<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Don Cady <<a href="mailto:doncady@gmail.com">doncady@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ahh... those good old DX2-80s and DX4-100s. good times, good times.</blockquote><div><br>Here's something that will bring back even more memories:<br>Intel 486 Wikipedia page:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486</a><br>
<br>AMD 486 Wikipedia page:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am486">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am486</a><br><br>I especially love the line on the Intel page:<br>In May 2006 Intel announced that production of the 80486 would cease at the end of September 2007.<br>
<br>It is mind-blowing to think that the 486 was produced up until a year ago. However, it does go on to say that it was used in embedded systems. I do recall seeing a Symbol handheld that had a 486DX2-66 processor in it. It was much faster than the NEC V20 and V30 processors that other handhelds used. (Even though the handheld itself was a piece of junk).<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Don<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM, David Champion <<a href="mailto:dchampion@visionary.com">dchampion@visionary.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Nathan Stien wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Daniel A. Ramaley<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:daniel.ramaley@drake.edu">daniel.ramaley@drake.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:daniel.ramaley@drake.edu">daniel.ramaley@drake.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Wasn't the slowest 486 running at 25 MHz? 8 sounds a bit slow. How<br>
>> fast<br>
>> did Intel go with the 486? I know the 66 MHz version was quite popular<br>
>> for awhile. I seem to (vaguely) remember some late-model 486's at 75<br>
>> and 100 MHz. AMD made a 486 running at 133 MHz (i still have one<br>
>> running in a cardboard box as my firewall). I don't know about any<br>
>> faster than that though.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I find the idea of 133 MHz 486's amusing, mainly because my first pentium<br>
>> ran at a blistering 60 MHz. ~1995, IIRC.<br>
><br>
> We had one of the first commercially available Pentiums - an AST P-90, which<br>
> was a complete lemon. It seemed significantly slower than the 486-100's we<br>
> were running at the time. Last fall I took the case for that one out and<br>
> shot it full of holes at the shooting range. I can't tell you how satisfying<br>
> it was to put a couple of .50 BMG holes through that box.<br>
><br>
> My first PC I purpose-built had an AMD 486-100, which was pretty much the<br>
> fastest processor I could get at the time. It was a pretty good machine<br>
> (despite the SiS chipset), lasted me 3 or 4 years as a workstation, then<br>
> another couple of years as a server.<br>
><br>
> -dc<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Cialug mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Cialug@cialug.org">Cialug@cialug.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug" target="_blank">http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Cialug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Cialug@cialug.org">Cialug@cialug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug" target="_blank">http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Tim