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 parts.
The IIfx and 386DX/40 run a 40Mhz bus speed and CPU speed. Both can be quite speedy, even running an OS that came along a couple years after they had their day in the sun. Mac OS 7.6.1 and Win95B can both be lightened up a bit through custom installation and removing some bits after installation. Mac OS 8.1 can be forced onto the IIfx and Win98 might just install (or does it check for at least a 486/66?) on the 386, but they're both not very useful other than a stunt to prove it can be done. Too bad the IIfx CPU and FPU weren't socketed and Motorola never made an 80Mhz 68040 that was pin compatable with the 68030. (Along with an 80Mhz 68882 FPU.) IBM made a 486DLC2 that would plug into any 386 socket and run at 2x the speed of the 386, up to 80Mhz. They also made a companion FPU that ran at 2x bus speed. Such an upgraded 386 would easily beat a 486/66 which was 33Mhz x2 or even a 486/75 which was 25Mhz x3 and it would keep up with a 486/100 at 33Mhz x3. So much missed opportunity in the 68k CPU line, but Apple went for the PowerPC CPU. :) They might have done it had there been another large customer for the 68k line. IMHO, both Apple and Microsoft goofed when they decided to keep backwards software compatability at major changes in CPU. Apple should've gone 100% PPC when they went to the 601 and Microsoft should've gone full 32bit with a linear memory addressing scheme when the 80386 was released. It would've meant a major shakeup for both, but it would have been far easier to convert then because both companies had a far smaller user base than now. --- E McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 '90's). > > Win95 isn't what I'd call "optimal" on a 386. Early > 90s, DOS (DR-DOS, if > you can find it) and Windows 3.1, yes. (Or better > yet, if you don't mind > 93-94 as your timeframe, OS/2 2.1. Much more stable, > and I recall many of > my then-fellow OS/2'ers saying they preferred it > over a 486 with 3.1.) ===== http://www.junkscience.com "All the Junk that's fit to Debunk!" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com -- Vintage Macs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Enter To Win A | -- Canon PowerShot Digital Cameras start at $299 | Free iBook! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Vintage Macs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/vintagemacs.shtml> The FAQ: <http://macfaq.org/> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/vintage.macs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
