> > > This has everything to do with heat dissipation and the media capacity > > > of the processors themselves. Does IBM have the capability to make > > > processors that will run faster, yes. Will they, not without due > > > overcompensation. Look at the history, the AT was running at 6Mhz while > > > every other AT clone manufacturer was running at 8 and 12 - the same > > > went for all of the IBM x86 boxes made. > > > > It's easier to go faster when you have newer technology. That said, the > original > > PC and PC/XT were pretty feeble, using the 8088 when the 8086 was > available > > first, and faster. > > Let's be fair here -- the 8086 also required double the decoding logic and > memory chips, which would have driven the cost of the PC and XT even higher > than they were. Those things were *expensive* in those days (16K of DRAM (9 > chips, 8+1 parity) was easily $500), and would have easily made the PC > uncompetitive. Also, we didn't have the wide acceptance of the personal > computer in those days -- it was a rare bird that would even consider it.
yeah, right. I had a NEC APC with an 8086 at 4.9-something Mhz before the PC arrived in Oz with its 8088 at 4.77 Mhz. I had dual 960K floppies, 64K RAM. It was cheaper than the IBM PC when it did arrive, and a PC with equivalent storage would have required fixed disk and been twice the price. Serial ports on the APC could do async and sync comms. The standard display was _far_ better than IBM's CGA. > > IBM has made a business out of guaranteeing reliability, availability, and > serviceability -- which is usually fundamentally incompatible with having There were problems with the PC floppies (10% failure rate if I recall correctly), and later with the AT 20 Mbyte fixed disks which I believe were recalled. > the latest and greatest speeds and feeds (reliable/fast/cheap -- pick two). > I buy IBM equipment for the instrumentation and ease of service, not for > performance. That's always been the tradeoff -- buy HP/Compaq if you want > the raw speed, but buy IBM if you want it to be manageable and reliable. I > think the same applies here. Actually, the best PC I've seen, to work on, is from Dell;-). But then, I've not yet seen new kit from IBM or the others. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. ============================== If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
