Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

OT: CPU Board 4x486 50mhz

Expand Messages
  • Bill Degnan
    I know that this is a bit of a newer board, but does anyone have experience with a CPU board using 4 486 chips? The date on the board is 1992, and the
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I know that this is a bit of a newer board, but does anyone have experience
      with a CPU board using 4 486 chips? The date on the board is 1992, and the
      connector is an AMP 533449 - Three 45x3 female connectors that I assume
      plug into a backplane.

      I guess this came out of some sort of server. If this is too new for
      discussion here, please feel free to send your comments directly to my
      email address. Last I checked, vintage computing did not include the
      1990's. stuff :-)

      Bill
    • Jim Scheef
      Bill, Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486 was at the very beginning of Intel-based multiprocessing. Intel did not officially support
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486 was at the very
        beginning of Intel-based multiprocessing. Intel did not officially
        support multi-processors until the P Pro. There were a couple of
        companies that made early "really big" servers when NT was first introduced.

        Please save it. If you don't want it, bring it on 12/6 and I'll take it
        off your hands. I'll try to identify it.

        Jim


        Bill Degnan wrote:
        >
        >
        > I know that this is a bit of a newer board, but does anyone have experience
        > with a CPU board using 4 486 chips? The date on the board is 1992, and the
        > connector is an AMP 533449 - Three 45x3 female connectors that I assume
        > plug into a backplane.
        >
        > I guess this came out of some sort of server. If this is too new for
        > discussion here, please feel free to send your comments directly to my
        > email address. Last I checked, vintage computing did not include the
        > 1990's. stuff :-)
        >
        > Bill
        >
        >
      • Evan Koblentz
        486, 386, and (in my opinion) even 286 are NOT on-topic. ... From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          486, 386, and (in my opinion) even 286 are NOT on-topic.



          -----Original Message-----
          From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Scheef
          Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:26 PM
          To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] OT: CPU Board 4x486 50mhz


          Bill,

          Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486
        • Sridhar Ayengar
          ... There were multiprocessor x86-based servers in the days of the 80386 before all that SX/DX stuff. There may have been multiprocessor 80286-based servers,
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim Scheef wrote:
            > Bill,
            >
            > Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486 was at the very
            > beginning of Intel-based multiprocessing. Intel did not officially
            > support multi-processors until the P Pro. There were a couple of
            > companies that made early "really big" servers when NT was first introduced.
            >
            > Please save it. If you don't want it, bring it on 12/6 and I'll take it
            > off your hands. I'll try to identify it.

            There were multiprocessor x86-based servers in the days of the 80386
            before all that SX/DX stuff. There may have been multiprocessor
            80286-based servers, but I don't remember clearly.

            Peace... Sridhar
          • Mark D
            Why? What defines the topic. 486 is around the same timing as Atari ST/TT/Falcon computers which I consider retro and on topic. I know this group tends to
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Why? What defines the topic. 486 is around the same timing as Atari
              ST/TT/Falcon computers which I consider retro and on topic. I know this
              group tends to deal with MUCH older stuff but that stuff is retro to me.

              Thanks,
              Mark


              Evan Koblentz wrote:
              >
              > 486, 386, and (in my opinion) even 286 are NOT on-topic.
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:midatlanticretro%40yahoogroups.com>
              > [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:midatlanticretro%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Jim Scheef
              > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:26 PM
              > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:midatlanticretro%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] OT: CPU Board 4x486 50mhz
              >
              > Bill,
              >
              > Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486
              >
              >
            • William Donzelli
              ... iPSC? i432? -- Will
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                > Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486 was at the very
                > beginning of Intel-based multiprocessing. Intel did not officially
                > support multi-processors until the P Pro.

                iPSC? i432?

                --
                Will
              • Bryan Pope
                ... But it is a *4* way 486... ie. not a normal 486.. Cheers, Bryan
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Evan Koblentz wrote:
                  > 486, 386, and (in my opinion) even 286 are NOT on-topic.
                  >
                  >
                  But it is a *4* way 486... ie. not a normal 486..

                  Cheers,

                  Bryan

                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
                  > [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Scheef
                  > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:26 PM
                  > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] OT: CPU Board 4x486 50mhz
                  >
                  >
                  > Bill,
                  >
                  > Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486
                  >
                • fairlanefastback
                  But in fairness that would not change vintage status, just means its a more rare bird. Thats sort of like saying a GMC Syclone is a vintage truck, which it is
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    But in fairness that would not change vintage status, just means its a
                    more rare bird.

