[Interest] Interest Digest, Vol 115, Issue 17
roland at logikalsolutions.com
Tue Apr 20 23:55:11 CEST 2021
On 4/20/2021 4:35 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 20/04/2021 15:10, Roland Hughes wrote:
>> On 4/20/2021 5:00 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>>> On 18/04/2021 14:50, Roland Hughes wrote:
>>>> I guess QML is more present in embedded? Or maybe some entreprise stuff
>>>> we don't know about...
>>>> Just phones and John Deere.
>>> This is false, as a quick walk through the customer showcase on TQC's
>>> website will show.
>> It's completely true. That tiny subset on the Web site doesn't scratch
>> the surface.
> So there's even*MORE* QML used in embedded than what's advertised on
> TQC's website? That's great news!
I know it is difficult for you, but don't be an ass.
> This is also false. SXs have never been defective CPUs.
>> You need to actually learn processor history or at least do some
>> research before you speak.
> The 486SX was a marketing quirk. Intel had a high failure rate (low
> yield) on the FPU. When a CPU passed DX testing it was sold as a 486DX.
> When it failed testing it went down another line where they "cut some
> pins" so the chip couldn't communicate with the bad FPU, put an SX on it
> and sold scrap at a discount.
> This has widely been debunked.
> The SXs were introduced to the market_years_ after the introduction of
> the DXs. Intel didn't start to have massive production problems all of a
> sudden and thus decided to pull this stunt. The SXs were_designed_ to
> have the FPU disabled, and their FPU was for this reason ever tested.
> The only reason for the introduction of the SX was market segmentation
> to compete against AMD.
> Here's some links for you, given you seem to able to Google "486 sx
> defective" (and leave it in the URLs that you link), but somehow
> conveniently IGNORING the first couple of results, even if they include
> first-hand accounts of Intel engineers who worked on the 486 that
> disprove the whole defective story:
> By the way, did you notice that the Wikipedia page that YOU linked
> doesn't talk about those chips being "defective" DXs?
> Because that's a lie, as discussed in the talk page:
Nothing in your links debunks anything, except your ability to do
research. I was at Digital Equipment Corporation when they were
designing their 486 "Dandy" The Digital Tandy and that is __exactly__
what Intel told the engineers. It took more than a year of DX "low
yield" before there was enough chips to make setting up a line to "fix"
them worth while.
**Later** there was a 486SX designed without FPU.
Roland Hughes, President
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Interest