Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.programmer:172 alt.flame:21779 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!westworld.esd.sgi.com!erik From: erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer,alt.flame Subject: Re: Detecting an 80486 Message-ID: <10670@odin.corp.sgi.com> Date: 20 Jul 90 18:11:10 GMT References: <1990Jul19.025150.6150@looking.on.ca> <315@bally.Bally.COM> <1990Jul20.011633.1686@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com Reply-To: erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) Distribution: comp.os.msdos.programmer Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. Lines: 23 In article <1990Jul20.011633.1686@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >In article <315@bally.Bally.COM> you write: >>I spoke with an engineer at SCO (whose remains unnamed) who sadly >>told me that there was no way to tell an 80386 from an 80486. > >Had anyone at SCO bothered to read the Intel i486 Programmer's Reference, >they would have found several straightforward ways to tell the difference. >The Intel manual even gives sample code. > >>SCO wanted to market a higher-priced version of Xenix for 80486, but they >>could find no way to detect the difference. > >Sounds like it's just as well they couldn't figure out how. What a crock >that would have been. Come on! Give the SCO bashing a rest, will you. Now it's unsubstantiated rumors and snide asides. How low will you people go? -- Erik (erik@sgi.com)