🚀 go-pugleaf

In <kb13877@pro-storm.cts.com> brogers@pro-storm.cts.com (Brian Rogers) writes:

>In <1992Nov10.195924.21529@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>>Michael C Mccarty writes
>>> I keep hearing all of this propaganda that I should buy a
>>> 486SX-25 or even a 386-40 and all I can say is 'why?' ....
>>> Where is the advantage to buy these machines?
>>
>>One good reason that you may want to go the 486 way (as long as you  
>>also go the LocalBus etc way; which may not be possible on a limited  
>>budget) is that you can then use cool things like NeXTSTEP 486 rather  
>>than xxxx things like Windows.

>I've often wondered about NeXTSTEP for 486.  How much does it cost?  Is it
>affordable for a Joe Schmoe like me?  For that matter, hearing you mention
>NeXTSTEP in the context of fast, LocalBus, ectc. 486's is rather discouraging
>at times -- My wallet cringes.

Not released yet, so who knows about final prices?  

>>Bottom line:  If your budget is limited, stick with 386s, but  
>>recognize you're also stuck with Windows/DOS.  If you can afford  
>>more, get not just a faster chip but also better components.

Strange world, where only DOS/Windows is suitable for i386-class
hardware.  MOST UNIX products will run acceptable (or so I am told) on
a fast i386 machine, given enough memory.  OS/2 is much more sensitive
to quantity of memory than to processor speed, by all reports.  

>There you go talking about "budget" again.  It's such a big word...  But I do
>hate being stuck in the DOS world and don't want to haveto deal with Windows.  I
>like Multi-Tasking systems and am actually relatively comfortable with
>prompts -- so I'm thinking about switching to Coherent.  Is this direction
>the way to go if I don't want to have to upgrade 75% of my hardware to the
>newest and hottest?  Or could I run NeXTSTEP and a plain ol'
>386DX-33?

NeXTSTEP, from what I understand, is targetted specifically for i486
and better.  Given that, I don't think I'd want to run it on an SX
type chip (lousy graphics vectorization due to no math processor).
However, for OS/2 the reported minimum is supposedly a slow 386SX
(given at least 8 MB of memory).  UNIX wants somewhat faster CPUs and
would like you to have a math coprocessor (mostly because of X, which
will use it -- OS/2's PM doesn't, so far as I know, and neither does
Windows). 

Don't believe this "If you buy anything less than a 486SX you are
doomed to DOS/Windows" line.  I'm not convinced that the 486SX is that
much hotter than a fast 386DX anyway.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.