Re: Reg Intel Processors

[Atul Chitnis <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Prakash Advani wrote:

> There was no difference between the 486 SX and DX except that in the SX
> the co-processor was disabled internally. It was just an Intel strategy
> to have control over the low end market.

Sounds like a pretty major difference to me ;-)

Actually, the SX was introduced when Intel was unable to make people move
from the 386 to the 486. This wasn't so much strategy as necessity -
people who did not use an 80387 were not keen on paying for the built in
coprocessor in the 486 since there was virtually nothing available in
terms of software to make use of it. This was not Intel's fault - the
guaranteed presence of a math coprocessor actually made life a whole lot
simpler for developers, but until these applications started appearing,
there was resistence to the concept.

Intel *needed* to move people onto the 486 (for technical and also
commercial reasons), and so they introduced a "low-end" 486 that was
priced almost the same a 386 - making the choice easier.

But they never did it again - the math coprocessor became a standard
feature of every Intel chip. Too many applications that came along
*required* this capability - a complete reversal of the situation when
Intel introduced the 486sx. ;-)

Today, Intel no longer has to resort to such things because the
economics of scale actually allow them to price a PIII at the same level
as a highend PII - making the choice for a new purchaser a foregone
conclusion.

Atul



- --------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux in India visit http://www.linux-india.org/
Linux India is NOT a forum for Microsoft/India/Pakistan/US/UK bashing.
Flame baits will not be tolerated.  If you can appreciate satire read
http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

------------------------------