Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why need more than 486-dx2-66?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 7, 2001 10:17:48 AM

People: Question ..
Why the hell do we need more than our trusty 486-dx2-66?
with 16 mb, and an sb32-with 8 mb, 8 gb hd, and some Tseng e6000 with 4 mb... now those were the days, and why do we need more? Games ? well i know different CAD and graphic designer do need the power but other than that and games ?
why the hell do we need it ?

About games that need power more and more,
I've seen a demo that was coded by some demo group (can't remember which) that ran a 3d demo on an XT.

So all you need is to optimize it and write it smart.

I've seen a 4095 Bytes demo of a DESCENT engine , that showed a complete flight .. thath only 4K!

I bet this stuff would work on some crummy ol 286...

Why because Winblows demands it ?
remeber win 1.01 now that was a GUI with only using 64k ram!

since than M$ spolied it ... Winblows is poorly written...

and games ..god... since Unreal, i havn't seen a discent game no game ,, so buy a powerfull computer for crappy games ?

well that's my opinion at least..

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>

More about : 486 dx2

January 7, 2001 1:16:57 PM

CAD and GAMES are all we do anyways. That's why ;) 
January 7, 2001 1:18:30 PM

Games, games, games.
I wasn't aware you could use your computer for anything else.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2001 2:14:53 PM

You said it. Games. But also, we have to keep up with bloatware like Office 2000 (it's not just M$ who are guilty however). I find that it's a much better experience running anything on a faster PC.

Also, I do quite large amounts of maths on my PC using computer algebra packages - and they certainly run faster on 1GHz than 100MHz.

Some of the databases I use are over 10MB, for example customer records, etc. With only 16MB (like some of the really old PCs at work) these feel really tired, cos the hard drive is being used as memory (with a huge performance downer). Stuff that I scan simply won't fit into 16MB, for example 5000 pixels by 5000 pixels in 36-bit colour (which is a pretty small image these days) is well over 100MB uncompressed (no not even JPEG can compress that much!). When you're working on a couple of these, cutting and pasting, and applying filters etc, 128MB or 256MB feels much more comfortable.

Lastly, With a 60GB hard drive, I can give 40GB to Win and 20GB to Linux. You may say the OSes are bloated, and I agree, but with a large hard drive you can have any number of systems running together.
January 7, 2001 3:33:28 PM

There are some applications that need all that power , like MP3 playing, software based wawetable cynth, e.t.c.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2001 4:18:17 PM

Games, video editing, mpeg1-4, internet, cad, mp3s, cd burning, office apps, the ability to use more and more sensitive and more feature rich peripherals(i.e. video cameras(firewire), optical mice(need usb), Feedback joysticks)), super rich graphics(lots of huge, super detailed textures), dolby surround sound 5.1, etc. etc. etc.

it's called innovation, sort of what makes the world go round. You need a little imagination to see where it is all going and why we are getting more and more powerful computers.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2001 6:36:12 PM

Microsoft, Microsoft, Bloatware all the way.......

oh, and games :) 
January 7, 2001 8:26:29 PM

What the hell are you talking about? I run Windows 3.1 on my T-bird. I play all my games in DOS 6.22. I use memmaker to optimize all my memory- all 256 megs of it. =) Just kidding.

-MP Jesse
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 7, 2001 11:45:24 PM

Those were the days, when you'd use every trick you could to free up the 640k :) 

I was satisfied with 624k - could run pretty much any DOS game with that and plenty of XMS free :) 
January 8, 2001 1:09:21 AM

LOL. It used to be SUCH a pain in the ass to get all 640K too. I remember when games were pushing the limit of using conventional memory in DOS- like Dark Forces, Doom 2, and Tie Fighter. Damn things wouldn't run if it didn't have almost all of the conv. memory. What a pain in the ass. Thank god for windows- in that aspect anyways. =)

-MP Jesse
January 8, 2001 5:08:03 AM

what you call pain.

I call fun, I remeber sitting hours just to free that one more K . now that was fun! more than games.

I like DOS , liked a litlle the win 3.11 , hate win95!

Dos is better...


<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2001 7:07:03 AM

With that argument, we would all be driving around in Model T Fords, Try playing Project ICI on a 486
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2001 7:49:26 AM

What about Unreal Tournament I reckon that's pretty smart and it looks sex in 1280x1024....... but you are right we don't need half of this hardware but it is fun to have.....

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2001 11:56:37 AM

Perhaps the true people who needs such powerful hardwares are innovators, scientist, doctors and engineers

ie, people that made the CPU, chips

ie, engineer that uses maths so intensive requires a 1Ghz system running for a week.

ie, scientist to decone space man :) 

Although what ever they do can be optimised, but before that day, you have to simply rely to what ever you have.

So far humans have not invented formula that could be so accurate and efficient that could replace the matrix etc.

computer simulation on a flat panel loudspeaker, not yet in full detail already takes a Dual P2-333 over 24 hours. of course it is on a dual CPU supported OS and the program that was used to calculate the stuff is written specifically to use dual CPU etc.

Best regards
cx5
January 8, 2001 3:20:36 PM

well some froms of linux only need a 386.

