
$Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got?
It depends on what you plan to do with them. If you're just typing
three-page letters all day, an XT will do the job. If you're doing anything
heavier (spreadsheets, graphics, programming), they're painfully slow.
$I don't see many ads for or hear much about XT's in the magasines lately.
$Many people are saying that since XT's can't run OS/2 or certain DOS
$programs today, that soon they won't be able to run most new software
$and as such represent a bad investment at any price.
There's a very good reason why they can't run OS/2: it's written for the
286, which is a superset of the 8086/8088. XTs can run almost all DOS
programs these days, other than the obvious Windows/286 and /386 (although
that's not quite true - you _can_ run them in 8086 mode) and Lotus 1-2-3
Release 3 (requires a 286 or higher).
As for being a bad investment - I'll get to that later.
$Others say that's just industry hype and a machine that does what you
$want today will still be able to do so as long as it holds together...
$"and who needs OS/2 anyway".
I don't need OS/2, although multitasking sure would be nice ... there
may well be some people out there, however, for whom OS/2 is nearly
essential. If you buy an XT, you'll still be able to run almost all of
the software that's out there today, and a large percentage of the software
that's coming out in the future.
One note about future software, especially that with graphical user
interfaces: As the typical user's machine becomes more powerful, the
software is adapting to eat up more processing time (Parkinson's law? :-)
This is especially true of graphical programs, which require fairly
heavy computation. So although you may be able to run such software on
your XT, you'll find that it will get painfully slow to run new releases
of many programs as time goes on.
$Others say it doesn't matter what you buy, its going to be obsolete
$before you get it out of the box...well, sooner than you think, anyway.
$But that doesn't really help you decide what to buy now.
To a certain extent, whatever you buy is obsolete - but this depends on
your definition of obsolete. If you want the leading edge of 8086-compatible
technology, well, you'll have to wait until 486-based machines come out, and
even then the 586 will likely be coming onto the scene not too long after
that.
But you don't necessarily need a machine that uses technology no older
than a couple of months. I'm making do with a 12 MHz 286 and, although
higher speed would be nice, I'm not particularly suffering. But it does
depend on what you're doing. If I was using AutoCad, for example, I
would likely want a faster machine quite desperately.
$Certainly XTs are cheap. An XT is half the price of a 286 which is
$half the price of a 386 (roughly of course). One dealer told me that
$they don't like selling XTs anymore because there's no profit in them.
Not where I come from ... the price difference between the system
I have (12 MHz 286, 640K, monographics card, 44 Mb 25 ms hard disk ...
at least when I bought it, I've added since) and a 10 MHz 8088 system with
similar features would have been around $600-700 Canadian, and that was
last year; the system price (including monitor) was about $2400. For
the motherboard, perhaps the "doubling" rule is appropriate, but once
you've added your hard disk, graphics card, EMS board, or whatever, you'll
find the price of the motherboard doesn't make up _that_ much of the
total system cost.
$Suppose you have relatively light duty tasks that, today, would be served
$adequately by XTs and don't anticipate your basic tasks changing a great
$deal, and you need several such machines, what do you buy if you want to
$invest wisely? Where's the "smart" money going!
If you're absolutely sure your tasks won't need higher performance in the
future, I guess you might want to go with XTs and save some money. However,
tasks seem to continually grow in complexity and required CPU power, so it
may well be near-sighted to buy all XTs.
$Ancillary question: How far behind the 8086 is the 80286? People have
$been calling it a brain-damaged dead-end since the day it was released.
$There is certainly software around that runs on 386's but not 286's.
The 8086 was released in 1976 or 1977, the 286 a few years later. The
286, in addition to having memory protection and job-switching support for
advanced (or at least semi-advanced) operating systems, also executes
many instructions more efficiently than the 8086/8088, giving usually
around twice the performance fora given clock speed (of course,the
performacne you get depends on the type of tasks you're doing).
