Re: WIN95-16 OR 32?



NobodyMan
07-10-2005, 12:21 AM
On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:04:21 -0600, DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
wrote:

>In message <8F09BC96-572D-430B-9DD0-D677C1D98C4D@microsoft.com>
>"okeefe58" <okeefe58@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>386 and 486 were 32 bit? thanx for the info all
>
>Yes indeed.

Didn't the 386 read two 16 bit chunks to get 32 bits, process, then
spit it out again in two 16 bit chunks? I could be wrong.

Tim Slattery
07-10-2005, 12:21 AM
NobodyMan <none@none.net> wrote:

>Didn't the 386 read two 16 bit chunks to get 32 bits, process, then
>spit it out again in two 16 bit chunks? I could be wrong.

I think you're thinking about the 386sx (I think that was the suffix).
Kind of a hybrid beast, it was a 32bit 386 processor that could sit on
a 16bit system bus. The normal version was the 386DX, a fully 32-bit
machine.

The 386 was the last generation that didn't include a built-in
floating point unit. You could buy a 387FPU as an extra.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov

Detlev Dreyer
07-10-2005, 12:21 AM
Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:

> The 386 was the last generation that didn't include a built-in
> floating point unit.

Yes and no, Tim. I had a 486-SX w/o FPU at that time. The 486-DX CPU
had a built-in FPU. http://lowendpc.com/tech/486.shtml (excerpt)

| As with the earlier 386 family, Intel released a lower cost version
| of the 486 and dubbed it 486 SX. The 486 SX was deliberately crippled
| by disabling the FPU,

--
d-d

Torgeir Bakken \(MVP\)
07-10-2005, 12:22 AM
NobodyMan wrote:

> On Tue, 10 May 2005 07:04:21 -0600, DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In message <8F09BC96-572D-430B-9DD0-D677C1D98C4D@microsoft.com>
>>"okeefe58" <okeefe58@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>386 and 486 were 32 bit? thanx for the info all
>>
>>Yes indeed.
>
>
> Didn't the 386 read two 16 bit chunks to get 32 bits, process, then
> spit it out again in two 16 bit chunks? I could be wrong.
Hi,

That would be 386SX, it had a 16-bit data bus. 386DX had a 32-bit
data bus.


--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/default.mspx

Tim Slattery
07-10-2005, 12:22 AM
"Detlev Dreyer" <detdreyer@flashmail.com> wrote:

>Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:
>
>> The 386 was the last generation that didn't include a built-in
>> floating point unit.
>
>Yes and no, Tim. I had a 486-SX w/o FPU at that time. The 486-DX CPU
>had a built-in FPU. http://lowendpc.com/tech/486.shtml (excerpt)
>
>| As with the earlier 386 family, Intel released a lower cost version
>| of the 486 and dubbed it 486 SX. The 486 SX was deliberately crippled
>| by disabling the FPU,

Oh yeah, you're right. But the 486SX /487 was quite different from the
386/387 and 286/287 processors. The 486DX included a floating point
processor. The 486SX was a cheaper version that was a *complete* 486
chip with the floating point unit disabled. They simply turned it off!

The idea was that you would then buy a 487 chip to complete it. But
the 487 was another complete, fully-functional 486 chip. You'd plug it
in to a second socket on the motherboard, and it would take over *all*
duties from the 486SX. So now you've got a 486SX chip doing nothing,
so you could stick it in another motherboard, and build another
computer around it, right? Wrong! The motherboards were made so that
the 487 chip would not function if the idle, useless 486SX was not
plugged in. Doing absolutely nothing, but plugged in.

Intel thought this was a nifty way to sell more CPUs. Many of us
differed.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov

Detlev Dreyer
07-10-2005, 12:22 AM
Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:

> The idea was that you would then buy a 487 chip to complete it. But
> the 487 was another complete, fully-functional 486 chip. You'd plug it
> in to a second socket on the motherboard, and it would take over *all*
> duties from the 486SX. So now you've got a 486SX chip doing nothing,
> so you could stick it in another motherboard, and build another
> computer around it, right? Wrong! The motherboards were made so that
> the 487 chip would not function if the idle, useless 486SX was not
> plugged in. Doing absolutely nothing, but plugged in.

You're absolutely correct. Since the first 486 CPUs came as 486-SX in
Germany only, I had no choice at that time. The 487 FPU was offered
for approx. 500 USD, depending on the currency exchange rate. That's
why I gave up the idea to "complete" the system and I'm positive that
this was a good idea. ;)

--
d-d


Re: WIN95-16 OR 32?