On 4/20/2021 4:35 PM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
On 20/04/2021 15:10, Roland Hughes wrote:
On 4/20/2021 5:00 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
On 18/04/2021 14:50, Roland Hughes wrote:
I guess QML is more present in embedded? Or maybe some entreprise stuff
we don't know about...
Just phones and John Deere.
This is false, as a quick walk through the customer showcase on TQC's
website will show.
It's completely true. That tiny subset on the Web site doesn't scratch
the surface.
So there's even*MORE* QML used in embedded than what's advertised on
TQC's website? That's great news!
I know it is difficult for you, but don't be an ass.
This is also false. SXs have never been defective CPUs.
You need to actually learn processor history or at least do some
research before you speak.
The 486SX was a marketing quirk. Intel had a high failure rate (low
yield) on the FPU. When a CPU passed DX testing it was sold as a 486DX.
When it failed testing it went down another line where they "cut some
pins" so the chip couldn't communicate with the bad FPU, put an SX on it
and sold scrap at a discount.
This has widely been debunked.
The SXs were introduced to the market_years_ after the introduction of
the DXs. Intel didn't start to have massive production problems all of a
sudden and thus decided to pull this stunt. The SXs were_designed_ to
have the FPU disabled, and their FPU was for this reason ever tested.
The only reason for the introduction of the SX was market segmentation
to compete against AMD.
Here's some links for you, given you seem to able to Google "486 sx
defective" (and leave it in the URLs that you link), but somehow
conveniently IGNORING the first couple of results, even if they include
first-hand accounts of Intel engineers who worked on the 486 that
disprove the whole defective story:
http://www.os2museum.com/wp/lies-damn-lies-and-wikipedia/
By the way, did you notice that the Wikipedia page that YOU linked
doesn't talk about those chips being "defective" DXs?
Because that's a lie, as discussed in the talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intel_80486SX
Nothing in your links debunks anything, except your ability to do
research. I was at Digital Equipment Corporation when they were
designing their 486 "Dandy" The Digital Tandy and that is __exactly__
what Intel told the engineers. It took more than a year of DX "low
yield" before there was enough chips to make setting up a line to "fix"
them worth while.
**Later** there was a 486SX designed without FPU.
--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593
https://theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
https://infiniteexposure.net
https://lesedi.us
https://johnsmith-book.com
https://logikalblog.com
https://interestingauthors.com/blog
_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