There is software that requires a 286 or better, and software that
requires a 386 or better; hwoever, almost all mainstream software will run
on an 8086/8088 (with the exception of 1-2-3 R3). As for whether or
not the 8086/8088 (or, for that matter, the entire family) is brain-damaged,
I'm not going to comment; that's a matter in which people tend to be highly
opinionated, and that tends to lead to net.bandwidth-wasting flame wars.
If you're really interested and don't believe me, try posting a question like
"Is the 8086 itself, or the 8086 family as a whole, brain-damaged?" to
comp.arch and see what happens. Or better yet, trust me.
It gets ugly ina hurry.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
**********************************************************************
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
"VM is like an orgasm: the less you have to fake, the better." - S.C.jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (09/28/89)
lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes: >Here is a question that's been sparking debate in the office here. >I'll toss it out to the net. > >Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got? As long as MS-DOS is around, the 8086/8 will be around. MS-DOS is designed around the 8086/8 address space. There is big money for a company that designs a 100% implementation of MS-DOS that runs in 286/386 protect mode, but I have yet to see such an implementation. >I don't see many ads for or hear much about XT's in the magasines lately. >Many people are saying that since XT's can't run OS/2 or certain DOS >programs today, that soon they won't be able to run most new software >and as such represent a bad investment at any price. That's because the bottom has dropped out of the price of XT motherboards and AT motherboards are rapidly going down in price. I paid under $300 for my 16 MHz 286 board a year ago. At the time, it was a good investment, but now I am looking to getting a 386 box. As for OS/2, that thing is a joke of an operating system. I see a big future in Unix and Unix based OS'es, but I see OS/2 being mothballed before it even gets fully off the ground. >Others say that's just industry hype and a machine that does what you >want today will still be able to do so as long as it holds together... >"and who needs OS/2 anyway". > >Others say it doesn't matter what you buy, its going to be obsolete >before you get it out of the box...well, sooner than you think, anyway. >But that doesn't really help you decide what to buy now. The 486's are about out now. Does that mean that your 386 box is obsolete? Not by a long shot, who the hell uses the full 32-bit power of the 386? Probably only the real 386 versions of Unix. OS/2 is written in 286 protect mode, so if you have a 386 box, tough, OS/2 puts it in 286 emulation mode and chugs away...basically a software labotamy. I don't think OS/2 will be the new standard by a longshot. The only thing it has going for it is the fact it knows how to utilize microchannel. Big deal, I can order an MCA version of SCO Xenix from my software distributor. The 286 is a brain damaged chip and OS/2 is the brain damaged operating system that goes with it. >Certainly XTs are cheap. An XT is half the price of a 286 which is >half the price of a 386 (roughly of course). One dealer told me that >they don't like selling XTs anymore because there's no profit in them. > >I guess for us the turning point would be when the latest release of >WordPerfect doesnt run on an XT. Of course we're already there with >Lotus 123 rel 3. When MS-DOS is obsolete and not used anymore, then I'd mothball that XT, but I do know that nothing is completely obsolete. There are people out there still using CP/M boxes. So the buzzword obsolete is what does the job for you. An XT is obsolete for me because it won't run Unix. A 286 is the bare minimum, but then I can't have DOSMerge because of the design flaws in the 286. So what next? A 386? Well, that will do the job, as many DOS windows as the kernel can handle, but then again. I don't like DOS to begin with. So what's the solution for me? SCO Xenix 286. >Suppose you have relatively light duty tasks that, today, would be served >adequately by XTs and don't anticipate your basic tasks changing a great >deal, and you need several such machines, what do you buy if you want to >invest wisely? Where's the "smart" money going! The 'smart' money is going in what does the job for you. I bought a 286 motherboard last year because I knew I didn't need the abilities of a 386 for awhile. The only thing that a 386 can provide me with besides speed and ease of programming in a 32-bit address space is the ability to run multiple DOS windows. Well, I get that from the Sun 386i I maintain at work, so SCO Xenix 286 will do the job here at home. OS/2? Get out of here. One of my ambitious