ABIT BP6 + ATI RADEON 32MB DDR RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 8, 2001 4:04:30 PM

the inital poster is right in some respect though, and if you haven't seen the Assembly 4k demos (I was lucky enough to see them:) , you don't have a clue of what we're talking about... I simply couldn't believe my eyes. I spent hours trying to see if they're linking to some larger files somewhere, even booted off the floppy... those are some tight code optimizations -- everything in assembler, self-modifying code, etc. If those guys made games, Unreal would fit on couple of floppies for sure... you can bet on that:)  :smile:

nothing is optimized today, people writing games these days license the engine, which is written in development environment, which is written in visual something or the other, which is then written in C++ or something, which is then maybe written in assembler... way, way too high-level programming.
Theoretically, that high-level machine-independent programming should bring
1- speed of development and
2- reliable, hardware-independent performance.
*Hah!*
It still takes them years for game development, and then we have to mess with the drivers ourselves, reinstall hardware and software etc...

the whole industry is going down the drains, that's whay I say! :)  :smile:

/end rant;
anyhoo... what I'm saying is progress doesn't mean these things can't still be optimized up the wazoo... we could all write better code... we just don't bother when Ahtlons and P4s are here:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2001 4:46:31 PM

Try running Gnome on a 386 + 2MB. It stinks. Sure, Linux on a 386 is fine as a cheap mailserver (I use one myself) but if you want to do all those things that are just better in Linux - like 3D drawing, CAD, mathematical packages, software development, etc, then you'll need a little more IMHO.

It's true ASM code is tighter - but faster processors mean that software doesn't need to be written with so much care. This has opened the software world to millions of individuals rather than huge companies who are prepared to spend hours debugging binary code.

I wonder if all the (very good) freeware available today written in VB, C++, Delphi, etc, would be around if you had to write everything in ASM? I certainly don't think so. Would there be huge numbers of software houses producing competitive products? No. (OK, I get what you're thinking - M$, but they'll be gone in 5 years tops thanks to the DOJ).

Also, I'd like to see someone video conferencing over a gigabits network in 800x600 using a 486...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2001 5:15:07 PM

if you were creative enough, you didn't need Windows anyway on a gmaes machine ;) 

Just for the record, I have never used memmaker, I'd play with emm386 and all that stuff without getting some program to do it for me :) 

These days I don't even use a DOS based OS (viva la Windows NT 4.0!)
January 8, 2001 5:22:58 PM

I still have dosprompt shortcutted to ctrl-alt-d... use it at least once per session (i.e. daily at least) :smile:

some things are just easier, and old habits die hard:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2001 5:26:28 PM

I can do a lot of things so much more quickly with a DOS prompt than using explorer. Comes from being brought up on DOS/Win3.1 when everybody else was getting Win95 (Dec. 95). In hindsight Iam glad I started off with it :) 
January 8, 2001 5:44:18 PM

how would you mass-rename in windows?
ren *.exe *.bak -- no idea if that's even doable in explorer etc..

and so many things like that...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 8, 2001 5:47:31 PM

You need 3rd party tools for something that simple, it is annoying isnn't it? :) 
January 8, 2001 8:03:35 PM

If a Model T is a 486 then we're just driving Model T Hotrods. There isn't that much innovation in current P3s and Athlons.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2001 3:07:49 AM

About 10 years ago, a friend of mine plunked down a tremendous amount of money for a 486sx-25 that was often slower than my 386dx-40. Ah, the sweet days of yesteryear.

Actually I think the difference is more like model T's to F1 racecars. But perhaps it is true that we shouldn't settle for wheeled vehicles at all, any longer. Maybe we should wait for the rocketships...

Tom Mc

Even a fool, when he remains silent, appears wise.
January 9, 2001 4:48:45 AM

I know what 4k demos you are talking about, i've seen most of them and there are 64k compos, and names like future crew or skaven, trust me i've seen in 4k a full 3d world and flying trough it with sound ! i collect those :)  and love those they are the best!


<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 9, 2001 10:44:34 AM

Hey, as a hobby electronic musician i must add the that all audio applications need much cpu - speed and ram and a fast hd. esp. wave editing and sequencing....
January 10, 2001 11:59:13 AM

Cant al of that be done on a 486 66 ?

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2001 2:10:36 PM

if anyone knows the answer be sure to let me know i have a 486 dx2 lying around ... so .. i can sell my other system then (p3 600 256mb ram)..

lol

Hey man i dont know .. i just think i do !!
January 10, 2001 2:29:59 PM

>> i have a 486 dx2 lying around

let face it, people did superb complex audio-video editing on Amiga2000s, for a long, long time... sure you need $12,000 worth of equipment (toasters, vcrs, memory, etc), but its ALL still governed by a trusty old Motorola at 20Mhz or so...
so if you have $12,000 lying around somewhere, you can make EXCELLENT use of your old computer:) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 10, 2001 2:58:37 PM

no...sample editing needs much ram + cpu power. some softsynth´s even more!!!! (reactor)!!!
January 16, 2001 5:21:51 AM

Ahh so we need an Amiga, with 20 mhz!

now thats power!

