XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2025-02-21 08:08, Daniel70 wrote:   
   > On 21/02/2025 12:46 pm, Stan Brown wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:27:09 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>> I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were   
   >>> not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and   
   >>> 8086.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> I think that was the first one that didn't need a   
   >> separate floating-point processor, right?   
      
   No, the wikipedia cites the 80387 as a separate chip.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87#80387   
      
   >>   
   > That rings a bell ...... but what had we done with out the 'floating-   
   > point processor' previously?? Used a seperate, discreet, 'floating-point   
   > processor', maybe .... which, I suppose, would make the process a bit   
   > slower.   
      
   Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not   
   inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would   
   raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated   
   in software by the program, which was significantly slower.   
      
      
   I think it was the Pentium which was complete. The wikipedia says for   
   the 487:   
      
   80487   
      
   The i487SX (P23N) was marketed as a floating-point unit coprocessor for   
   Intel i486SX machines. It actually contained a full-blown i486DX   
   implementation. When installed into an i486SX system, the i487 disabled   
   the main CPU and took over all CPU operations. The i487 took measures to   
   detect the presence of an i486SX and would not function without the   
   original CPU in place.[26][27][failed verification]   
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)