VOGONS

Search

Common searches

How did the 80x86DX help MS Excel or dBase

Topic actions

First post, by serialShinobi

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hello. When the x86DX distinction was made, did spread sheet programs or data base programs immediately benefit?

Or did the actual source (for dBase or XL) have to be changed to include support for the newly available hardware functions?

Kind of like, for example the changes that needed to be made after 64 - bit CPUs became available. Or when single core applications needed to be rewritten to include parallel processing.

I understand with pipelining software publishers had to rewrite.

Was it like that when the 386 DX came out?

Was wondering if parts of a Windows OS like FAT16 or disk I/O or WinG ever had to be amended to benefit from the x86DX/improved math functions.

Reply 1 of 5, by debs3759

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I think you're confused. The difference between the 386SX and 386DX is the external data path. The 486DX added the FPU to the 486SX (or rather, the SX was a DX with FPU disabled, in most cases). I guess you're talking about the 486DX?

I would think those apps always used the FPU, which, prior to the 486, was a separate chip or required emulation.

See my graphics card database at www.gpuzoo.com
Constantly being worked on. Feel free to message me with any corrections or details of cards you would like me to research and add.

Reply 2 of 5, by gerry

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

i think applications were written to target to a modest and minimal set of hardware and sometimes had branching code to take advantage where certain capabilities exist (like an fpu)

not sure on XL and dbase though, would be interesting to see full source for some of the late 80's / early 90's 'office software'

Reply 3 of 5, by Grzyb

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Spreadsheets definitely did use FPU, and I suspect they were the #1 reason to purchase one - Lotus 1-2-3 was immensely popular, and gained a lot from FPU.
I don't know about databases.
Windows... probably not? - Windows 3.0/3.1/3.11 FPU Usage

Nie tylko, jak widzicie, w tym trudność, że nie zdołacie wejść na moją górę, lecz i w tym, że ja do was cały zejść nie mogę, gdyż schodząc, gubię po drodze to, co miałem donieść.

Reply 4 of 5, by serialShinobi

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I never had those thoughts, that if you were using spread sheets then you should get a 486DX. I also didn't consider that math coprocessors (those connecting externally) were important for spreadsheet performance. I have had so many new ideas today.

Reply 5 of 5, by Unknown_K

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I had a 386DX40 setup with 16MB of RAM running Windows 3.1 and the IIt math coprocessor I added made Excel run quite a bit faster crunching spreadsheets.

When I started collecting, I snagged an early 486DX33 ISA board just because it had a Weitek socket and then snagged a 25mhz chip for it. From my understanding a Weitek was faster than a 486DX up until the DX66came out.

Collector of old computers, hardware, and software

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Back to General Old Hardware
Close window
Close window