Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ssingh
From: ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu ($anjay "lock-on" $ingh - Indy Studies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 386SX vs 386DX
Message-ID: <1402@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 90 03:56:18 GMT
References: <1990Feb8.223250.17994@aucs.uucp> <101@penrij.LS.COM> <572@auvax.AthabascaU.CA>
Reply-To: ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu ($anjay "lock-on" $ingh - Indy Studies)
Distribution: na
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 21

In article <572@auvax.AthabascaU.CA> kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) writes:
>In article <101@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes:
>>	to "fix" the chip and break someone's system (see i486 and
>>	the EISA bus-  Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt
>>	the EISA manufacturers).
>
>Will EISA bus be hampered by the 486 "fixes"?
>
If this is true, it's an underhanded move by Intel. As for Intel's attempt to
smother the market with the SX chip, sales for the SXs are indeed going up-
at the expense of low end DX systems.

Does anyone know anything about a dispute between Intel and Advanced Micro
Devices over a license for the 386 chip?


-- 
"No one had the guts... uunnttiill nnooww..."  
|-$anjay "lock [+] on" $ingh	ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu	N.A.R.C. ]I[-|
"A modern-day warrior, mean mean stride, today's Tom Sawyer, mean mean pride."
!being!mind!self!cogsci!AI!think!nerve!parallel!cybernetix!chaos!fractal!info!