Benchmarking a 486

[Beeblequix]

The thing that's funny and sad, Tojo, is that I'm looking to my right at a fully functioning 486 HP Vectra that I *unfortunately* have to use every single day. Over *there* is also a throwback, the Pentium 60 w/ win95. I actually hate the P60 more than the 486 (at least the 486 never crashes; p60, well, it has win95..)

I must work in the Paleozoic Computer Operations center...we still actually have two fully functional IBM 3240 reel-to-reel drives. These puppys are older than me (approaching 30). There are a few PentiumPro200s over under *that* table, doing their business. Behind me is a string of 3480 IBM tape drives, using 210 meg tapes. This is about 15 year old tech. The best part of these drives is the 8" Floppy disk & 'portable' drive used to interface with it....

Best thing that ever happened to us this year was the failing of the other 486. I complained for two weeks about it. Finally it died, and we were ALL in this department, blessed with new Pentium 4's with SDRAM and ATI Rage Pro 128 video cards!!!

But that's all that's needed in the finanical world....

[gibsinep]

Gen_Hideki_Tojo- If you are obsessed with a battleship why are you firing torpedoes?

As battleships did not have them.

[Disk11]

DON'T YOU GUYS GET IT AT ALL? THE 486 IS DEAD, DIED A LONG, LONG TIME AGO. NOBODY USES THEM ANYMORE. IT'S TIME TO GET BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS AND MOVE ON!! (486 sighted on starboard bow! Come right to course 0-3-0. Open torpedo tubes 1 and 2. Fire 1! Fire 2! Both fish hit the 486! She's going down!)

Dude, we all dont have the cash to keep up with new technology like you do. I still have a p1 233 and a pentium pro i still use. They really don't care what you say because all you do is complain and put people down. If you dont have anything constructive to say, keep it to yourself.

[gibsinep]

Anyway, you have a nice computer, but you most likely have a lot of trouble using it.

[Slade54]

You, Tojo, obviuosly never had a 486

If you did, you would relate to what we are all talking about here!!

O man, the memories of the 486, now those where the good days (and for me, thats like back in 96-98!im not old enough to really have appreciated it when it first came out *sigh* why do i only have to be 16!o well)

Still got one hooked up and works in my bed room!

Never know when ill get the hankering to go out and kill some nazis!! woohoo!

And that happened only last week. hehe

And one more thing Tojo, dont be such a party pooper!

[causticVapor]

In the late 1980's and early 1990's our personal system was an 8088 hand-me-down with an orange-text monitor... I remember playing 2d golf games on it and funnels&buckets... LOL I was only 5 yrs old at the time...

In '91 we got the dell comp, a 486D/25 with a 4MB of EDO SIMM, 14" monitor, and a 120MB HDD. I remember passing through the ages with this system, first with win31, then 311, then 95, 98, and now finally 98se. It has gone through several upgrades, including:

A new controller card with 6GB and 2GB caviars (the onboard could only see 512MB)
Two sound blaster cards (the first one we got in 95 only supported 8-bit)
Graphics (From an integrated one w/1MB VRAM to a speedstar with 2MB)
CD (From none to a 32x)
Floppy (from one 5.25-inch bay to a combo)
CPU (from an SX/25 to a DX4/100 to a 5x86/133 (which in some cases is slower than the DX4/100 )
Modem (from none to 14.4 external to a 56k internal)
RAM (4mb to 8mb to 64MB).. if anybody wants some 4mb and 8mb simms, I've got them.
NIC (from none to a 10baseT/10base5)

I started doing hardcore VBScript and such when about 11 and have never stopped.. I remember notepad being the only application that would actually run with fluidity. Utilizing activeX controls and such in web pages, combined with special effects, meant some bogging down but not much. My programming took HOURS upon HOURS because of the sluggishness associated with it, something tojo would never realize. The thing is so optimized though that it performs better than some P-90s and P-133s out there.

[list=1][*] has been used heavily in the last decade, though not so much in the last few months[*]never crashes[*]Slows but never really gets super-loaded[*]Has never skipped a beat[/list=1]

USNF/MF, Airpower and A-10 Cuba! would play fine, though USNF only at 320x200... those were the days when directx (5.1) was slow on older systems and most serious games still ran in real mode

After having to live with this for a decade, I finally got a K6-2 system handed down from somebody and then garnered up funds to get an up-to-date system.

It's an experience that you have to live with to really understand, Tojo.

