On Mon, 08 May 2023 10:16:58 +0000, maus wrote:

> On 2023-05-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> greymaus <maus@darkstar.org> writes:
>>>On 2023-05-06, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
>>>> Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
>>>> (I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two different
>>>> clock speeds. If you bought the "slower" system, you could pay a
>>>> licence fee and have a CSR come to /remove/ a component that
>>>> /limited/ the CPU speed.
>>>>
>>>> Does any one else know of the details of this? Was it a rumour,
>>>> or did it actually happen?
>>>s
>>>
>>>I have a distant memory of all that. It, as I recall, happened several
>>>times, as even now you can pay more than the basic price for a shiny
>>>cover :)
>>>
>>>It was the 386, I think.
>>
>> Certainly nopt in 'circa 1960'.
>
> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
> versions

I think he was confusing it with the 360!

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
>maus@smaus.org wrote:
>
>> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
>> versions
>
> There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
>

And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> >On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
> >maus@smaus.org wrote:
> >
> >> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
> >> versions
> >
> > There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
> >
>
> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.

Wasn't the 8088 a math co-processor?

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
>Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> >On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
>> >maus@smaus.org wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
>> >> versions
>> >
>> > There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
>> >
>>
>> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.
>
>Wasn't the 8088 a math co-processor?

Wikipedia is just a few keystrokes away. The answer to your question is no.

On 08/05/2023 17:26, Sn!pe wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>> On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
>>> maus@smaus.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
>>>> versions
>>>
>>> There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
>>>
>>
>> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.
>
> Wasn't the 8088 a math co-processor?
>

That was the 8087.

8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.

80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.

On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 08/05/2023 17:26, Sn!pe wrote:
> > Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> >
> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> >>> On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
> >>> maus@smaus.org wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
> >>>> versions
> >>>
> >>> There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.
> >
> > Wasn't the 8088 a math co-processor?
> >
>
> That was the 8087.
>
> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
>
> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
>
and a few more instructions.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

[...]
> >Wasn't the 8088 a math co-processor?
>
> Wikipedia is just a few keystrokes away. The answer to your question is no.

Thank you for answering, Scott. Please don't bother to answer
anything else I might ask, I'll just check Wikipedia (top tip, BTW).

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

<https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

> That was the 8087.
>
> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
>
> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.

One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
conventions.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:47:34 +0100
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That was the 8087.
> >
> > 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
> >
> > 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
>
> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
> conventions.
>
Let's not forget MircoSloth's Operating Sytem names (at least they
went up, unless they went sideways) and Mail program name(s).
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Mon, 08 May 2023 16:24:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT maus@smaus.org wrote:
>>
>>> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in
>>> 2 versions
>>
>> There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit
bus.
>>
>>
> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.

And the lesser known 81016/80188, and 80286/80288.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 2023-05-08, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Mon, 08 May 2023 16:24:33 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT maus@smaus.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in
>>>> 2 versions
>>>
>>> There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
>>
>> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.
>
> And the lesser known 81016/80188, and 80286/80288.

Don't forget the Motorola 68000 and 68008
(16- and 8-bit buses, respectively).

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | unless you're willing to
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Dogbert the green consultant

On 2023-05-08, Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:47:34 +0100
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100
>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That was the 8087.
>>>
>>> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
>>>
>>> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
>>
>> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
>> conventions.
>
> Let's not forget MircoSloth's Operating Sytem names (at least they
> went up, unless they went sideways)

And then stopped at 10 forever - or until 11 came long.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | unless you're willing to
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Dogbert the green consultant

Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>> On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
>>> maus@smaus.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
>>>> versions
>>>
>>> There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
>>>
>>
>> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.
>
> Wasn't the 8088 a math co-processor?
>

I think the 8088 was used in the Displaywriter. I believe it was faster
than the 8086 (at least the number would imply that), but I don’t know
what the other differences were.

--
Pete

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> That was the 8087.
>>
>> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
>>
>> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
>
> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
> conventions.
>

They did the math on an early 386.

--
Pete

On 2023-05-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8 May 2023 10:16:58 GMT
>>>> maus@smaus.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not in 1960, I agree, but there was something about thhe 386 comin in 2
>>>>> versions
>>>>
>>>> There was the 386 with a 32 bit bus and the 386sx with a 16 bit bus.
>>>
>>> And, of course, the 8086 vs 8088.
>>
>> Wasn't the 8088 a math co-processor?
>
> I think the 8088 was used in the Displaywriter. I believe it was faster
> than the 8086 (at least the number would imply that), but I don’t know
> what the other differences were.

If you swap 8088 and 8086 in your last paragraph you'll be exactly right.
What the numbers imply is not in fact correct.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | unless you're willing to
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Dogbert the green consultant

On 2023-05-09, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100
>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That was the 8087.
>>>
>>> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
>>>
>>> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
>>
>> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
>> conventions.
>
> They did the math on an early 386.

