Bu> I live in Nova Scotia, and work as a Paramedic, currently do rotation
Bu> outside Yellowknife in the NWT. When i'm up here I have some downtime, an
Bu> aptop isn't the strongest for gaming. I had downloaded some older games i
Bu> to play like Di

Wow, that's quite the trek for your rotation work but I have to imagine the
money makes it all worth while and I've heard that it is beautiful up there,
or actually in both places if I am honest, both of which I would love to
visit. What are you running for a laptop, I'd love to make some
recommendations based on hardware. I actually think in one of the echos
there is an active discussion about retro game recommendations you might want
to check out, I'll try to dig it up for you.

Bu> When I was 12 or 13, our computer was a 486 and we used to connect to
Bu> 's in our town. I know my older brother in Halifax had a huge list he cou
Bu> ose from. The games I remember us playing was LORD, TW and a MUD which was
Bu> y fun, tons of

Sounds very familiar. My parents upgraded my 8086 to 386SX and then to a
386DX2 and I thought that it just couldn't get any better than that. I can't
remember if I ever upgraded to a 486 or went straight to a Pentium, really
makes me wish I had journaled or taken pictures back in the day to remember.
There's a buncch of boards with all of those games running and a lot of
boards are running inter-board versions of them so that you can play with
players from all over the place, not just that board you are connecting to.
The Reality Check BBS (realitycheckbbs.org:23) has a ton of BBSLink games.

Bu> locate a BBS. So here I am, and yes this is the first one i've been on i
Bu> 20 years ....

Amazing, well welcome back. Have you watched the BBS documentary by Jason
Scott? It's a great way to take yourself back to the good ole days and stoke
the fire :)

Bu> Anyway, thanks for being here, this is quite awesome! I've never bee
Bu> amloops, but I had worked in Fort Nelson on an LNG site previously, and in
Bu> McMurray also .... which I know is nowhere near Kamloops. But closer than

Well not close but also not too far, we all know of Fort Nelson and Fort Mac
where we're from. Not missing much but if you have a chance to visit the
Okanagan where I also grew up, it's definitely worth the trip. Great having
you here, hope you have some fun and rekindle that magic from when you were 12!

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The Bottomless Abyss BBS * bbs.bottomlessabyss.net

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: unc0nnected to Bulifyf on Thu Oct 26 2023 08:32 pm

un> Sounds very familiar. My parents upgraded my 8086 to 386SX and then to a
un> 386DX2 and I thought that it just couldn't get any better than that. I

As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The fastest 386 I remember was AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation started with the 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from what I remember.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Nightfox to unc0nnected on Thu Oct 26 2023 19:26:43

> Re: Re: Hey folks
> By: unc0nnected to Bulifyf on Thu Oct 26 2023 08:32 pm
>
> un> Sounds very familiar. My parents upgraded my 8086 to 386SX and then t > un> 386DX2 and I thought that it just couldn't get any better than that. I >
> As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The fastes > 386 I remember was AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation started with the
> 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from what I remember.
>
> Nightfox
>
You're right Nightfox. I remember the DX2 as 486 too.

regards
Mark

---
■ Synchronet ■ Starbug BBS - 5.70.105.17

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Nightfox to unc0nnected on Thu Oct 26 2023 07:26 pm

> un> Sounds very familiar. My parents upgraded my 8086 to 386SX and then
> un> to a 386DX2 and I thought that it just couldn't get any better than
> un> that. I
>
> As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The
> fastest 386 I remember was AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation started
> with the 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from what I remember.

I don't remember a DX2 either, I seem to remember a 386DX just had a math co-processor? I supposed a quick google would set the record straight haha. I just remember we had something called a 386DX for high school draft class.

---
■ Synchronet ■ This is my tagline so I don't get any complaints when I post

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: unc0nnected to Bulifyf on Thu Oct 26 2023 20:32:00

I do recall there were two variants of intel's 386. There was the SX variant and the DX variant. The DX variant was manufactured in the Philipines. The DX variant also accepted a math co-processor add-on. I owned a 386DX with a math co-processor to boost system performance when using AutoCAD in 1991.

---
■ Synchronet ■ Sent from the Amiga City BBS

> Re: Re: Hey folks
> By: unc0nnected to Bulifyf on Thu Oct 26 2023 08:32 pm

> un> Sounds very familiar. My parents upgraded my 8086 to 386SX and then
> un> to a 386DX2 and I thought that it just couldn't get any better than
> un> that. I

> As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The
> fastest 386 I remember was AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation started
> with the 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from what I remember.

