Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > End of an era for IBM

Reply
Thread Tools

End of an era for IBM

 
 
NOSPAM@NOSPAM.invalid.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2004
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:25:42 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:

> Perhaps AMD kept something that Intel didn't.


Intel pentium 4 chips can run the same code that was compiled for 8086
chips - they have the same instructions available. All Intel x86 chips are
fully backwards compatible to the very earliest members of that series.


Divine

--
"Even the most fanatical Microsoft supporter has to see that Longhorn has
become Shorthorn."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard Hector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2004
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:12:52 +1300, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:25:42 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
>
>> Perhaps AMD kept something that Intel didn't.

>
> Intel pentium 4 chips can run the same code that was compiled for 8086
> chips - they have the same instructions available. All Intel x86 chips
> are fully backwards compatible to the very earliest members of that
> series.


Obviously, if that's what the marketing people say, my experience must be
wrong. Same for those people I've spoken to who agree that Win 3.11 won't
go on a PII or better.

Perhaps it's something that changed in the motherboard/chipset design
rather than the CPU itself.

But logically, 100% backward compatibility is impossible - old code could
be relying on getting no-op (or exception) functionality where a new
instruction exists now. I doubt that's the case here, but it's possible.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2004
In article <pan.2004.12.06.09.12.52.527466@TRACKER> in nz.comp on Mon, 06
Dec 2004 22:12:52 +1300, (E-Mail Removed)
<(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:25:42 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
>
> > Perhaps AMD kept something that Intel didn't.

>
> Intel pentium 4 chips can run the same code that was compiled for 8086
> chips - they have the same instructions available. All Intel x86 chips are
> fully backwards compatible to the very earliest members of that series.


Pentium IV's don't have the FDIV bug
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
Richard Hector <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>But logically, 100% backward compatibility is impossible - old code could
>be relying on getting no-op (or exception) functionality where a new
>instruction exists now.


Why should it? All those things would have been originally marked
"Reserved for Future Use".
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If a technology has the right non technical advantages (eg production,
>marketing, or control etc), it only has to be technically 'good enough' to
>succeed over technically superior products


If it's a question of economics versus technology, economics usually
wins.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Hector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-07-2004
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:40:47 +1300, Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> Richard Hector <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>But logically, 100% backward compatibility is impossible - old code could
>>be relying on getting no-op (or exception) functionality where a new
>>instruction exists now.

>
> Why should it? All those things would have been originally marked
> "Reserved for Future Use".


Perhaps. That's no guarantee of anything though. I gather IBM broke one of
those rules when they designed the PC, causing Intel grief from then on -
Intel had plans, but couldn't use them for fear of upsetting their biggest
client

Richard

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob McLellan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2004
and service

Roger Johnstone wrote:
> In <(E-Mail Removed)> Gordon wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:33:16 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Has IBM produced _anything_ that's been adopted by the PC industry
>>>since the PS/2 line introduced VGA, PS/2 mouse ports and 1.4MB
>>>floppy drives in 1987?

>>
>>Does it matter? They started it all, a one start wonder ?

>
>
> It might matter to a customer looking for a reason to buy, say, a
> computer from IBM instead of from Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Hewlett-Packard,
> NEC, or any of the other IBM PC clone manufacturers. If you don't have
> something to offer that the others don't then you're just selling
> commodity widgets, and the only way to differentiate yourself is with
> pricing or support, or spending lots on advertising.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob McLellan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2004
If you recall IBM had a small ownership of Intel about the time the 386
came out. Coincidentally the 386 paging mechanism was a clone of the
proven 370 paging which enabled Intel to get out of the 286 mess.

Richard Hector wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:40:47 +1300, Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)> ,
>> Richard Hector <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But logically, 100% backward compatibility is impossible - old code could
>>>be relying on getting no-op (or exception) functionality where a new
>>>instruction exists now.

>>
>>Why should it? All those things would have been originally marked
>>"Reserved for Future Use".

>
>
> Perhaps. That's no guarantee of anything though. I gather IBM broke one of
> those rules when they designed the PC, causing Intel grief from then on -
> Intel had plans, but couldn't use them for fear of upsetting their biggest
> client
>
> Richard
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
NOSPAM@NOSPAM.invalid.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2004
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:11:53 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:

> Obviously, if that's what the marketing people say, my experience must be
> wrong. Same for those people I've spoken to who agree that Win 3.11 won't
> go on a PII or better.


I've run WIN3.11 on a Celeron Tualatin. A workmate's daughter's computer
had been password protected and they had forgotten the password, and had
asked me to sort it out for them. I took the HDD and shoved it into my
Tualatin box and WIN3.11 worked perfectly.


Divine

--
"Even the most fanatical Microsoft supporter has to see that Longhorn has
become Shorthorn."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Hector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2004
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 01:41:16 +1300, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 00:11:53 +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
>
>> Obviously, if that's what the marketing people say, my experience must be
>> wrong. Same for those people I've spoken to who agree that Win 3.11 won't
>> go on a PII or better.

>
> I've run WIN3.11 on a Celeron Tualatin. A workmate's daughter's computer
> had been password protected and they had forgotten the password, and had
> asked me to sort it out for them. I took the HDD and shoved it into my
> Tualatin box and WIN3.11 worked perfectly.


Fair enough - perhaps there was something weird in my case, or perhaps it
was just the installer that doesn't run - some autodetection that gets
confused perhaps. I never got as far as actually running it.

Richard

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
End of an era Andrew Koenig Digital Photography 16 01-27-2009 07:31 AM
c / c++ : is it end of era ? shaanxxx C Programming 167 01-08-2007 12:36 AM
Samsung Heralds New Era of Entertainment; Shows World's First Mass-Market Blu-ray Disc Player at CES. Allan DVD Video 0 01-05-2006 01:18 PM
Film print in the digital era badr Digital Photography 2 06-18-2004 08:15 PM
Another end of an era Zimmy DVD Video 3 06-26-2003 05:23 AM



Advertisments