jeffmu@microsoft.UUCP (Jeff MUZZY) (05/01/90)
The following Microsoft Windows products do have support for 80x87: Microsoft Excel Microsoft Word for Windows. -- jeffmu@microsoft or uunet!microsoft!jeffmu MaBellNet: (206) 882-8080 <Insert your favorite disclaimer about opinions and companies here>
Hubert Lai <LAIH@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (05/04/90)
You state that Microsoft Word for Windows and Microsoft Excel for Windows both make use of the numeric co-processor. Are you sure about Word for Windows? Several people have indicated that is does NOT make use of an 80x87. I note that you work for Microsoft, but I just wanted to double-check the accuracy of your statement. Assuming that Word for Windows DOES use the 80x87 if present, what kind of difference does it make? Is it worth purchasing an 80x87 if you are a heavy user of Word for Windows?
patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Deupree) (05/04/90)
In article <1990Apr25.223436.27955@seri.gov>, marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) writes: > akm@comix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: > > >Will adding a numeric coprocessor speed up Windows? I couldn't find > >anything in the documentation that said it would. (I am using Win386 > >2.11, which I upgraded to from 286 2.1) > > I would think that ANY graphics application would benefit from a math > coprocessor. I wouldn't think so. A math coprocessor really only affects floating point arithmetic. Unless the graphics package does some very strange math, it should primarily use integer arithmetic, in which case there shouldn't be much of a performance increase. I know that Excel takes advantage of the coprocessor and some other math intensive Windows apps, but they use it for their calculations, not thier graphics. -- "Organized fandom is composed of a bunch of nitpickers with a thing for trivial pursuit." -Harlan Ellison Patrick Deupree -> patrickd@chinet.chi.il.us