> Nightfox

> ---
I don't remember a 386DX2 either, but I had one of those AMD 386DX-40's. Was
a decent little chip and would give the popular at that time 486SX-25 a run for
its money. The chip I really liked was the 486DX4-100. Now THAT was fun chip
to run and it began my decades-long preference for AMD chips....

Regards,
-==*>Weatherman<*==-

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Lost Chord BBS - Cheyenne, WY

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Weatherman to Nightfox on Fri Oct 27 2023 10:57 am

We> I don't remember a 386DX2 either, but I had one of those AMD 386DX-40's.
We> Was a decent little chip and would give the popular at that time 486SX-25
We> a run for its money. The chip I really liked was the 486DX4-100. Now
We> THAT was fun chip to run and it began my decades-long preference for AMD
We> chips....

Yeah, I also had an AMD 386DX-40 for a little while. It was a nice processor and quite capable of running the software of the day for a while.

I had been using AMD processors for a long time, from 1993 to 2011 when I built an Intel desktop (I was working for Intel at the time, and Intel employees could buy Intel CPUs for half of retail price). My current desktop is one I built in 2019, also with an Intel processor. I'd heard AMD's processors from around 2019 and newer have been giving Intel a run for their money (again), and I've thought about using AMD again for my next desktop.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Terry to unc0nnected on Fri Oct 27 2023 10:59 am

> Re: Re: Hey folks
> By: unc0nnected to Bulifyf on Thu Oct 26 2023 20:32:00
>
> I do recall there were two variants of intel's 386. There was the SX variant
> and the DX variant. The DX variant was manufactured in the Philipines. The D
> variant also accepted a math co-processor add-on. I owned a 386DX with a mat
> co-processor to boost system performance when using AutoCAD in 1991.
>

The DX variant didn't have a math co-processor. It was the 486 where the
coprocessor was introduced. The main difference between the 386 SX and DX was
the SX had a smaller 16 bit data bus (?)_ to make for budget PCs

---
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Weatherman to Nightfox on Fri Oct 27 2023 10:57 am

> > Re: Re: Hey folks
> > By: unc0nnected to Bulifyf on Thu Oct 26 2023 08:32 pm
>
> > un> Sounds very familiar. My parents upgraded my 8086 to 386SX and the
> > un> to a 386DX2 and I thought that it just couldn't get any better than
> > un> that. I
>
> > As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The
> > fastest 386 I remember was AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation started
> > with the 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from what I remember.
>
> > Nightfox
>
> > ---
> I don't remember a 386DX2 either, but I had one of those AMD 386DX-40's. W
> a decent little chip and would give the popular at that time 486SX-25 a run
> its money. The chip I really liked was the 486DX4-100. Now THAT was fun c
> to run and it began my decades-long preference for AMD chips....
>
>
> Regards,
> -==*>Weatherman<*==-
>
That is a great chip. I have one in one of my 486's. I've actually got a 486
33, 486 DX2 66MHz and 486 DX4 100 that I can swap freely in that computer.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

> I don't remember a DX2 either, I seem to remember a 386DX just had a math co-p
> cessor? I supposed a quick google would set the record straight haha. I just r
> ember we had something called a 386DX for high school draft class.

DX in the 386 world meant that the system was fully 32-bit. SX meant,
IIRC, that the processor was 32 but everything else was 16 -- that may not
be exactly right, but it did mean a mix of 16 and 32-bit.

In the 486 world, DX meant the built-in math co-processor was active, while
SX meant it was disabled or absent.

"DX2" could have been used by someone selling an upgrade-to-386DX kit to
indicate something, but this would be the first I have heard of it.

* SLMR 2.1a * Beam me aboard Scotty. Aye, will a 2x4 do captain?

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

-=> Nightfox wrote to unc0nnected <=-

Ni> As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The
Ni> fastest 386 I remember was AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation
Ni> started with the 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from what I
Ni> remember.

I know they made a SX version without a coprocessor, and AMD made a
compatible chip that ran at 40 mhz.

Oh, clock doubled 486es, that was a rabbit hole of a debate back then -
was a 486/50 faster at certain processor-intensive apps than a DX2/66?

I was in the 486/50 camp. :)

.... It is quite possible (after all)
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
� Synchronet � .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Boraxman to Terry on Sat Oct 28 2023 09:28 pm

> Re: Re: Hey folks
> By: Terry to unc0nnected on Fri Oct 27 2023 10:59 am
>
> > Re: Re: Hey folks
> > By: unc0nnected to Bulifyf on Thu Oct 26 2023 20:32:00
>
> > I do recall there were two variants of intel's 386. There was the SX
> > variant and the DX variant. The DX variant was manufactured in the
> > Philipines. The D variant also accepted a math co-processor add-on. I
> > owned a 386DX with a mat co-processor to boost system performance when
> > using AutoCAD in 1991.
>
>
> The DX variant didn't have a math co-processor. It was the 486 where the
> coprocessor was introduced. The main difference between the 386 SX and DX
> was the SX had a smaller 16 bit data bus (?)_ to make for budget PCs

i had a 386dx with a math coprocessor.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox on Sat Oct 28 2023 08:56 am

Ni>> As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The
Ni>> fastest 386 I remember was AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation started
Ni>> with the 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from what I remember.

