🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4rc02h$oq2@cronkite.cisco.com>,
Cihangir Akyol <cakyol@cisco.com> wrote:

...

>
>Therefore, I would like to know if anyone has any hard data
>(not feelings or rumors) about the performance of Pentium
>Pro running 16 bit applications comparing them to the Pentium.

I've read in PC Magazine, and Computer Shopper that the 16 bit apps run
slower on a Pentium Pro.




-- 
-------------------------- Sign below the dotted line --------------------

Welcome to my virtual reality!

Ed Brown - darkstar@cais.com
http://www.tnp.com/~darkstar (construction in progress)
Copyright, 1996, Edwin Brown

DarkStar wrote:
> [....]
> >Therefore, I would like to know if anyone has any hard data
> >(not feelings or rumors) about the performance of Pentium
> >Pro running 16 bit applications comparing them to the Pentium.
> 
> I've read in PC Magazine, and Computer Shopper that the 16 bit apps run
> slower on a Pentium Pro.[....]

Slower than what? A 4.77 MHz IBM-PC with 64 Kb of RAM, or a 150 MHz 
Pentium with 256 Kb of cache and 32 Mb of RAM? I somehow guess that DOOM 2 
and Quake will run just fine on a measy little PP-200. And wait for a 
Pentium Pro built version of Quake for NT 4.0 with Xdirect video and 
sound. 

Wake up and smell the roses.

Bye.

On 2 Jul 1996, Cihangir Akyol wrote:

> In the anticipation that eventually most software will
> be written for 32 bit operating systems (NT), I have decided
> to pay the extra few hundred dollars and go for a Pentium Pro,
> instead of the Pentium.
> 
> Having made this decision however, the prospect of everyone
> not moving to the 32 bit operating system is still nagging me.


32bit is now the defacto standard.

The major vendors have already started 64bit versions of their s.w

 
> Therefore, I would like to know if anyone has any hard data
> (not feelings or rumors) about the performance of Pentium
> Pro running 16 bit applications comparing them to the Pentium.


Same if not slower. BYTE in Feb/March96(?) had a series of comparisons
on both 16/32 bit OSs. (their web site has search to pull up articles by
keywords)

> 
> Thank you.
> 
> C. M. Akyol (cakyol@cisco.com)
> 

--
Specs on  Systems and on available MBs from		

Asus / DEC Alpha AXP / Cyrix / Intel / Micronics / Octek / SuperMicro
	    and Networking/ISDN Equipment from

3Com / Ascend / Cisco / IBM / Motorola / US Robotics are on pages below

Venkat Thirumalai	http://www.vccs.com
venkat@vccs.com		Fax # 888.VCC.SYSTEMS        VISA / MC

David Sommers <sommers@ix.netcom.com> writes:

} DarkStar wrote:
} > [....]
} > >Therefore, I would like to know if anyone has any hard data
} > >(not feelings or rumors) about the performance of Pentium
} > >Pro running 16 bit applications comparing them to the Pentium.
} > 
} > I've read in PC Magazine, and Computer Shopper that the 16 bit apps run
} > slower on a Pentium Pro.[....]

} Slower than what? A 4.77 MHz IBM-PC with 64 Kb of RAM, or a 150 MHz 
} Pentium with 256 Kb of cache and 32 Mb of RAM? I somehow guess that DOOM 2 
} and Quake will run just fine on a measy little PP-200. And wait for a 
} Pentium Pro built version of Quake for NT 4.0 with Xdirect video and 
} sound. 

} Wake up and smell the roses.

} Bye.

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.

but would you buy a brand new 1996 Corvette and only run it 20 MPH on
side streets?

to the original poster: if you plan on using WinNT from now on, go for
the PPro. in about a year, NT will be the only thing on new gateway
machines. and even Bill Gates himself has said that NT is the big
push. Win95 is only to keep us hooked until NT is ready for the
consumer market. as soon as WinNT is ready for common public use, you
can say "bye bye" to Win95!

