Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!news From: smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: Math coprocessors --- basic info needed Summary: need more info Message-ID: <1990Dec8.183756.17223@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> Date: 8 Dec 90 18:37:56 GMT References: <27265.275d7c84@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1556@ftc.framentec.fr> <1990Dec8.122259.20246@ugle.unit.no> Sender: news@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC) Lines: 27 Nntp-Posting-Host: hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu In article <1990Dec8.122259.20246@ugle.unit.no> janeri@lise.unit.no writes: >So much for the complete compatibility of the Cyrix math coprocessors: >We have already (first attempt) found a 386 clone that the chip doesn't >work with. The fact was acknowledged by the dealer. >So please, everybody, try before you buy.... This might be misleading since you are not clear about who the dealer is. Are you talking about the dealer of the Cyrix chip, or the dealer of the 386 clone? The *tone* of this posting makes it look like Cyrix is at fault, but the way you *worded* it makes it look like the dealer refers to the 386 clone maker, and therefore *he* might be at fault for providing an incompatible motherboard (i.e., not using good industry standards). From all the literature I have read, I have not till now even heard a whisper about incompatibility with Cyrix's chips. In fact just last night a was reading a technical article in Byte about the 100% compatibility of these chips; the article went into detail about how many instruction sets were used, etc... Please clarify! S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / ,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC