Rewrite "math co-processor" answer to make it more clear and readable.
Do we even run out-of-the-box on hardware without a math co-processor these days?
This commit is contained in:
parent
0f7077fafc
commit
d8250d6e27
Notes:
svn2git
2020-12-08 03:00:23 +00:00
svn path=/head/; revision=24539
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
|
@ -2262,16 +2262,16 @@ sectors/track: 63</screen>
|
|||
|
||||
<answer>
|
||||
<note>
|
||||
<para>This will only affect 386/486SX/486SLC owners - other
|
||||
machines will have one built into the CPU.</para>
|
||||
<para>This only affects 386/486SX/486SLC owners - other
|
||||
machines have one built into the CPU.</para>
|
||||
</note>
|
||||
|
||||
<para>In general this will not cause any problems, but there are
|
||||
<para>In general not having a math co-processor will not cause any problems, but there are
|
||||
circumstances where you will take a hit, either in performance
|
||||
or accuracy of the math emulation code (see the section <link
|
||||
linkend="emul">on FP emulation</link>). In particular, drawing
|
||||
arcs in X will be VERY slow. It is highly recommended that you
|
||||
buy a math co-processor; it is well worth it.</para>
|
||||
arcs in X will be VERY slow. We recommend
|
||||
purchasing a math co-processor or modern hardware.</para>
|
||||
|
||||
<note>
|
||||
<para>Some math co-processors are better than others. It
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue