Date: 2023-11-22 08:58 pm (UTC)
lovingboth: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lovingboth
Hmm, should 'calling them the 486DX' be 'calling them the 486SX'?

My memories of the 386 include..

.. the way that many of the first ones had a bug that made the Pentium division one look trivial: they couldn't do integer 32-bit multiply correctly!?! Intel sold them anyway as '16-bit' versions - I had a s/h PC from someone on cix with one - and Windows looked out for the bug, at least until Windows 3.x.

.. someone (Phil Katz of zip archive fame?) discovering that the reason their 32-bit code didn't work was that Novell's NetWare386 didn't bother to save the upper 16 bits of the registers it used. Any other program using 32-bit registers could/would get the upper half of the registers trashed at random.

.. the popularity with corner-cutting manufacturers of 'write through'-labelled 'cache RAM' chips that did absolutely nothing. Early Amstrad 386 systems had them, but they were far from the only ones.

The 486 motherboard I got from a Computer Shopper show stayed as the heart of my main PC for ages, having an Intel 486DX/33, at least one Cyrix clone, and at least one Am5x86 as its CPU over the years, ending up with 48 MB of RAM - 4x4MB 30 pin SIMMs and 4x8MB 72 pin SIMMS. I still have one of the later CPUs as a beard comb, but because of how the heatsink is attached, I'm not sure which one!

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    12 3
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 19th, 2025 03:44 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios