🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <tthiel-0507960801200001@sgtdial09.shout.net>
           tthiel@msilink.com "Terry Thiel" writes:

>In article <836483007snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>, fred@genesis.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> In article <4ree8j$q1u@thymaster.interaccess.com>
>>            bdp@interaccess.com "Brian Peterson" writes:
>> 
>> >ahh, yes. but why buy a brand new PPro computer if you are going to hold it
>> >down to 16 bit apps? yes, the PPro runs 16 bit apps about 20% slower than
>> >a P5 at the same speed.
>> 
>> Which is likely to be more than fast enough for 16 bit applications
>> dsigned for 486 systems. For the applications you need to run fast you
>> get the 32 bit versions.
>
>Thats not going the help if the OS is still largely 16 bit.

You're right that it may not be sensible to buy a PPro just to run DOS
or Windows 3.1. The PPro isn't *that* slow on 16 bit code (especially if
you have one of the fixed chipsets) and overall Win95 shouldn't be any
slower on a PPro than a similarly clocked Pentium. Over the lifetime of
your system Win95 and the applications you run will progress more to 32
bit code. OS/2, NT, Linux, other Unices etc. are 32 bit.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------