🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan7.203726.11139@vax.oxford.ac.uk> callahan@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.134604.3089@shearson.com>, lparisi@shearson.com (Lon G. Parisi) writes:
>> there is no difference in the chip other than the dx has a coprocessor.
>> Intel stressed to me that the 486sx WAS a true 486 unlike the 386sx which was
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> a glorified 286 chip. 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Wow.  Did they really say that?  The 386sx runs 32-bit code and supports
>page-based virtual memory; the 286 doesn't.
>
><Stuff deleted>
>Michael
>---
>Michael Callahan
>callahan@vax.ox.ac.uk
>callahan@math.harvard.edu

Whoops,

Michael caught my misleading statement.  I never meant to quote Intel
as saying the 386sx was a glorified 286. I meant to say that the 486sx
was a 486dx less the coprocessor according to Intel.  And now I know that
the 386sx is NOT a glorified 286.  I was told that by someone who I obvious
just took at face value.  But now that I'm on the subject, there is a PC
here at work (IBM model PS/2 386/70) that is so slow when it comes to
windows applications, it makes me wonder how this machine could have
been released.  When I want to run EXTREMELY small Excel data plots, access
the hard drive, anything but input data to the screen, there are very
irritating delays.  Now, I'm not a computer speed demon, but it seems like
I trip over myself using this machine.  Does anyone know what the deal with
this machine is? Since I'm in the market for a 486 machine, I do not want
to get a new machine and run into a similar problem.


Any responses could be posted to the net or

lparisi@shearson.com


Thanks in advance,

Lon Parisi