Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

At 13:17 -0700 on 21/08/02, Harbourmaster wrote: >> >> >>Too bad the IIfx CPU and FPU weren't socketed > >Ahh but some were!! Some? Most, in my experience. I haven't seen one yet that wasn't. -- the pickle FAQ Software Archive

Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

Gregg: This has to be off topic, so I'll probably here about it, however, you're about rite. I do Macs because they may not be the best thing going but the're way ahead of whatever is in second place. I also build an occasional PC just to break things up a little. I've got a little 486 ( AMD 5x

Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

--- Chris McFadden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have to agree with 3.1 on a 386. I've got an old > laptop with a 486/25 that > positively crawls with Win95. That's because it's only 25Mhz. ;P The 40Mhz CPU and bus speed that makes the IIfx "wicked fast" also makes the 386DX/40 "wicked fast", f

Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

I have to agree with 3.1 on a 386. I've got an old laptop with a 486/25 that positively crawls with Win95. - Original Message - From: "Harbourmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Vintage Macs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002

Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

> > >Too bad the IIfx CPU and FPU weren't socketed Ahh but some were!! I had 50Mhz parts pulled from a Daystar Accelerator in mine at one point, overclocked to 60 before I had trouble with the serial ports. All this talk of hotrod IIfx makes me want to run down to Orange County and pick up a

Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

> > What year was 7.5.5 released? Win95B came along in >> 1996. Could use Win95 plus the service pack to make >> it Win95a along with the Y2K update. Then both systems >> would be quite "patchy". ;) > >This sounds like an excellent test of retro-computing, I'd love to >post the pictures and t

Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

Why I suggested 7.6.1 and Win95B (on FAT16) is because they're both fairly mature and patch free versions. On any computer the bus speed is almost as important as the CPU speed. A IIci with a 40Mhz 030 upgrade cannot match a IIfx because it's still running a 25Mhz bus speed to memory and other par

Re: IIfx vs 386DX/40

At 07:51 AM 8/21/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed thusly: >internet performance. Otherwise, OS 6.0.8 will blow the doors off the PC. >Is Win95 optimal for the 386? It is a full 32-bit machine, so I guess yes >(else, linux would scream, but it's not a mainstream OS, especially during >the early '

IIfx vs 386DX/40

> What year was 7.5.5 released? Win95B came along in > 1996. Could use Win95 plus the service pack to make > it Win95a along with the Y2K update. Then both systems > would be quite "patchy". ;) This sounds like an excellent test of retro-computing, I'd love to post the pictures and text and resu

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:04:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: Gregg Eshelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished > > --- Ken Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It uses 30 pin SIMMs. It's

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

--- Bill Zipprich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The IIfx IOP's would certainly benefit the Internet > experience as you use > the mouse to navigate. > > Also consider that the cursor (hardware cursor) is > controlled via the IOP's > as well. Well, I suppose he can start by just assembling whatev

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

--- Ken Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It uses 30 pin SIMMs. It's an AMD 386DX40, and has a > IIT 3C87-40 > coprocessor installed. Vroom! :) > If I have an ISA video card, it's probably something > pretty basic like a > Cirrus Logic or Trident board. That takes more > digging ;) Yeah, not

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

A) Depending on who built the computer, there could be just about anything onboard. I've seen 386s with literally nothing onboard, and 386's with serial/parallel/video/scsi onboard. B) Comparing any PC to a Mac hardware-wise in that era is a bad idea. For example, a well-equipped 386/40 (Model t

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

To: "Vintage Macs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:43 PM Subject: Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished > > --- Bill Zipprich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Remember guys, the IIfx had IOP's! > > > > This was a

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

--- Bill Zipprich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Remember guys, the IIfx had IOP's! > > This was an advanced feature. Similar to IBM > mainframes with channel > processors for I/O. > > I don't know if PC's ever had that kind of advanced > hardware. 16550N UARTS, that ought to at least equal the

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

ge Macs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gregg Eshelman Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:52 PM To: Vintage Macs Subject: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished --- Ken Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know how serious you are about this, but I&#x

Re: IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Gregg Eshelman wrote: > --- Ken Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know how serious you are about this, but I'm > > pretty sure that I > > have a 386/40 PC board in my basement (I only wish I > > threw out the old > > junk... > > > > I also just got a IIfx, but

IIfx VS 386DX/40 Re: IIfx online Re: Hi-Spec IIci finished

--- Ken Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know how serious you are about this, but I'm > pretty sure that I > have a 386/40 PC board in my basement (I only wish I > threw out the old > junk... > > I also just got a IIfx, but don't know what it has > in it, other than a > sticker on the