home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!ergo
- From: ergo@netcom.com (Isaac Rabinovitch)
- Subject: Re: DOES A 387 HELP WIN/3.1?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.004615.20098@netcom.com>
- Organization: UESPA
- References: <1992Dec22.194817.25666@kodak.kodak.com> <1992Dec28.185555.16798@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:46:15 GMT
- Lines: 35
-
- In <1992Dec28.185555.16798@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
-
- >In <1992Dec22.194817.25666@kodak.kodak.com> thomas@acadia.Kodak.COM (Thomas Kinsman) writes:
-
-
-
- >> "A Friend" told me that an 80387 would help Windows/3.1 run faster
- >> because there are a lot of floating point calculations involved.
-
- >> Can anyone verify this?
-
- >No, because it isn't true. A math coprocessor will do absolutely
- >nothing to improve Windows performance.
-
- *Almost* true. If a Windows program does no intense floating point
- and relies on the Windows Graphic Device Interface for all its
- graphics calculation, an 80387 will have no effect. Graphics output
- requires a lot of number crunching, but the GDI manages to do it
- entirely with integer instructions. But most programmers aren't as
- good at this sort of thing as are the GDI's creators, so they just
- rely on floating point. I don't know about any of the heavy drawing
- software, but I've played with that stupid "Manniquin" 3-d modeling
- program, and it's totally unusuable without a math chip (with one,
- it's merely as slow as molasses).
-
- The bottom line is this: check the system requirements for the
- program that you hope will speed up. If it doesn't say "math
- coprocessor recommended", then a 387 is probably a bad bet.
- --
-
- ergo@netcom.com Isaac Rabinovitch
- {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo Santa Cruz, CA
-
- Abstinence makes the heart grow rounder.
- -- Prescot Gooberstein
-