dreams in life is to run into Bill Gates at Comdex and tell him exactly what he can do with OS/2. I have had a few people I know who develop software and do consulting tell me that I should have at least gotten a 386SX. But I stuck to my guns and bought a high speed 286 motherboard and the only time I regret buying it is when I'm programming in assembly. There's also that fact that if Stallman ever gets the GNU project finished, it will not run on a 286. Most of the GNU project demands a 32-bit address space. GCC will not compile on a 286 machine. It wants a 386 machine to play with. >Ancillary question: How far behind the 8086 is the 80286? People have >been calling it a brain-damaged dead-end since the day it was released. >There is certainly software around that runs on 386's but not 286's. I'll be one of the first people to admit that the 286 is a brain damaged processor, but it does have its place in the IBM compatable heirarchy. The fact AMD and Harris are still in business with their high speed 286's is proof of that. A 286 can be a decent file server or Unix machine. I wouldn't do anything on it that would redline it though. It's very easy to redline a 286 since it doesn't quite know what virtual memory is. Your hardcore Unix box would run on a 386 since it does know what virtual memory is. The two problems with the 286 are protect mode and memory management in protect mode, and if going in and out of protect mode is something you're doing, that's a fatal problem (which is what is done for DOS windows under Unix for example). The 286 is basically a brute force processor when you want speed and you don't care about memory management, running DOS windows, etc. The problem is that there isn't a decent MS-DOS compatable OS that runs in 286 protect mode. I don't expect to see the 8086 replaced with the 286, but rather the 386 if a good standard OS is developed. The moral to all of this is that if it does the job for you, then use it. Since there is a big market in software for DOS, DOS will be around for awhile, so that XT is far from obsolete. The 386 OS'es are barely hitting the light of day, and now we have the 486's coming out. I'm not a marketing expert, but I do know that IBM and MicroSoft won't leave their established customer base out in the cold. Also, notice this trend, the hardware is developed long before the software is. When the 386 first came out I thought...wow, great! Now, what is there out there to use that power? Same story with the 486. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
harnyo@netcom.UUCP (Suwandi Harnyo) (09/29/89)
> Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got? > In my opinion, as long as the 8088/8086 based machines constitute more than 50% of the total PCs out there, I would not worry too much. The reason is if I am the software developer, I would make sure that my software would run on all type of PCs, instead of abandoning the other 50% of the potential market. My suggestion is if your main use is to do simple word-processing, and light, personal use, then may be you may want to get XT. It's cheaper too. On the other hand, if you are using it for software development, or heavy database or spreadsheet calculation, go for the 386 or 386SX. Judging from the prices for 286 and 386SX, I would recommend getting the 386SX directly. Hope it helps ! Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Suwandi Harnyo (Andy) | "Hic, hic ... Whaza's up, doc ? harnyo@netcom.UUCP | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ #include <std_disclaimer> /* The opinion expressed is solely MINE !! */ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (09/29/89)
In article <2576@netcom.UUCP>, harnyo@netcom.UUCP (Suwandi Harnyo) writes: | > Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got? | > | | In my opinion, as long as the 8088/8086 based machines constitute | more than 50% of the total PCs out there, I would not worry too | much. The reason is if I am the software developer, I would make | sure that my software would run on all type of PCs, instead of | abandoning the other 50% of the potential market. PC's are 50% of the market, but only a fraction of the market. The software people care about users who will buy their software, and that means business. Most large business (yes, yes, not all) are probably only 10% 8 bit machines, and the person who still uses an XT is probably (a) running a limited set of apps and not interested in buying more, or (b) not authorized to buy anything. Therefore the market is the people with AT's or better, for the major business software. The XT market is important for games and <$100 utilities, which are in the price range of a private user. | | My suggestion is if your main use is to do simple word-processing, | and light, personal use, then may be you may want to get XT. It's cheaper | too. On the other hand, if you are using it for software development, | or heavy database or spreadsheet calculation, go for the 386 or 386SX. | Judging from the prices for 286 and 386SX, I would recommend getting | the 386SX directly. looking at the real 386 prices, there is no reason to stop at SX unless $ are VERY tight. The performance is about 2:1 better (depending on use and clock speed) and the incremental cost for 20 and 25MHz machines is only about 10-20% of the TOTAL machine cost. That's cost effective for a business, and cheap thrills for an individual. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
