home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!amdcad!dvorak.amd.com!tdbear
- From: tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett)
- Subject: Re: 486slc in HK / IBM's 486slc2
- Message-ID: <1993Jan11.003637.28817@dvorak.amd.com>
- Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas
- References: <1993Jan9.143517.6052@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 00:36:37 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- In article <1993Jan9.143517.6052@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> wai@mackinac.ecn.purdue.edu (Benjamin Wai) writes:
- > During my visit in HK this x'mas, I have come across two incidences
- > of shops attempting to sell off Cyrix486dlc/slc based computers with
- > the heading -- 486DX/SX.
-
- Even in the US or EC some companies have tried to use "486/25" to hide
- the Cyrix fame... I know that at least one of these companies got
- warnings from various country officals that they would not be allowed
- to sell such machines using that terminology (or lack thereof).
-
- > the 486dlc/slc chips are the same to 486DX/SX but just different blend.
- > Deception or simply ignorance?
- >
- Most dealers (in or out of HK for that manner) are worse than the
- stereotypical used car salesmen... they usually don't even know what
- they are talking about (or so the joke goes).
-
- > Is this 486slc2 to 486slc the same as comparing
- > DX2 with DX? Or have I misread something?
-
- This *is* confusing and I can't figure out why in the world IBM would
- have gone ahead with their plans to use such similar chip names.
- Anyway... the IBM chip is most likely their own 486 (they have full
- rights to the 486 and the 486 microcode for their own use and to sell
- to anyone on PC Boards... OEMs or end-users). The "slc" part means
- that it is low power. I doubt if it is a Cyrix.
-
-
- --
- |Tom Barrett (TDBear), Sr. Engineer|tom.barrett@amd.com|v:512-462-6856 |
- |AMD PCD MS-520 | 5900 E. Ben White|Austin, TX 78741 |f:512-462-5155 |
- |"No is yes, And we're all free" ---Tracy Chapman, "Why?" |
- |My views are my own and may not be the same as the company of origin |
-