I am Pentium of Borg.
Division is futile.
You will be approximated.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | unless you're willing to
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Dogbert the green consultant

On Mon, 08 May 2023 17:30:55 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That was the 8087.
>>>
>>> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
>>>
>>> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
>>
>> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
>> conventions.
>>
>>
> They did the math on an early 386.

No, that was the 80387.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On Mon, 08 May 2023 17:30:55 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That was the 8087.
>>>
>>> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
>>>
>>> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
>>
>> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
>> conventions.
>>
>>
> They did the math on an early 386.

No, the 80387. And not the early ones. The original 80386 (later named the
80386DX) had full maths support built in.

Then they did the 'economy' version, the 80386SX. Limited bus width, no
maths coprocessor. And that's where the 80387 came in.

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

On 9 May 2023 07:43:36 GMT
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Mon, 08 May 2023 17:30:55 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That was the 8087.
> >>>
> >>> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
> >>>
> >>> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
> >>
> >> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
> >> conventions.
> >>
> >>
> > They did the math on an early 386.
>
> No, that was the 80387.

See the maths was so bad they got the wrong chip.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 9 May 2023 07:45:41 GMT
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Mon, 08 May 2023 17:30:55 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 May 2023 18:09:17 +0100 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That was the 8087.
> >>>
> >>> 8088 was an 8086 but with an 8 bit bus.
> >>>
> >>> 80186 / 80188 were the versions with some I/O built in.
> >>
> >> One thing Intel were always hopelessly bad at was numbering
> >> conventions.
> >>
> >>
> > They did the math on an early 386.
>
> No, the 80387. And not the early ones. The original 80386 (later named the
> 80386DX) had full maths support built in.
>
> Then they did the 'economy' version, the 80386SX. Limited bus width, no
> maths coprocessor. And that's where the 80387 came in.
>
I recall that being the 486sx - having the maths part on board but
disabled. (Same bus width though).

Tell you what let's read it on wikipedia.

i386:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80386SX
says both had co-processor addon possibilities - 80387/80387sx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87#80387

i486:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87#80487

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 9 May 2023 07:45:41 GMT
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

> No, the 80387. And not the early ones. The original 80386 (later named
> the 80386DX) had full maths support built in.
>
> Then they did the 'economy' version, the 80386SX. Limited bus width, no
> maths coprocessor. And that's where the 80387 came in.

Er nope.

80386 - 32 bit no hardware maths support
80387 - Maths coprocessor for 80386
80386sx - 80386 with 16 bit external bus
80387sx - Maths coprocessor for 80386sx
80486dx - 32 bit with built in maths coprocessor - got up to 50MHz
80486sx - 32 bit without maths coprocessor
80486dx2 - 80486 with external bus running at half the internal clock speed

Then they decided that numbers were bad and produced the Pentium.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On 9 May 2023 07:45:41 GMT
>Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> No, the 80387. And not the early ones. The original 80386 (later named
>> the 80386DX) had full maths support built in.
>>
>> Then they did the 'economy' version, the 80386SX. Limited bus width, no
>> maths coprocessor. And that's where the 80387 came in.
>
> Er nope.
>
>80386 - 32 bit no hardware maths support
>80387 - Maths coprocessor for 80386
>80386sx - 80386 with 16 bit external bus
>80387sx - Maths coprocessor for 80386sx
>80486dx - 32 bit with built in maths coprocessor - got up to 50MHz
>80486sx - 32 bit without maths coprocessor
>80486dx2 - 80486 with external bus running at half the internal clock speed
>
> Then they decided that numbers were bad and produced the Pentium.

Internally, the codename was P5, which morphed into pentium branding.
The P6 morphed into Pentium Pro branding
The P7 was cancelled and replaced with Merced which became Itanium.

I used to have a yellow book for the original P7 when I was at Unisys.

On 2023-05-09, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> Then they decided that numbers were bad and produced the Pentium.

Wasn't there some kerfuffle about "586" or the like already being
copyrighted by someone else?

Niklas
--
"Vir! You are not biologically equipped to handle fast food."
"I know, I know, but it .. it tastes so great going down. Coming up again it's
not so terrific, but--"
-- Londo and Vir in Babylon 5:"Meditations on the Abyss"

On 5/9/23 12:17, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
> On 2023-05-09, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>> Then they decided that numbers were bad and produced the Pentium.
>
> Wasn't there some kerfuffle about "586" or the like already being
> copyrighted by someone else?
>
> Niklas
IIRC, there was a court ruling that you can't trademark a number.

On 2023-05-09, richardthiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/23 12:17, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 2023-05-09, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Then they decided that numbers were bad and produced the Pentium.
>>
>> Wasn't there some kerfuffle about "586" or the like already being
>> copyrighted by someone else?
>>
>> Niklas
> IIRC, there was a court ruling that you can't trademark a number.

Ah, that rings a faint bell, so that's probably what I was thinking of.
Thanks!

Niklas
--
I am strongly leaning towards the theory that Microsoft is the
spearhead of an alien invasion, designed specifically to cripple Earth's
development of technology.
-- Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes in asr