Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!math.fu-berlin.de!unido!rwthinf!slcdec!hippo!f1.n6000.z2.fidonet.org!f6.n3601.z1.fidonet.org!James_Bell From: James_Bell@f6.n3601.z1.fidonet.org (James Bell) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms.programmer Subject: Re: 486sx Message-ID: Date: 9 May 91 19:51:06 GMT Reply-To: James_Bell%f6.n3601.z1@hippo.dfv.rwth-aachen.de (James Bell) Organization: Bo knows Windows? 0ubliette BBS - HST/DS - Lines: 16 Comment-To: Morrie_Wilson@f1.n6000.z2.fidonet.org (Morrie Wilson) > Intel came up with the neat idea of being able to disable the > co-processor and sell the result as a 486sx. Yeesh! That sounds good ol' Intel to me! > In actuality, the co-processor does not lend a whole lot of speed to Yeah, I've heard that the future "487" + 486sx combo will be considerably slower than the standard 486. Have you heard what ever happened to the 386sl? I understood it was to be a low-power 386 with a cache and a true "sleep-mode". Isn't that almost exactly the same as a 486sx (but no sleep-mode) ? JB Curiouser and curiouser