Article View: comp.arch
Article #10937Why doesn't NeXT think the Cyrix 486 is a "real 486" (was: Any new instructions in a i486?)
From: Wayne Schlitt
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:48
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:48
60 lines
2814 bytes
2814 bytes
In article <edm.724366309@wrs.com> edm@wrs.com (Ed McClannahan) writes: > > >>>NeXTStep is said to not run on the Cyrix 486 chips because "they are > >>>not real 486's". No one has come up with a reliable reason _why_ NeXT > >>>doesn't think they are "real 486's" or why NeXTStep won't run on them. > > >>I don't have any real data, but I expect the problem is that the Cyrix > >>chip doesn't have a floating point unit. > > >A 10/21/92 semi-official net posting on NextStep claims it runs on SXs: > > The jist I got was that NeXTstep wants to maintain compatible File Systems > between 680X0 and X86 platforms. To do this, they needed to do a lot of > byte swapping on the X86 platforms. Since the 486 has a simple instruction > to do it while the 386 does not, NeXT just went with the 486. Well, we have come full circle. According to Microprocessor Reports, the Cyrix chip _does_ have the BSWAP instruction, so unless you have more than just guesses that it doesn't, then my original statement still holds: *No one has come up with a reliable reason _why_ NeXT doesn't think that they are "real 486's" or why NeXTStep won't run on them.* There are *guesses* that it's because of performance differences, but that doesn't seem to make too much sense. There are *guesses* that it's because NeXTStep requires floating point, but that doesn't seem to be the case. There are *guesses* that it's because the Cyrix chip doesn't have the BSWAP instruction, but it seems that Cyrix does have the instruction. There are *guesses* that it's because of the Cyrix chip doesn't manage the cache the same way, but know one knows if it is really different. There are *guesses* that it's because of some of the new control flags that the i486 has that Cyrix may not have, but know one knows if that is really a difference. I have posted all the hard facts that I know, but continuing to *guess* what NeXT means by the "Cyrix isn't a real 486" phrase is pointless. Please, if _someone_ has hard info, post it and kill this thread. If you don't have hard info, then don't guess. thanks -wayne
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<WAYNE.92Dec14194802@backbone.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!dsndata!backbone!backbone!wayneReferences:
<WAYNE.92Dec11164422@backbone.uucp> <9212130000.AA05447@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> <1992Dec14.134109.3367@fasttech.com> <edm.724366309@wrs.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!dsndata!backbone!backbone!wayne From: wayne@backbone.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) Subject: Why doesn't NeXT think the Cyrix 486 is a "real 486" (was: Any new instructions in a i486?) In-Reply-To: edm@wrs.com's message of Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20: 51:49 GMT Message-ID: <WAYNE.92Dec14194802@backbone.uucp> Followup-To: comp.sys.intel Sender: wayne@backbone (Wayne Schlitt) Organization: The Backbone Cabal References: <WAYNE.92Dec11164422@backbone.uucp> <9212130000.AA05447@iecc.cambridge.ma.us> <1992Dec14.134109.3367@fasttech.com> <edm.724366309@wrs.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:48:02 GMT