Message-Id:	<199610271603.LAA12717@delorie.com>
From:	"Troy D. Van Horn" <trvanhor AT UCollege DOT edu>
Subject:	Re: 386Max & DPMI 1.0
To:	chambersb AT juno DOT com
Date:	Sun, 27 Oct 1996 10:03:49 CST
Cc:	trvanhor AT SNOOPY DOT UCollege DOT edu, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<19961027.224846.8183.1.chambersb@juno.com>; from "Benjamin D Chambers" at Oct 27, 96 1:48 am

> 
> On Thu, 24 Oct 1996 23:15:05 +0200 Marek Habersack
> <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl> writes:
> >machine:
> >  am386DX 40, 8MB RAM, CD-ROM 4x, modem on COM2, 1MB 8900CL/D gfx 
> >card,
> >  Quantum/HP HDD 270MB + WD HDD 400MB, local bus hybrid motherboard 
> >(for
> >386 or 486), no FPU, 128 cache.
> 
> umm........
> how can you have a DX machine without an FPU?
> Isn't that the definition of DX?
> 
>              ...the ConfusEd One...
> 

     Intel changed the definition of DX from the 386 to the 486 chips. On
a 386, DX meant it had a 32 bit data bus, and an SX had a 16 bit data
bus. No 386 had a build in FPU, you had to add a seprate 387 FPU.
     When the 486 came along, DX meant it had an FPU, and SX meant it
didn't. All 486s have 32 bit data busses.

Troy...

- Raw text -