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
January 16, 2001 8:27:01 PM

If anybody gets this, I need to know the minimum hardware for Windows98. I am being asked to install Windows on a 386 but Im pretty sure it aint gonna work. Any feedback?

If at first you don't succede, skydiving isn't for you.
<font color=blue>Intel Inside</font color=blue> = Idiot Outside
January 16, 2001 8:34:34 PM

386 can only use Windows 3.1. You might be able to get Win95 on it, but I highly doubt it. Windows98+ is out of the question.....
January 17, 2001 5:19:51 AM

My experience is that Win9x will run on a 386DX but I don't think it'll run on an SX.

BTW: I find 98 will run on more older stuff then 95 will and it's faster too

- JW
January 17, 2001 8:27:08 AM

I ran windows 95 on 386 dx with 4 mb ram, it worked
slow as hell but worked.

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2001 8:54:54 AM

Even if it does go on and run what areyou going ot do with it, you will have to boot it up 3 weeks in advance.... :) 

M

one of the first UK T-Bird users....
January 17, 2001 11:23:22 AM

Do you have issues with change? I know you are intitled to your opinion. But what about our own advancements? If we still had the old 486's now where would we be as a society. Most of the things that have come about have driven prices down a lot. I remember when I bought my first CPU and RAM... :)  I got a hell of a deal for 16MB only about $165. Now even if you figure inflation in 16MB of ram is $10, it costs more to ship it. That is just an example. Look at the big picture and what it has enabled many PC users to do. Like graphic artists and print shops etc.
January 17, 2001 11:24:42 AM

I have used win98 on a 386 but load it up with as much ram as it can take
-=-Sean-=-
PS: the min. req.'s are 386 anyway
January 17, 2001 1:59:02 PM

With a 486 we can do alot of stuff,even with a 386
people used to do stuff with even slower PCs, I do know that
3d rendereing on a 486 of a sceene will take so long, but those applications require alot of math, thats why there
are multiple processors boards, and if written correctly I think any 3d rendering software will work just fine with a 486-dx2-66.

Do u know what I really miss, the MODS,S3m,it,xm and not those mp3 craps!
ah, ASM is greate, C is greate too, not those Basic,Java stuff Visual Stupid products.

Well I guess what was ,was time to move on!

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
January 18, 2001 1:35:43 PM

I think the max ram on 386 is 32 mb (though 386 can access
4 GB of ram! 32bit ).

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
January 22, 2001 1:21:43 PM

I bought my first 386-dx40 when ram prices were 100$ a Meg
i bought 4 megs...

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
January 22, 2001 2:53:16 PM

I have 486DX2/66 (AMD) with 32Mb RAM running Win2k Pro... next thing I try is booting W2k with 16Mb RAM. Just want to see how _SLOW_ can one OS be. I have working 286/12Mhz with 1Mb of RAM, too (running Minix 2.0)...
January 23, 2001 5:27:53 AM

Minix ?
IS that some kind of unix, where can i get it ?
I have some 286-12 with 4 mb ram, and want to use it.

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
January 23, 2001 8:29:48 PM

I smashed my 286
January 24, 2001 1:39:41 AM

I think thats the same processor my TI calculator uses, hehe. And I saw a Compaq PDA at my school playing DOOM. Kinda made me laugh, I used to play it on my old 486 and now it can be played faster on sometihng about 2 times the size of the 486 chip, lol

If at first you don't succede, skydiving isn't for you.
<font color=blue>Intel Inside</font color=blue> = Idiot Outside
January 24, 2001 8:36:02 PM

LOL! The motherboard in my 286 was like 2' by 1.5' ROFLMAO!
January 24, 2001 9:48:26 PM

that would truly make a MOTHERboard, heheheheh, get it cause its so big, hahahahaha

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you.
<font color=blue>Intel Inside</font color=blue> = Idiot Outside
June 28, 2001 1:11:12 PM

Remember this post?

well I now have assembled at home a 486 and a 286 and will be running some stuff and see If I'll need something better than 486. :lol: 

<b>-----------------------</b>
-<font color=red><b>R.K.</b></font color=red>
June 28, 2001 2:45:12 PM

Games And 3D Graphics and Audio processing Will need immense amount of computing power, no matter what! Its just that, anything they can do in a 286, they'll do better in a P3/Athlon.

Game engines aren't usually developed using the optimisations in visual Development Environments. It is probably developed in those things, because they help a lot in debugging and spotting different things in the code. But, they are usually hand optimised. Quake 3 is written in C I think. I don't think its in C++.

You can tell who makes all their games in Visual environments like VC++ and just presses F7 to compile and then puts it in a box to sell. Its the same people that are complaining because the GF3 Programmable shaders have to be used via its assembler code.

What amazes me is Windows and Office needing the amount of resorces they do. I used to have Word 2 which came in two disks I think. I was surprised How much more Office 6 needed. Office 95 was almost exactly the same as 6, but needs almost twice of every resource. Why the Hell Should Windows 98 need so much more resources than Windows CE?


<font color=red><i>Tomorrow I will live, the fool does say
today itself's too late; the wise lived yesterday
!