XPost: comp.os.ms-windows.misc, alt.windows7.general, microsoft.   
   ublic.windowsxp.general   
   From: daniel47@nomail.afraid.org   
      
   J. P. Gilliver wrote on 31/12/23 7:27 am:   
   > In message <3fj0pi1he28cfgbul4lbmu4jua526btugq@4ax.com> at Sat, 30   
   > Dec 2023 12:10:57, Tim Slattery  writes   
   >> "J. P. Gilliver"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> For 386 and 486, the confusingly changed what "SX" and "DX"   
   >>> meant; on one (I forget which), SX meant it _didn't_ have a   
   >>> floating-point maths co-processor on board, DX meant it did. On   
   >>> the other, SX meant it had a half-width (so 16?) bus outside the   
   >>> chip (so requiring two fetches to   
   >>   
   >> 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?   
      
   "487"?? All DuckDuckGo shows seems to concern a Californian Penal Code   
   clause 487!! ;-P   
   --   
   Daniel   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)