3 Jun
2013
3 Jun
'13
3:23 p.m.
On 3 June 2013 20:04, Fred Cisin <cisin at
xenosoft.com> wrote:
>> > 80386, oddly, is far from "long dead".
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Liam Proven wrote:
>> It is in any market I *ever* see.
> depends on your definition(s) of "long"
> Is this Pentium running XP not really a 386 at heart?
> Seems like there are quite a few around.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Liam Proven wrote:
Ah, but that is not what is being discussed here.
True
I changed the Subject slightly, Since I knew that I was tangenting off of
statements taken out of full context.
When 486 and
Pentium came out, they were treated as fast 386s, and seemed
to stay that way for a very long time.
Well, they are. The instruction set
didn't change from the 80386 in
1985 until the Pentium-MMX in about 1996. FWIW, today, 32-bit 386-ISA code is generally called
x86-32 and 64-bit
x86 is x86-64, or (and I dislike both) "AMD64" or "X64".
all of which seem to attempt to oversimplify the differences.
Which versions
of Windoze will not install on a 386? (never mind issues
of "adequate performance"!) (386-SX is out just due to its 16M RAM limit)
Windows 2000 was the last version that would boot, install or run on a
486, I believe. Circa 13y ago. Time flies. Jobs was part of the Mac team, you know; indeed he is
largely
responsible for it being what it is. Jef Raskin's original design was
radically different.
and wonder how things might otherwise have gone, . . .
I was not a complete fan of Jef's ideas, and the Cat, but they were
impressive.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com