🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25c86533:4479.2comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@vpnet.UUCP> akcs.amparsonjr@vpnet.UUCP (Anthony M. Parson, Jr.) writes:
| Never got to try an 80286 with generic cadd, but I
| will say an 80386 (25 mhz) without a coprocessor, is STILL faster by far
| than the 8088/8087 combination.  Moral: get a fast 80286 or 80386, and
| possibly save the cost of buying a math coprocessor.  Of course, it depends
| how complicate your ddrawings are, how large, if you use letters / fonts
| to record dimensions, how many layers, etc.

My father runs Generic CADD on a 12.5 Mhz 286 w/ 287.  A year ago, this
configuration was cheaper than a 16 Mhz 386 w/o 387 and ran Generic CADD
faster, so that was the deciding factor.  A 25 Mhz 386 would probably edge
the 286 w/ 287, but it's probably not worth the added expense.  It's
incredible how much that math coprocessor speeds things up.  I run math
intensive stuff on machines without it and feel like the CPU is full of
sludge.

--
Rick (schaut@garfield.cs.wisc.edu)

Peace and Prejudice Don't Mix! (unknown add copy)