PF> I know they made a SX version without a coprocessor, and AMD made a
PF> compatible chip that ran at 40 mhz.

I believe SX and DX meant different things for 386 and 486. For the 386, I seem to remember neither had a co-processor built-in, and the DX referred to a full 32-bit external bus or something (vs. 16-bit external bus for the SX), and DX for the 486 meant it had a co-processor built-in.

PF> Oh, clock doubled 486es, that was a rabbit hole of a debate back then -
PF> was a 486/50 faster at certain processor-intensive apps than a DX2/66?

PF> I was in the 486/50 camp. :)

I remember that. I briefly had a 486/50 and it did seem pretty fast.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: MRO to Boraxman on Sat Oct 28 2023 05:50 pm

>> The DX variant didn't have a math co-processor. It was the 486 where the
>> coprocessor was introduced. The main difference between the 386 SX and DX
>> was the SX had a smaller 16 bit data bus (?)_ to make for budget PCs

MR> i had a 386dx with a math coprocessor.

Was it a separate chip? I had a 386DX-40 for a little while in the 90s, and I thought the motherboard had a separate socket for a math co-processor.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: MRO to Boraxman on Sat Oct 28 2023 05:50 pm

> i had a 386dx with a math coprocessor.

So you had an 80387?
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #85:
The ZMODEM file transfer protocol is limited to files of 4 gigabytes or smaller
Norco, CA WX: 62.9°F, 75.0% humidity, 0 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Digital Man to MRO on Sat Oct 28 2023 06:55 pm

> So you had an 80387?

When I was building and selling PCs and networks in the late 80s, I got a special build request to add an 80387 (this before there were SX or DX variants) to a 386 desktop order. I figured the 387's pins were keyed (could only be inserted in the socket in the correct orientation) and didn't notice the marked corner on the chip and corresponding inidcator on the socket. Turning on the PSU resulted in a loud pop and the smoke in the 387 was released. You never forget that smell... the smell of $300 going up in smoke. :-(
--
digital man (rob)

Rush quote #42:
Media messiahs preying on my fears, pop culture prophets playing in my ears
Norco, CA WX: 62.4°F, 76.0% humidity, 0 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

-=> Dumas Walker wrote to THE LIZARD MASTER <=-

DW> DX in the 386 world meant that the system was fully 32-bit. SX meant,
DW> IIRC, that the processor was 32 but everything else was 16 -- that may
DW> not be exactly right, but it did mean a mix of 16 and 32-bit.

The insides were 32-bit, but with a 16-bit data bus. Sort of like the original
8086 (16 bits inside, 8-bit data bus).

.... Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
� Synchronet � My Brand-New BBS

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sat Oct 28 2023 04:26 pm

> Re: Re: Hey folks
> By: MRO to Boraxman on Sat Oct 28 2023 05:50 pm
>
> >> The DX variant didn't have a math co-processor. It was the 486 where
> the
> >> coprocessor was introduced. The main difference between the 386 SX and
> DX
> >> was the SX had a smaller 16 bit data bus (?)_ to make for budget PCs
>
> MR> i had a 386dx with a math coprocessor.
>
> Was it a separate chip? I had a 386DX-40 for a little while in the 90s, and
> I thought the motherboard had a separate socket for a math co-processor.

i'm pretty sure it did. it was like 1993 so hard to remember that far back.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Digital Man to MRO on Sat Oct 28 2023 06:55 pm

> Re: Re: Hey folks
> By: MRO to Boraxman on Sat Oct 28 2023 05:50 pm
>
> > i had a 386dx with a math coprocessor.
>
> So you had an 80387?

it might have been. i just remember running diagnostics on it and
it said it had a math coprocessor. it was a good little junky computer.

my uncle got a bunch of dumpster computers from his work and gave them to me.
I don't have any photos and it's hard to remember that far back.

I remember i had a memory addon card what was ghetto and i tried to install os2 on it and a few of the disks were bad.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Dr. What to Dumas Walker on Sun Oct 29 2023 08:08 am

> The insides were 32-bit, but with a 16-bit data bus. Sort of like the
> original 8086 (16 bits inside, 8-bit data bus).

