From: nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) Subject: Re: Intel, the Pentium and Linux Date: 26 Apr 1993 20:51:41 -0500
willmore@iastate.edu (David Willmore) writes:
>nan@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Nan Zou) writes:
>>If I were considering future upgrades, I'd go with the Pentium route
>>also, not because of its technological advantages over the other RISC
>>chips, but because Linux runs on it. As nice as the Alpha and MIPS
>>chips are, I don't think their impacts will be too significant (compared
[...]
>The reason that I went with my 386/40 was that the price/performance couldn't
>be beat by any machine in my price range. If it weren't for Linux, I wouldn't
>even have considered it. Without a meaningful OS, the intel chips were just
>so much bent sand. OS/2, win, winNT and friends just don't cut it. If it's
>not Posix or better, it isn't worth using.
>My next machine won't be an Intel archetecture machine. The reasons are
>fairly clear in the market today. Very low priced RISC PC's are coming into
>being which are in my price range and can use the standard hardware (IDE
>drives, floppys, keyboards, vga cards, etc). The difference? They won't
>need someone to write a 'Linux' for them. They'll *come* with a good OS.
>They won't have to 'home grow' one.
The low price RISC PCs you mention (Alpha, R4000) are going to run
Windows NT, if you consider that a good OS, well...
-- Nan