Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wuarchive!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!sichermn
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Math coprocessors --- basic info needed
Message-ID: <1990Dec8.213324.25954@beach.csulb.edu>
Date: 8 Dec 90 21:33:24 GMT
References: <1556@ftc.framentec.fr> <1990Dec8.122259.20246@ugle.unit.no> <1990Dec8.183756.17223@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Lines: 20

In article <1990Dec8.183756.17223@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes:
>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).
>
   Also, has it been verified that a *real* intel math coprocessor
will work in this system. It may be the system's fault, not the
chip.

Jeff Sicherman