🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <danpop.808529976@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> In <docjoe-1508951310440001@ip241.washington.dc.interramp.com>
docjoe@interramp.com (Joe Ragosta) writes:
> 
> >But that's not the point. My comment about your 386 vs toys was that
> >you're talking about building a 386 computer from used parts. Almost no
> >one would build a 386 out of used parts today. Certainly, no one would buy
> >one. People expect new parts when they buy a computer.
> 
> It depends what you buy it for.  There are plenty of applications for
> which the 386 is more than enough.  Not everybody is interested in
> running the latest and greatest version of Word or VC++.

Except that we were comparing systems with the performance of a P5-75 or a
603-75. I think that already assumes that a 386 isn't enough oomph for ya.
If you want to build a used machine that matches the performance of a
P5-75 or PMac 5200, fine, but it needs to be comparable. To reduce the
argument to 'Well, if a 386 is enough for you, then PC's are cheaper',
then I'll reduce the argument to 'Well, if a Mac Plus is enough for you
than Macs are cheaper' since you can usually take a Mac Plus off of
someones hands for free.

-- 
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine