From owner-freebsd-hardware Thu Apr 10 08:18:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA11760 for hardware-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from persprog.com (persprog.com [204.215.255.203]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA11749 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:18:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by persprog.com (8.7.5/4.10) id KAA22556; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:08:48 -0500 Received: from dave(192.2.2.6) by cerberus.ppi.com via smap (V1.3) id sma022553; Thu Apr 10 11:08:21 1997 Message-ID: <334D0264.BAD92424@persprog.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:08:20 -0400 From: Dave Alderman Reply-To: dave@persprog.com Organization: Personalized Programming, Inc X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b3 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Roome CC: hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pentuim or Pentuim Pro ? X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Stephen Roome wrote: > > Obviously getting a board that supports more cacheable memory is a good > idea, but assuming memory prices continue to drop then by the time I want > another 64MB of memory in both machines I should be able to get two new > (even better) motherboards as well for the same price as I would pay for > that 64MB now.. Well, that's all opinion, but it seems to make sense to > me. (Which means that it's probably wrong !) > > Steve Roome (underfunded) Your logic makes sense to me. I must claim some bias in this affair since I hate to be forced to do anything (like buy a motherboard that deliberately restricts your memory usage). -- It's not my fault! It's some guy named "General Protection"! --Ratbert David W. Alderman dave@persprog.com