HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: terryfry@access.digex.com (Terry Fry)
Subject: Re: "586" rumours?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 04:37:02 GMT

In article <MKAHN.92Aug11144300@hopi.sedona.intel.com> mkahn@hopi.sedona.intel.com (Mitch Kahn) writes:
>] Yes, I can.  The 386SX is a little slower than the 286 when executing
>] some code at the same clock speed.  It's certainly no faster.  Now, I
>] wonder why the 386SX is selling *a little bit* faster than the 286?
>
>Huh? You aren't talking about a 386SX in *virtual 86" mode are you??

There are several instructions that will execute faster on a 286 than a 386.

I think one of those is MOVS, but I can't be sure.
From: rwmj@st-andrews.ac.uk (Richard William Martin Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Book on 386 asm needed (or FAQ?)
Keywords: 386 assembler
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:37:36 GMT
Organization: Virtual Soc., St. Andrews University, Scotland.

Hi,
	Can anyone recommend a good technical book on 386 assembler
languages for someone who already has a working knowledge of 8086
programming? I don't really want a beginner's book, but something which
will go into detail on subjects such as 32-bit extensions, protected mode
programming and timing considerations.

	Is there a FAQ for this group? Can someone mail it to me if
there is.

	Thanks,

	Richard Jones

-- 
 ###  ##  ###  ##     | Richard W.M. Jones    | Pop is to music what etch-a-
## ## ## ## ## #####  | rwmj@st-andrews.ac.uk | sketch is to art.
##    ## ##    ##  ## | rwj@cxa.dl.ac.uk       ------------------------------
##    ##  ###  ##  ## | 8 Chapel Close, Comberbach, Northwich, CW9 6BA.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer)
Subject:  60nSec memory - Will 486/33 be faster?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:08:29 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

Will a 486/33 be faster with 60nSec memory over 70 or 80nSec memory, assuming
the data required is not in cache memory.

How does the CPU wait state tie into this?

Regards,
Mike palmer
Telephone: (305) 797-2326 (W)   (305) 7546-3146 (H)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: gilem@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Michael R. Gile)
Subject: p24t
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 13:48:16 GMT

Could someone please tell me what the p24t is/will be?
I have heard several vendors (including zeos) claim 
they have a slot for it, and would like to know what
good it does.  

mike (gilem@rpi.edu)




Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: S_JUFFA@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Norbert Juffa)
Subject: Re: Help - Cyrix processors, anyone know for sure?
Organization: University of Karlsruhe (FRG) - Informatik Rechnerabt.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:31:42 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Aug19.132542.2667@crd.ge.com> davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM writes:

> In article <16rb6gINNt38@iraul1.ira.uka.de>, S_JUFFA@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Norbert Juffa) writes:
> 
> | The cache is definitely the main source of the 486DLC's performance
> | gain over the 80386. This can be easily deduced from the performance
> | of Intel's RapidCAD chip which is basically a 486 without the cache
> | and with a 386 pin out. While the RapidCAD offers roughly twice the
> | floating point performance of the Intel 387DX, my benchmarks showed
> | it to be at most 25% faster than the 80386. Typical performance gain
> | for integer applications is more like 15% though. This definitely
> 
>   Whoa! Is this chip OEM only or available to real people. I have a app
> running on old (1986) 386-16s with 287 math chips. If the rapidCAD chip
> is a drop in I could probably get an order of magnitude boost in the FP
> performance.
> 
>   Motherboard upgrade is not available for this application.
> 
As far as I know, the RapidCAD isn't even sold as an OEM product. It is
primarily intended to be used by end users for upgrade purposes. Intel
advertises it as the ultimate coprocessor. It has been available for
about two month now. I have bought one myself about two weeks ago. It
was about US$320 (480 deutschmarks). The RapidCAD is actually a two
piece set. One chip, RapidCAD-1, contains the integrated CPU+FPU and 
goes into the 386  socket, the other chip, RapidCAD-2 contains only
some logic required for compatiblity with the 386/387 combination. The 
set includes a chip extractor to remove the 386 and an antistatic storage
box for the removed 386 CPU. RapidCAD can run at speeds of up to 33 MHz.
You might even try to push it to 40 MHz, if you are adventurous, although
I wouldn't recommend it. This thing gets as hot as a true 486, so I have
added an extra fan blowing directly at the CPU.


