🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jackerman.4.2DA1D278@p01.mn15.honeywell.com>, jackerman@p01.mn15.honeywell.com (John Ackerman) writes:
|> In article <2nr155$j1p@char.vnet.net> merlin@char.vnet.net (Mystical Wizard) writes:
|> 
|> >I've had my ZEOS 486DX2-66 for about 15 months now.  It would be fair
|> >to say that I have my fair share of problems with this system.  ...
|> >(Much deleted regarding problems with cache memory)
|> 
|> A lot of the problems with ZEOS systems appear to deal with the optional cache
|> memory.  My ZEOS DX2-66 system (no cache except the 8k on the 486 chip) has
|> been trouble-free for over a year, and plenty fast for my needs.
|> 
|> I can't help but wonder what the extra cache would do for performance, though.
|> 
|> Does anyone have benchmark numbers with and w/o the optional cache,
|> or with 128k vs. 256k?  Is it really worth the extra ~$250?


	It apperars that we have our first frequently asked 
	question on alt.sys.pc-clone.zeos.  :)  I asked this 
	same thing about a month ago.  And considering the 
	low volume here . . . .

	I recall the Zeos techs telling me that the performance 
	increase would amount to about 10 per-cent in ms-windows,
	if WinTach were used.

	I'm interested in what kind of benefit I'd be getting 
	in X under Linux and XFree.  

	Anyone from Zeos reading this?

	Steve Whitlatch
	swhitlat@prism.nmt.edu