[Someone Stupid]

I foundly remember those expensive upgrades. The 8 megs of EDO, the 2 meg 2D accelerator (not that expensive, but still wasn't cheap), the 40 megabyte harddrive, and of course, the massive upgrade from a 386 SX to a 486 SX. I remember when Wing Commander was a best seller, Doom was considered revolutional, X-Wing was considered phenominal for it's use of 3D graphics, running Duke Nukem 3D in a very small screen (remember the days we could adjust screen size by filling it up with some static graphic? ), the Ultima series for it's extensive size and immersionability, Dark Forces for the Star Wars fan in me, and last but not least, Liesure Suit Larry.

[causticVapor]

I believe Chex Quest, which was based off the Doom engine, could have the screen resized to sub-320x200 res, LOL, and the surrounding area of the screen would be fillled with a gray bitmap... those were the days. Fortunately, my 486 could do it in fullscreen with no probs

I hear you... 4MB of EDO cost $64 back in '92... 16MB like $300... and in 1987 $3000

I remember a man with a 386/33; the entire system cost him $4000 in 1989

How times have changed

[Gen_Hideki_Tojo]

Battleships do have torpedoes. In fact, during WWII, when HMS King George V (a British battleship) found out that the Bismarck (a German super-battleship) was burning but was not going to sink, the commander of the King George had his battleship's bow face toward the Bismarck and ordered that fishes (probably from 1,500 feet) be fired until she, the Bismarck, went down.

[gibsinep]

It was the Dorsetshire that sank it with torpedoes. The Dorsetshire was a Cruiser.



The Dorsetshire was later sunk by Japanese dive bombers, Indian Ocean, 42/04/05

[Gen_Hideki_Tojo]

Many German U-boats have crossed the Indian Ocean and docked at Hiroshima Bay alongside the four doomed Japanese carriers (Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, and Akagi).

[Someone Stupid]

I love how he just ignores that he was proven wrong, doesn't even acknowledge it. I want to put him on my ignore list, but he's so bloody amusing with his niativity.

[gibsinep]

Many German U-boats have crossed the Indian Ocean and docked at Hiroshima Bay alongside the four doomed Japanese carriers (Hiryu, Soryu, Kaga, and Akagi).

Can't stand being wrong huh?

It's ok everyone makes some mistakes

[Someone Stupid]

On another note, battleships and cruisers that had torpedoes didn't have them bow mounted, they were mounted above the water line and launched into the ocean from either the port or starboard side. Submarines were the only vessels of that time to have torpedo tubes which fired under water. There were a few rare cruisers that fielded experimental versions of front launching torpedo tubes, but they rarely if ever were used in combat (I know of no instance in which they were) as a battleship, cruiser, or destroyer would have to bring it's side to bear to fire all of it's weapons. If it didn't it presented itself as just as large a target with the enemies guns having more depth leewy to hit the ship than width leeway if it brought all it's guns to bear. It is also easier to hit a ship from the depth perspective than width, as you have to get the cannon aimed at a very small portion of space disatnce wise, while the other way around you can overshoot some and still hit.

The only reason a battleship would face directly at another battleship is to reduce rocking (thus increasing accuracy). Since the Bismark was crippled due to rudder damage by a torpedo dropped from a plane, it couldn't change it's course, (and IIRC one of it's turrets was already down and out) and had already taken extensive damage. The battleship was basically firing at the heavily armored bismark to hit it constantly not to sink it, but to provide some form of covering fire for the cruisers which approached the Bismark to get into torpedo range. As if the ship is being barraged, it can't fire back with any respectable amount of accuracy nor can it open the hatches to fire torpedos due to the obvious fact that a shell explosion near an open torpedo port would cause serious damage to that section of the ship. They knew this all too well, as that was how they sunk England's flagship, they hit the torpedo tube hatch (even though it was closed, it wasn't armored well enough). The German's knew about the vulnerability of the weapons system before that, thus their hatches were well armored. Opening one up would be stupid when under heavy accurate fire.

EDIT: The bow mounted torpedoes never truly made it into the atlantic campaign to my knowledge, I'm not sure if a few japanese battleships had them due to their sheer size, they very well could have.

[gibsinep]

Someone Stupid= good info,

I also don't think than any Atlantic battleships had torpedoes or even any ww2 battleships.

I am pretty sure that torpedoes were many on destroyers and crusiers. ( plus the smaller vessals like PT boats.)]

But I may be wrong