> -- 
> bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
>     I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.


Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Juffa     email: S_JUFFA@IRAVCL.IRA.UKA.DE      Live and let live!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: mneideng@wocket.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard)
Subject: Successor to i860XP???
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 01:21:25 GMT

Hmmm....I asked a question a while ago to which I never got a specific
answer.  I am wondering if there is any planned upgrading either in clock
speed or capabilities to the i860-XP 50 RISC microprocessor.  It seems like
the other companies are starting to catch up, so does Intel have a rebuttal?

Please, Intel guru's, ask thine coworkers, and if they "can't say", then at
least drop that fact.  It would be a shame to see Intel's maximum
performance RISC chip (one so well suited to and used for multicomputing) be
forgotten in the innovation race....

Mark Neidengard
"Elevatin hip-hop
 Lemme make a pitstop
 YO go tell your friends
 About the jam they call the NON-Stop."
	Young MC
From: "rafael ramirez" <rafael.ramirez@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: ive got a 486 problem
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:05:16 EST
Reply-To: "rafael ramirez" <rafael.ramirez@channel1.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

>I don't know a lot about computers but I do know that I have  a problem.
>I recently bought a 486 pc system from a dealer that assembles the units in th
>shop so I got a pretty good deal.  The problem is that after about 5-10 minute
>after booting up the whole thing freezes up.  It won't accept any keyboard
>commands and if a program is running it stops.  This seems to happen for all
>types of software so that is probably not the problem.

This is quite common with fast-clock systems on hot weather (I live in
the Canary Islands:)  Take the cover off from your computer AND STICK A
FAN blowing into the motherboard, until you buy some FANS-IN-A-CARD or
better yet an ICE-CAP or, in your case, get a new system under the
warranty. I WOULDN'T run it with the cover off by itself without the fan
(this can potentially fry your silicon unless your air conditioner works
good and there is a nice breeze inside your office ...)

I still don't understand why Intel (this particular problem might very
well NOT be with an Intel chip) doesn't start selling the uP's with
"Ice-Cap" type of devices already on and heck with the heat problem (if
the fan fails, add a thermo-switch and just halt the chip, crude, but
better than having the power supply break and the chip fried anyway). No
reason why a well designed/built mini-FAN can't have 300,000 hours MTBF.
At least put heatsinks as standard equipment (I know this is being done
on some i486DX/50).

BTW, I can't find where to get the following (which I need ASAP).  Can
anybody help?

-Ice CAPs (for 486's).
-Fans-in-a-card (cards with a couple fans that fit on a AT expansion
 slot).
-Good heat-sinks for 486's (and other silicon).
-Rechargable (plugs into the power supply) "eternal" batteries for the
"CMOS RAM" (where the date/setup info is stored in AT's).  "Speced" at
+3.6 volts (or a little higher:).

If you have names, addresses, or better yet phone numbers (non-800
prefered), I'll appreciate it.

 * SLMR 2.1a * Rafael.Ramirez@channel1.com from SPAIN! (A.K.A. RRC)
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: jhoh@vision.postech.ac.kr (Jong Hoon Oh)
Subject: i860
Organization: POSTECH, Pohang, Korea
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 08:01:39 GMT

 I was told that Intel will quit the production of the i860 and
no upgrade is planned. Is it really a rumer that is worth while to
care? 

Jong-Hoon Oh
POSTECH

jhoh@vision.postech.ac.kr
From: RFowler@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Robert A. Fowler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: DX2 clock question
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:18:12 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Does the dx2-50 have a 50MHz rc circuit on-die that is phazelocked to the 
input clock, or does it have some magical ciruitry that actually doubles the 
input clock?

ie If I take a i486DX2-50 and feed it a 30MHz clock, will it (if properly 
coolled) run at 60MHz or at 50MHz with an asymetrical clock?
    _________________________________________________________________
                        
                        HONDA -- The only way to fly
    o          
  _/\_>   -A proud owner (just wish they were made in the USA)
 O,> / O   [with all respects to Ohio MINE were made in Japan]
           
