🚀 go-pugleaf

>>In article <101@penrij.LS.COM> soup@penrij.LS.COM (John Campbell) writes:
>>>	to "fix" the chip and break someone's system (see i486 and
>>>	the EISA bus-  Intel "fixed" the chip to favor IBM and hurt
>>>	the EISA manufacturers).
>>
>>Will EISA bus be hampered by the 486 "fixes"?
>>
>If this is true, it's an underhanded move by Intel. As for Intel's attempt to

This is nonsense.  Intel didn't do anything to sabotage EISA -- in fact, since
Intel is the only supplier for EISA chip set, that would be quite a foolish
move.  What DID happen is that one of the bugs in the 486 turns out to affect
EISA systems, but not MC systems.  The bug is that the two cycles that
comprise an interrupt acknowledge may not be consecutive bus cycles.  As it
turns out, the MC chip sets don't care.  In the case of the EISA chip set, it
is a bug compounding a bug: there is a bug in the EISA interrupt controller,
for which Intel has provided a hardware workaround.  Unfortunately, the
workaround depends on the two INTA cycles being consecutive, so the workaround
breaks when the 486 bug is triggered.  Intel now has a revised workaround for
the EISA chip set that works with the 486.

>Does anyone know anything about a dispute between Intel and Advanced Micro
>Devices over a license for the 386 chip?

This case has been in arbitration for about 3 years.  The hearings have
recently concluded, and now the lawyers are preparing briefs.  Then the
arbiter has to try to make sense of it all.  Look for a decision in the fall.

Michael Slater, Microprocessor Report   mslater@cup.portal.com


-- 
"No one had the guts... u un nt ti il l n no ow w..."     
|-$anjay "lock [+] on" $ingh	ssingh@watserv1.waterloo.edu	N.A.R.C. ]I[-|
"A modern-day warrior, mean mean stride, today's Tom Sawyer, mean mean pride."
!being!mind!self!cogsci!AI!think!nerve!parallel!cybernetix!chaos!fractal!info!