You're thinking of the 8088 (8-bit data bus). The original IBM PC and most
PC clones used the 8088 instead of the 8086 (and its 16-bit data bus).
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #68:
Robert D. Bouman, the author of SyncEdit, died in the mid to late 1990s
Norco, CA WX: 69.6°F, 11.0% humidity, 8 mph ENE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Digital Man to All on Sat Oct 28 2023 07:08 pm

DM> When I was building and selling PCs and networks in the late 80s, I got a
DM> special build request to add an 80387 (this before there were SX or DX
DM> variants) to a 386 desktop order. I figured the 387's pins were keyed
DM> (could only be inserted in the socket in the correct orientation) and
DM> didn't notice the marked corner on the chip and corresponding inidcator on
DM> the socket. Turning on the PSU resulted in a loud pop and the smoke in the
DM> 387 was released. You never forget that smell... the smell of $300 going
DM> up in smoke. :-(

Ouch.. :(

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Weatherman to Nightfox on Fri Oct 27 2023 10:57 am

> un>> Sounds very familiar. My parents upgraded my 8086 to 386SX and then to a 386DX2 and I
> un>> thought that it just couldn't get any better than that. I

>> As far as I remember, there was never such a thing as a 386DX2.. The fastest 386 I remember was
>> AMD's 386DX-40. The 'DX2' designation started with the 486DX2-66 (clock-doubled from 33mhz), from
>> what I remember.

> I don't remember a 386DX2 either, but I had one of those AMD 386DX-40's. Was a decent little chip
> and would give the popular at that time 486SX-25 a run for its money. The chip I really liked was
> the 486DX4-100. Now THAT was fun chip to run and it began my decades-long preference for AMD
> chips....

I completely forgot the 486's had a DX4 variant, I think I went from the 386DX-40 to a Pentium2 so I missed out on all of those fancy upgrades. I remember looking on with envy as I played some game on my friends Pentium-75. I can even remember the smell of those old machines like it was yesterday.
---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Nightfox to Weatherman on Fri Oct 27 2023 11:59 am

We>> I don't remember a 386DX2 either, but I had one of those AMD 386DX-40's. Was a decent little chip
We>> and would give the popular at that time 486SX-25 a run for its money. The chip I really liked
We>> was the 486DX4-100. Now THAT was fun chip to run and it began my decades-long preference for
We>> AMD chips....

> Yeah, I also had an AMD 386DX-40 for a little while. It was a nice processor and quite capable of
> running the software of the day for a while.

> I had been using AMD processors for a long time, from 1993 to 2011 when I built an Intel desktop (I
> was working for Intel at the time, and Intel employees could buy Intel CPUs for half of retail
> price). My current desktop is one I built in 2019, also with an Intel processor. I'd heard AMD's
> processors from around 2019 and newer have been giving Intel a run for their money (again), and I've
> thought about using AMD again for my next desktop.

Around 2017 is when I'd say AMD started giving Intel a run for it's money, they sent us a bunch of CPU's for our studio, a 1600x, 1700x and a few others in that line and it worked because we have almost exclusively been AMD ever since. It feels like Intel is brute forcing their was to competitive performance these days with chips that are using 300+ watts to eek out 5% more performance than a 125Watt AMD chip that costs less. We've found the AMD platform to be more stable, a FAR better bang for your buck and when it comes to workloads that are going to make us of 12-16 physical cores much better performance than Intel. As a convert I can tell you that you won't look back after switching to team red.
---
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Hey folks
By: Digital Man to All on Sat Oct 28 2023 07:08 pm

> When I was building and selling PCs and networks in the late 80s, I got a
> special build request to add an 80387 (this before there were SX or DX
> variants) to a 386 desktop order. I figured the 387's pins were keyed (could
> only be inserted in the socket in the correct orientation) and didn't notice
> the marked corner on the chip and corresponding inidcator on the socket.
> Turning on the PSU resulted in a loud pop and the smoke in the 387 was
> released. You never forget that smell... the smell of $300 going up in smoke

Woofah... how much trouble did you get into afterward? I get that was a life
lesson on its own, though.
---
■ Synchronet ■ Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 - Fredericksburg, VA USA

-=> Unc0nnected wrote to Weatherman <=-

Un> I completely forgot the 486's had a DX4 variant, I think I went from
Un> the 386DX-40 to a Pentium2 so I missed out on all of those fancy
Un> upgrades.

That's quite a leap!

I remember looking on with envy as I played some game on my
Un> friends Pentium-75. I can even remember the smell of those old
Un> machines like it was yesterday.

I remember how hot the first Pentiums seemed. I don't recall any of my
486es having CPU fans, only heat sinks?

.... Are there sections? Consider transitions
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
� Synchronet � .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.