wek@point.UUCP (Bill Kuykendall) (09/29/89)
>Are 8086/8088-based machines obsolete? Nearly so? How long have they got? I will quote Bill Gates: "If you want to be compatible with the new software and operating systems of the near future, don't buy anything less than a 386SX." I would go a step further and recommend the 386DX with 32-bit bus. While the new software and OS's will run on the SX, anything that loads the machine at all will be painfully slow on a 16-bit bus. On the other hand, I belong to a user group that still has a tenacious core of users who keep improving Z80 (CP/M) machines and refuse to move on. Their argument is that the old machines refuse to stop doing what they bought them for every time Microsoft introduces something new. Indeed, the XT's now run the largest library of software known to exist for any computer ever built to date. And while that library has begun to grow at a slower rate, and may even be overtaken in size by some other architecture, the software that runs today will not be changed by events in the OS/2 world. So the first question is not, "What machines should I buy", but "What do these machines need to be able to do now and in the next 5 years?" If you can answer that question with today's software, an XT is a very reasonable solution for you. If not, you should consider a 386. >So, my point here is (I guess) that the price gap is very close. The >difference in an XT and an AT is negligible. XT's won't drop out of >existence any time soon because of the number of price-sensitive persons I would agree that AT's are better XT's for the small price difference. They are every bit as obsolete as XT's though. Buy them for their speed if the price makes sense, but not for their compatibility. Bill Kuykendall ...ddsw1!point!wek
ngeow@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Yee Ngeow) (09/30/89)
If you think XT's are slow, upgrade your CPU to NEC V-20. I just upgraded mine yesterday, and ran various benchmarks on it. Performance improvement is pretty impressive, ranging from 10% - 80% speedup. For $10 or less, you can't beat the deal. Does anybody know if the V20 is compatible with 80186 instructions, using the Turbo C Compiler options for 80186/286 instructions? Thanks in advance. ngeow@bu-cs.bu.edu engkdfc@buacca.bitnet
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (09/30/89)
ngeow@bucsd.bu.edu (Yee Ngeow) <39221@bu-cs.BU.EDU> : - -Does anybody know if the V20 is compatible with 80186 instructions, using -the Turbo C Compiler options for 80186/286 instructions? It works fine for me --- I haven't run into any problems (except forgetting that I did it and trying to use the executable on a machine with only an 8088 :-( :-)
fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) (09/30/89)
In article <39221@bu-cs.BU.EDU> ngeow@bucsd.bu.edu (Yee Ngeow) writes: > >Does anybody know if the V20 is compatible with 80186 instructions, using >the Turbo C Compiler options for 80186/286 instructions? > I don't knwo about Turbo C, but I use the -G2 switch on Microsoft C all the time with my V20. -G2 causes MSC to generate 80286 code. I have built a number of programs this way, including STEVIE, MicroEmacs, etc., and they all work just fine. Therefore I would expect 80186 code to also work (but haven't actually tried it.). The only gotcha I know of is that if you are also using floating point anywhere in your program that the compiler attempts to generate 287 code.
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (09/30/89)
In article <2576@netcom.UUCP> harnyo@netcom.UUCP (Suwandi Harnyo) writes: |In my opinion, as long as the 8088/8086 based machines constitute |more than 50% of the total PCs out there, I would not worry too |much. The reason is if I am the software developer, I would make |sure that my software would run on all type of PCs, instead of |abandoning the other 50% of the potential market. Oh yeah? Try running a windows application on an XT. It's not pretty. If MicroSloth ever gets Words for Windows out, XTs will become very unpopular. Excel is currently the most notable reason for running Windows, and a pretty good one too. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil "Should the US send assault rifles to Colombia? How about small arms?"
