Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:43:56 -0800 (PST) From: Rhett Monteg Hollander <victorysoldier@yahoo.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cyrix CPUs, was: Re: Repeatable crash from nautilus2 Message-ID: <20021214004356.36247.qmail@web40302.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
All right, gentlemen, let's finish with it. I have never meant that Cyrix produced perfectly wonderful processors; but they don't deserve for an attitude like to trash, anyway. To Charles Swiger: > NOTE 1: The options, CPU_BTB_EN, CPU_LOOP_EN, > CPU_IORT, and CPU_RSTK_EN should not be used because > of CPU bugs. > These options may crash your system. I agree. But these bugs count for Cx5x86 _only_, not affecting 6x86\6x86MX. >PS: I think the guys at NeXT decided that the x86 >platform had enough issues without trying to work >around broken hardware; in hindsight, that may have >been a wrong decision, but I'm still using a 33MHz >68040 NeXTstation as a primary machine. Nope. In September of 1985 Steven Jobs came out Apple and founded NextStep (numerous problems inside Apple led to this point). Four years later a first NeXT was introduced. All NeXTs were built with Motorola CPUs, like Apple Macintoshes. I don't think that Intel CPUs in 1989 were buggy (for your reference, AMD, Cyrix & Co. started producing proprietarly designed CPUs only since 1991-92); Motorola's 68k were just faster & cheaper. I do agree that NextStep OS was something outstanding for those days, and personally like its interface. But, NeXTs were too expensive for the market (like Apple Lisa before), and the company went almost bankrupt in 1993, having only about 50 thousand machines sold. If you like NeXTs, all power to you. Personally, I still use a 75MHz NexGen Nx586 loaded with FreeBSD, though not as a primary machine. To James Pole: >I think the fact Cyrix isn't very popular these days, >compared to Intel/AMD processors says a lot about the >quality of their processors back in the Pentium/586 >days. Cyrix CPUs aren't popular nowadays because they're manufactured no more. VIA acquired Cyrix from National Semiconductor 3 years ago, and scrapped Jalapeno\Mojave core soon. Rest in peace, muchacho... Cyrix is good example what poor marketing can lead to. >Nowdays people use Intel/AMD processors and to date I >havn't come across any >serious problems with those >processors. Indeed, do they have anything else to choose from? Don't mention VIA C3 or Transmeta Crusoe, I have very suspicious attitude to both of them. Even low power consumption doesn't compensate so poor performance. >I'm not saying they don't have problems, but Intel/AMD >are often willing to replace CPUs with bugs (such as >that floating point pug that occured in the Intel >Pentium in the mid-1990's) and many of the bugs are so >simple they are solved by a simple software workaround >(eg Intel's F00F bug -- almost every OS including >FreeBSD includes the workaround). Most bugs in modern CPUs (since PPro) are eliminated through microcode updation at boot time, so you may never know about them. But I'm sure they are; more complicated a CPU gets, more bugs (errata) it potentially contains. >I've seem more Apples than Cyrixs, and that says a >lot... But I have seen much more Cyrix-based PCs than Apple boxes\aquariums. FINALLY: Cyrix technology has _nothing_ common with VIA Cyrix III (C3) except name. VIA C3 is based on IDT\Centaur technology. Don't mistake apples with oranges. --- Regards, Rhett __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021214004356.36247.qmail>