                    Thats sort of like saying a GMC Syclone is a vintage truck, which it
                    is not.

                    That said I have to agree with someone else's post that an Atari
                    Falcon feels vintage. Funny how the mind perceives things sometimes.

                    I guess this begs the question, does vintage have a year cutoff? Or
                    is it more intangible and based on a variety of factors like design,
                    lineage, capabilities, etc coupled with its year of introduction?

                    --- In midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com, Bryan Pope <bryan.pope@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Evan Koblentz wrote:
                    > > 486, 386, and (in my opinion) even 286 are NOT on-topic.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > But it is a *4* way 486... ie. not a normal 486..
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    >
                    > Bryan
                  • Evan Koblentz
                    I pray that we do not start YATYR debate. (Sorry Mark, not picking on you!) A timeline of chips, on their own, is fine for a mini-exhibit (such as Jeff Jonas
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 19, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I pray that we do not start YATYR debate. (Sorry Mark, not picking on you!)

                      A timeline of chips, on their own, is fine for a mini-exhibit (such as Jeff
                      Jonas already started). But I can't think of any reason to put a 486 server
                      in an exhibit and call it computer history.


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark D
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:59 PM
                      To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] OT: CPU Board 4x486 50mhz


                      Why? What defines the topic. 486 is around the same timing as Atari
                      ST/TT/Falcon computers which I consider retro and on topic. I know this
                      group tends to deal with MUCH older stuff but that stuff is retro to me.

                      Thanks,
                      Mark
                    • Jim Scheef
                      Sridhar, Were you BORN when the 286 was considered a server chip? :-) Jim
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 25, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sridhar,

                        Were you BORN when the 286 was considered a server chip? :-)

                        Jim

                        Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Jim Scheef wrote:
                        > > Bill,
                        > >
                        > > Vintage servers are always on topic. A 4-way 486 was at the very
                        > > beginning of Intel-based multiprocessing. Intel did not officially
                        > > support multi-processors until the P Pro. There were a couple of
                        > > companies that made early "really big" servers when NT was first
                        > introduced.
                        > >
                        > > Please save it. If you don't want it, bring it on 12/6 and I'll take it
                        > > off your hands. I'll try to identify it.
                        >
                        > There were multiprocessor x86-based servers in the days of the 80386
                        > before all that SX/DX stuff. There may have been multiprocessor
                        > 80286-based servers, but I don't remember clearly.
                        >
                        > Peace... Sridhar
                        >
                        >
                      • Sridhar Ayengar
                        ... 8-) When I was born, my father had a DEC PDP-11/70 in the house. (There are pictures of me, as a baby, playing with the operator s console switches... I
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 25, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim Scheef wrote:
                          > Sridhar,
                          >
                          > Were you BORN when the 286 was considered a server chip? :-)

                          8-)

                          When I was born, my father had a DEC PDP-11/70 in the house. (There are
                          pictures of me, as a baby, playing with the operator's console
                          switches... I still have the machine.) The first computer I used on a
                          regular basis was an IBM mainframe over a modem link. Using an IBM 3278
                          terminal. I upgraded to a 3279 later.

                          Peace... Sridhar
                        • Jim Scheef
                          Sridhar, None of which answers the question... The IBM AT is now 25 years old. My guess is that you were five at that time. Jim
                          Message 12 of 13 , Nov 25, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sridhar,

                            None of which answers the question...

                            The IBM AT is now 25 years old. My guess is that you were five at that time.

                            Jim

                            Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > Jim Scheef wrote:
                            > > Sridhar,
                            > >
                            > > Were you BORN when the 286 was considered a server chip? :-)
                            >
                            > 8-)
                            >
                            > When I was born, my father had a DEC PDP-11/70 in the house. (There are
                            > pictures of me, as a baby, playing with the operator's console
                            > switches... I still have the machine.) The first computer I used on a
                            > regular basis was an IBM mainframe over a modem link. Using an IBM 3278
                            > terminal. I upgraded to a 3279 later.
                            >
                            > Peace... Sridhar
                            >
                            >
                          • Sridhar Ayengar
                            ... A bit more than 6. And I was already regularly using a computer by that age. I had likely written my first program by then, but I probably wasn t coding
                            Message 13 of 13 , Nov 25, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim Scheef wrote:
                              > None of which answers the question...
                              >
                              > The IBM AT is now 25 years old. My guess is that you were five at that time.

                              A bit more than 6. And I was already regularly using a computer by that
                              age. I had likely written my first program by then, but I probably
                              wasn't coding seriously yet.

                              Peace... Sridhar
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.