                           CM400T/XL500R/VF500F
                             '79   '82    '84
                           
     Slower trafic keep right (SUCKzukies, HDs, etc.) ->->->->->->->
    _________________________________________________________________
From: wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: 486 / 586(P5) Upgrade
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:56:30 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

I have been shopping around for 486/EISA system for the past week
or so (primarily inteneded for OS/2 development work). Some of the 
vendors I have encountered have claimed that
their EISA systems will be "upgradeable" to the 586/P5 processor
sometime next spring. I had thought that the 586 was to be a
completely different chip architecture, and that compatibility
with existing motherboards would therefore be unlikely. What is
the net.opinion on this subject? Will it be possible to upgrade a 486
system to a 586, or is this just vendor hype? Please post
responses to the net, as I guarantee that you will have trouble
reaching me via E-mail.

Muchisimas Gracias,

Bill Collum
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.palmtops
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Flash Cards
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 15:15:04 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

I think I remember reading that the flash cards are good for ~ 10^6
write operations.
-- 
Dave Feustel N9MYI <feustel@netcom.com>
---
Given Civil Seizure, from the DEA's point of view, winning the War on
Drugs would be killing the Goose that lays golden eggs.

The Drug War is a government-sponsored, taxpayer-financed,
full-employment program for psycho/socio-paths, wannabees and
gonnabees.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: pettitt@titan.trl.OZ.AU (Martin Pettitt)
Subject: Intel MPEG hardware boards
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:32:14 GMT


Although this isn't directly a processor question it has to do with
Intel hardware. I'm trying to find out the cost and hardware details of
MPEG video encoder/decoder boards that I understand Intel produce. Can
anyone help with further information?

Thanks


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Pettitt				Tel: (03)-541-6733
Optical Networks Section		Fax: (03)-543-3339
Telecom	Australia Research Labs 	Email: m.pettitt@titan.trl.oz.au
770 Blackburn Road,		
Clayton, VIC.   3168	
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.palmtops
From: anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber)
Subject: Re: Flash Cards
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:04:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.133302.3243@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.102539.8782@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, rda758g@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (A.J. Kleinert) writes:
>| The "new" intel flash cards were one of the features of a local computer
>| show here recently ... one of the Sales guys advised me that they
>| weren't actually for sale yet, but when they will be around
>| the US$800.00 mark for a 20 Mb card.  Isn't this is a little expensive for
>| a solid state device?  Were 3.5 inch floppy disks anything like this price
>| when they first came out?
>
>  20MB hard drives were more than that when they came out. Are you

Yes, and even $800 for 20MB of solid state memory in the space of four
or so stacked credit cards is *very* cheap.  Right now the cheapest 2MB
SRAM PCMCIA card is nearly $700.  I'd much rather pay $800 and have it
fit in one slot rather than $7000 and have to juggle cards.

>They also don't take in air to float the heads, since clean air is often
>not availbale in industrial situations.

In addition, although the Kittyhawk is very durable for a hard drive
(100g operating shocks) a solid state device could probably take
several times that.  Flash EPROM devices take much less power to run,
have very fast consistant read access times, and are immune to magnetic
fields.  I'm not sure, but I think a Kitthawk drive needs at least a
Type III PCMCIA cavity (10mm), while a 20MB Flash card will probably
fit in a Type II (5mm) and maybe even a Type I cavity (3.3mm).  None of
the current palmtop computers have Type III cavities.  Of course, no
current palmtop has an EPROM programmer either, so Flash cards are read
only devices in them.

>  Unless the figure for number of writes has improved I don't think I
>want to use it for a general purpose hard drive, for sure.

The preliminary Intel 4MB Flash card data sheet gives a Erase/Write
MTBF of 10^6 hours.  I don't know what this means, it might mean
failure after 114 years of continuous read/write cycles.

The Microsoft Flash File System is supposed to fix some of the problems
with writes.  One is that it takes seconds to erase a sector, where a
sector might be 256KB or more.

>| Any comments on these pricing policies?