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (09/30/89)
fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) <7719@cg-atla.UUCP> : - -The only gotcha I know of is that if you are also using floating point anywhere -in your program that [Microsoft C] attempts to generate 287 code. Hmm, I suppose Turbo C must also. Since I don't have a co-proc. chip and must use the emulation code, it doesn't matter to me. Portability has been the bigger nuisance.
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (10/01/89)
ngeow@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Yee Ngeow) writes: >If you think XT's are slow, upgrade your CPU to NEC V-20. I just upgraded >mine yesterday, and ran various benchmarks on it. Performance improvement >is pretty impressive, ranging from 10% - 80% speedup. For $10 or less, >you can't beat the deal. > >Does anybody know if the V20 is compatible with 80186 instructions, using >the Turbo C Compiler options for 80186/286 instructions? Yes, it is. The V20/30 instruction set is a superset of the 80186 instruction set. So you can compile to 186/286 code with a V20/30. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Flames: /dev/null (on my Minix partition) *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * ARPA : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil * INET : jca@pnet01.cts.com * UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca *--------------------------------------------------------------------------* * Note : My opinions are that...mine. My boss doesn't pay me enough to * speak in the best interests of the company (yet). *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (10/01/89)
In article <446@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes:
$ As long as MS-DOS is around, the 8086/8 will be around. MS-DOS is designed
$ around the 8086/8 address space. There is big money for a company that
$ designs a 100% implementation of MS-DOS that runs in 286/386 protect mode,
$ but I have yet to see such an implementation.
I, for one, don't see such a thing happening, if for no other reason than
that most applications wouldn't run in such an environment.
You see, the concept of segments is different in 286 protected mode from
8086 mode. In general, MS-DOS software is written under the assumption that
it will be running on an 8086 platform with the 8086's concept of what
segments are. Since MS-DOS is an 8086 operating system, this is a perfectly
reasonable and valid assumption. Were these programs to be run in 286
protected mode, their assumptions about segments would most likely be ren-
dered invalid --> crash.
What someone could do would be to come up with a 100% compatible
version of MS-DOS running in the 386's multiple virtual 8086 mode, which
allows multiple programs to multitask, each one believing it has an entire
8086 to itself. Such a program may well already exist - I'm not familiar
with any of the 386 multitasking DOS-like operating systems; one of
them might be compatible.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
**********************************************************************
TORONTO BLUE JAYS - 1989 AMERICAN LEAGUE EAST CHAMPIONS! GO JAYS GO!!ngeow@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Yee Ngeow) (10/02/89)
In article <7719@cg-atla.UUCP> fredex@cg-atla.UUCP (Fred Smith) writes: >In article <39221@bu-cs.BU.EDU> ngeow@bucsd.bu.edu (Yee Ngeow) writes: >> >>Does anybody know if the V20 is compatible with 80186 instructions, using >>the Turbo C Compiler options for 80186/286 instructions? >> >I don't knwo about Turbo C, but I use the -G2 switch on Microsoft C >all the time with my V20. -G2 causes MSC to generate 80286 code. I have >built a number of programs this way, including STEVIE, MicroEmacs, etc., and >they all work just fine. Therefore I would expect 80186 code to also work (but >haven't actually tried it.). > > >The only gotcha I know of is that if you are also using floating point anywhere >in your program that the compiler attempts to generate 287 code. Hmmm.. Since V-20 runs 286 instructions, does that mean it can use the protected mode to run OS/2 also? Probably not, but I am really curious. Furthur benchmark on my 10 MHz: 875 Dhrystone, 2705 chars/second for character output, 10K math performance. Pretty good vs. unmodified 10 MHz XT with 735 Dhrysones, 1650 chars/second and 9K math performance. Overall speed is about 2.95 times 4.77 MHz XT with a 8088 :-) Oh, forgot to say I furthur improved speed by decreasing the RAM refresh rate. That gives aother 7% overall boost to the speed. All benchmarks were ran using this utility. Kwong