Received: from e55.webcom.com (e55.webcom.com [206.2.192.66]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.5/8.7.5-MZ) with ESMTP id MAA25564 for <DWARNER@ALBANY.NET>; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:01:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by e55.webcom.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.15/16.2) id AA084337540; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:59:00 -0800
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:59:00 -0800
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Message-Id: <31518783.61CE@net1.net>
Errors-To: dwarner@ALBANY.NET
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: Robert Nederhorst <throb@Net1.Net>
To: lightwave@e55.webcom.com
Subject: Re: OFF-TOPIC: Processor upgrades
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
Justin Barrett wrote:
> Has anybody had experience with these CPU booster things? Do they perform
> as claimed, or are they too good to be true?
>
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no they do not perform as well as they
say they do. If you are looking for a quick fix, they are great; but
plugging a pentium style chip in a 486 socket is a problem, because the
pentium was designed around a 64 bit architecture, and the 486 is a 32
bit architecture. You can see why the massive performance increase that
manufacturers claim is not quite true. You will see a performance
increase, but it will (in my opinion) be good enough to justify the
cost. Save your hard earned money and get a pentium when you can.
Take care,
Rob
--
-= Robert Nederhorst =---= Webmaster =---= Network Systems Engineering