I think it's reasonable.  If you don't like them, check out SunDisk,
they've supposedly had 20MB Flash cards for a year or so.  There are
now perhaps a dozen companies making PCMCIA memory.  Competition
will make prices drop.
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Help - Cyrix processors, anyone know for sure?
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:25:42 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <16rb6gINNt38@iraul1.ira.uka.de>, S_JUFFA@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Norbert Juffa) writes:

| The cache is definitely the main source of the 486DLC's performance
| gain over the 80386. This can be easily deduced from the performance
| of Intel's RapidCAD chip which is basically a 486 without the cache
| and with a 386 pin out. While the RapidCAD offers roughly twice the
| floating point performance of the Intel 387DX, my benchmarks showed
| it to be at most 25% faster than the 80386. Typical performance gain
| for integer applications is more like 15% though. This definitely

  Whoa! Is this chip OEM only or available to real people. I have a app
running on old (1986) 386-16s with 287 math chips. If the rapidCAD chip
is a drop in I could probably get an order of magnitude boost in the FP
performance.

  Motherboard upgrade is not available for this application.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
From: izahi@bsc.no (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Ok, so now what (Re: i860?)
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:08:45 GMT
Organization: Bergen Scientific Centre, Bergen, NORWAY

In article <1992Aug17.151404.124989@zeus.calpoly.edu> mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard) writes:
>Ok, so Intel has pulled the plug on futher developments of the i860.  Now,
>where does that leave all the parallel processor manufacturers who are
>currently using the i860, and does Intel intend to keep developing a VERY
>high end RISC cpu that is separate from the x86/Px line?  Will a version of
>the i960 "rise" to take the maximum performance slot of the i860?
>
>Mark Neidengard
>mneideng@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
>"Man, it's just one of those days."
>	DJ Jazzy Jeff&The Fresh Prince 
>
   Intel IS developing a RISC Px (as you say) processor in the Portland site
which is a sucessor to the P5 that is being developed in Santa Clara.


-- 
         -----> All opinions expressed here are my own, not IBM's <-----
Raul Izahi Lopez	Izahi Engineering
izahi@bsc.no		IBM Bergen Environmental Sciences and Solutions Centre
			Thormoehlensgate 55, 5008 Bergen, NORWAY (47-05)544653
From: S_JUFFA@iravcl.ira.uka.de (|S| Norbert Juffa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Help - Cyrix processors, anyone know for sure?
Date: 18 Aug 1992 17:14:56 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe (FRG) - Informatik Rechnerabt.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: irav1.ira.uka.de
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <15152@suns5.crosfield.co.uk> pdg@crosfield.co.uk writes:
> 
> Well I got a pointer to an answer about these new
> Cyrix chips, the Cx486SLC and the Cx486DLC
> (thanks Henrik Vallgren).
> 
> It seems that the chief performance gain (over a 80386)
> comes from the cache.  So, unless your motherboard has
> been designed for these chips, there's not much of a gain
> at all.  There is a software fix (for DOS) which causes
> the cache to be flushed every time some external
> device DMAs to the motherboard, but that reduces the
> performance gain.

The cache is definitely the main source of the 486DLC's performance
gain over the 80386. This can be easily deduced from the performance
of Intel's RapidCAD chip which is basically a 486 without the cache
and with a 386 pin out. While the RapidCAD offers roughly twice the
floating point performance of the Intel 387DX, my benchmarks showed
it to be at most 25% faster than the 80386. Typical performance gain
for integer applications is more like 15% though. This definitely
shows that the 386 bus interface (2 clock cycles per bus cycle, no
burst mode) is a bottleneck for the RapidCAD that can only be overcome
with an internal cache (the above mentioned benchmarks were run on a
machine with a fast 128 kB direct-mapped write-thru cache with one
write buffer). When executing register-to-register instructions, the
RapidCAD will execute them faster than they can be delivered thru the
slow 386 bus interface. When executing instructions that access memory
the most time is spent in the memory access so one doesn't see a big
improvement over the 386 either. 

The German computer magazine c't has shown that for heavy DMA traffic
(e.g. playing a WAV file thru the Soundblaster), the 486DLC with the
cache switched on is slower than with the cache switched off due to
the frequent cache flushes. 


> Paul
> -- 

Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Juffa       email: S_JUFFA@IRAVCL.IRA.UKA.DE         Live and let live!
From: charlesr@wspcrd.PeachtreeCityGA.ncr.com (Charles Rutledge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: I've got a 486 problem
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:46:25 GMT
Reply-To: charlesr@wspcrd.PeachtreeCityGA.ncr.com (Charles Rutledge)
Organization: NCR WSPC Peachtree City, Georgia

>Does the PS fan blow hot air? (if it *SUCKS* air, you have a defective PS), 
>can you hold your finger on the i486 (and all the other big chips) without 
>burning it?

