XPost: comp.os.ms-windows.misc, alt.windows7.general, microsoft.   
   ublic.windowsxp.general   
   From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   In message  at Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:14:56,   
   Paul  writes   
   >On 12/30/2023 3:27 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:   
   >> In message <3fj0pi1he28cfgbul4lbmu4jua526btugq@4ax.com> at Sat, 30   
   >>Dec 2023 12:10:57, Tim Slattery  writes   
   []   
   >>> The 486 was the first Intel chip to have the numeric coprocessor   
   >>> onboard. Intel wanted to prese4ve the "SX" price point, so they   
   >>> produced a 486SX chip which was identical to the DX except that the   
   >>> numeric coprocessor was disabled! Machines sold with this chip had an   
   >>> empty socket where you could plug in a 486DX chip to get a coproc. So   
   >>> once you did that, you could unplug the SX chip and use it elsewhere,   
   >>> right? WRONG!!! It was set up so that the DX in those machines   
   >>> wouldn't work unless the SX was plugged in, doing nothing.   
   >>>   
   >> Did anyone ever manage to "crack" the 486SX or the 487 to enable the   
   >>disabled part, or make it work without the other?   
   >   
   >You will remember that these were simpler times.   
   >   
   >Intel has much better mechanisms "to enforce this or that" today.   
   >   
   >   https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?t=68471   
   >   
   >Today we have sharks with lasers on their heads. Back then,   
   >all we had was sharks.   
   >   
   >   Paul   
      
   Reading that reminds me that about then was the start of different clock   
   speeds internally and externally - the DX2 variant.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain   
   (Dolly Parton)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)