-- 
Brian
bdp@interaccess.com
"Its all just 1's and 0's"

In article <4ree8j$q1u@thymaster.interaccess.com>,
Brian Peterson <bdp@interaccess.com> wrote:
>but would you buy a brand new 1996 Corvette and only run it 20 MPH on
>side streets?

To extend your metaphor, remember that the side street is getting 
demolished pretty soon and being replaced by a freeway.

If you're buying now, why would you not go for the PPro.  It will remain 
top of the line for a least a few more months (until a PPro >200 is 
released), and as more and more apps are rewritten in 32-bit code, this 
machine will gain utility as opposed to the Pentium which will remain the 
same.

Geoff Gass
glg@nwu.edu

In article <4rc02h$oq2@cronkite.cisco.com>, cakyol@cisco.com says...
>
>In the anticipation that eventually most software will
>be written for 32 bit operating systems (NT), I have decided
>to pay the extra few hundred dollars and go for a Pentium Pro,
>instead of the Pentium.
>
>Having made this decision however, the prospect of everyone
>not moving to the 32 bit operating system is still nagging me.
>
>Therefore, I would like to know if anyone has any hard data
>(not feelings or rumors) about the performance of Pentium
>Pro running 16 bit applications comparing them to the Pentium.
>
>Thank you.
>
>C. M. Akyol (cakyol@cisco.com)
>
>
>


I recently purchased a Dell Pentium Pro which I dual boot in Windows NT and 
Windows 95.  One of the main applications that is run on the system is Matlab, 
currently a 16 bit numerical analysis package.  Running the built in benchmark 
under Windows 95 I have found the system runs faster than a Pentium 166.  All 
other applications also are fast  -- I am very satisfied with the purchase.  
However, 16 bit dos applications are very slow when run under Windows NT.

Tim R

In article <Pine.GSO.3.93.960703095517.29458E-100000@iglou>, VCCS
<venkat@vccs.com> wrote:

> On 2 Jul 1996, Cihangir Akyol wrote:
> 
> > In the anticipation that eventually most software will
> > be written for 32 bit operating systems (NT), I have decided
> > to pay the extra few hundred dollars and go for a Pentium Pro,
> > instead of the Pentium.
> > 
> > Having made this decision however, the prospect of everyone
> > not moving to the 32 bit operating system is still nagging me.
> 
> 
> 32bit is now the defacto standard.
> 
> The major vendors have already started 64bit versions of their s.w
> 
Thats an interesting statement considering only a few companies (Digital,
Sun..) even have a 64 bit processor and Intels is still on the drawing
board.  Not to mention how long it took Windoze to go 32 bit.  Windows 95
is a long way from 32 bitness and NT also has alot of 16 bit code.  Of
course the Mac has been 32 bit for years.....

In article <4reioj$1ss@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Geoffrey Gass <glg@nwu.edu> wrote:
>If you're buying now, why would you not go for the PPro.  It will remain 
>top of the line for a least a few more months (until a PPro >200 is 
>released), and as more and more apps are rewritten in 32-bit code, this 
>machine will gain utility as opposed to the Pentium which will remain the 
>same.
>
>Geoff Gass
>glg@nwu.edu

One thing anyone contemplating a Pentium Pro should watch for: make sure
you don't get one of the old 82450 motherboards.  Due to a bug in A2
and earlier steppings of the chipset, intel disabled write posting on
the PCI bus.  This reduces performance to about the level of a P133
(sometimes much better or much worse, depending on the app.) Intel
says that this only matters on network servers, of course.  I guess
they never imagined that anyone would plug a PCI video card into one of
these things.  But I digress.

If you get a system that supports EDO RAM, you have a newer motherboard
and no problem.  Later revisions of the 82450 (which doesn't support EDO)
are fixed, but I think most of the mail-order vendors still sell only
the old broken ones (Gateway for sure, Dell until recently, others
I dunno).

   - Jeff Petkau (jpet@eskimo.com)
     My opinions are not my own, but those of a three-headed rat who
     is telling me what to type.