Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!dftsrv!oneel From: oneel@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov ( Bruce Oneel ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware Subject: Re: 486SX - Intel now telling lies Message-ID: Date: 30 May 91 13:51:03 GMT References: <9105241448.AA14412@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> <1991May25.192449.27061@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991May29.191233.18863@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991May29.212337.7684@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> Sender: news@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov Organization: STX/GSFC Nasa Lines: 13 In-reply-to: kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov's message of 29 May 91 21:23:37 GMT What follows are guesses, and probably not good ones at that. A guess would be that the FPU adds quite a bit of complexity to the chip and causes a number of chips to be rejected on QC. If you produce a version which has the FPU disabled, you can use the same chip masks as the regular chips and if the FPU fails then it becomes a 486sx. The different packages are just marketing, of course. But remember, INTEL has always been good at marketing... How else would we have bought the 8088, the 8086, and the '286.... bruce -- Bruce O'Neel oneel@heasfs.gsfc.nasa.gov NASA/GSFC/STX/Code 664