I do not recomend holding your finger on an i486 as this chip is _designed_
to operate at temperatures of 130+ degrees (F).  On a properly operating
i486, you will burn your finger!  Trust me, I've done it.  [SIGH!  The last
good test of the old repair days designed right out the window.]

-- 
Charles Rutledge  /  NCR Test Program Development   | 
Internet: Charles.Rutledge@PeachtreeCityGA.NCR.COM  |  Standard Disclaimer: ON
ATT: (404) 487-7000 Ext 7523 / Fax: (404) 487-7089  |
From: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Guillermo J. Rozas)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 386 <-> 486 incompatibilities
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:41:00 GMT
	<1992Aug13.232325.930@colorado.edu>
Reply-To: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
In-reply-to: drew@ophelia.cs.colorado.edu's message of 13 Aug 92 23:23:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.232325.930@colorado.edu> drew@ophelia.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

|   >-Is there a way to detect this kind of self-modification
|   > either at runtime (say, with a small TSR debugger-like program) or 
|   > scanning the assembly-code sources.
|
|   Scanning the assembly code should do it.
|

That is not completely true.  A program that dynamically creates and
executes code can create and execute code that modifies itself within
the prefetch buffer, even though the original did not.

Both the Gambit and MIT Scheme compilers (and others as well) have had
to deal with this problem in the past, and in no case was the code
apparent from looking at the sources, since it was dynamically created
and executed code.
From: jiu1@husc9.harvard.edu (Haibin Jiu)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: wait state matters
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:06:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug21.140634.14982
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Hi.

A friend bought a 486-33 PC and in the middle of messing around
with it, he set the wait state value in CMOS to 2 (AMI BIOS).
Then the diagnostics programs reported that the CPU was running
like a 12-MHz 286!

Does anyone know why there can be such a big difference in CPU
speed when wait state is introduced?  Can someone explain?

Cheers,

Bugs
From: philippe@ens.ens-lyon.fr (Jean-Laurent Philippe)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Info sought about i860
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:05:57 GMT
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon, France

I post this message for a friend who cannot access the News.

Jean-Laurent PHILIPPE
------
Could someone tell me his experience about the i860's difficulties
(or surprises) when a trap handler tries to determine where to resume
execution after a trap occurred.
(delayed branch instructions, autoincrement load/store instruction,
dual mode, IEEE standard, ...).

Christophe Thiblot	thiblot@archipel.fr
Dr. Jean-Laurent PHILIPPE         Tel: (33) 72-72-84-70
LIP - ENS Lyon                    Fax: (33) 72-72-80-80
46, Allee d'Italie
69364 Lyon Cedex 07               E-mail : philippe@frensl61.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Ok, so now what (Re: i860?)
From: mneideng@thidwick.acs.calpoly.edu (Mark Neidengard)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:14:04 GMT
Organization: Academic Computing Services, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Ok, so Intel has pulled the plug on futher developments of the i860.  Now,
where does that leave all the parallel processor manufacturers who are
currently using the i860, and does Intel intend to keep developing a VERY
high end RISC cpu that is separate from the x86/Px line?  Will a version of
the i960 "rise" to take the maximum performance slot of the i860?

Mark Neidengard
mneideng@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
"Man, it's just one of those days."
	DJ Jazzy Jeff&The Fresh Prince 

Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel
From: LUGEBE1@AWIIMC12.IMC.UniVie.AC.AT (DI Bernhard Luger)
Subject: Intels Overdrive on an IBM PS/2 90 AG9 ?
Organization: Institut fuer Medizinische Computerwissenschaften
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:21:58 GMT

Has anybody successfully installed an INTEL Overdrive chip in an IBM PS/2
Model 90 AG9. The processor board originally contains a 486 SX (|) chip with
a 20 MHz clock. 487 option is available but still too slow for me.
Any comment about problems or, even better, no problems is welcome.
Thanks in advance
Berny Luger (Biomedical Engineering, Vienna)
 
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel