August 24th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Re: a cool FYI while we're on topic
Huh? It believe you mixed them up. Different numbers, different processors, different vendors.
The original chip inside the first PC - (by IBM) was Motorola chip serial number 8086. Since the inception of it, chip manufacturers have tried to use the little '86 at the end... PC I was 8186, then came 8286, and so forth. The last chip serialled with '86 was the 486, but since most people associated that '86 with computer power, the next series was named "Pentium" - Intel tried to move off the numbers, and still does so even though we're up to Pentium IV's, they, in truth being 8986's, or 9086 depending on who's chips you're counting.
Below is not an exhaustive list, but it should give some figure:
Intel: 8008, 8080, 8086, 8088 (8-bit version of 8086), 80186 (rarely used), 80286, 80386 (or simply 386), 80486 (or 486), Pentium XX (you know all
Motorola: 6800, 6801, 6803, 6805, 6809, 6809, 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030, 68040, 68060 (680X0 used in old Mac and Mac II), PPC 601, 602, 603, 604 (60X used in old Power Mac)
Always listen to experts. They\'ll tell you what can\'t be done and why. Then go and do it. -- Robert Heinlein
I\'m basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do. -- Linus Torvalds
August 24th, 2004, 04:15 PM
I am inclined to agree with jdenny....
The original IBM PC used an 8086 CPU, then came the XT, then the AT, then modern computers as we think of them.
A "modern computer" has to have "AT compatibility"
I can remember when Motorola chips would slaughter Intel ones.............a bit like a Xeon against a PII as I recall they (Motorola) had numbers starting with "6"
I have a PC (IBM 64Kb memory and I think a clock speed of just under 4MHz) and an XT (640Kb/8-bit)............I missed out on the AT, but have the *286 onwards.
I seem to recall "RISC" chips, as well as a "RISC" operating system..............I think that IBM and Motorola had a joint company that made the chips. They went into Acorn computers, amongst others.
Time to get out the screwdriver..........and at my age, the magnifying glass
I will report back
No, you can probably do it with a 28.8 dial up connection The problem is that most providers will not allow you to connect with less than 33.6/56.6 as they don't want complaints about it being slow.
And another silly question do you need DSL to run exploits because I only have Dail-Up( at the moment).
August 24th, 2004, 05:07 PM
You promised pictures!
Originally posted here by nihil
[B]II have a PC (IBM 64Kb memory and I think a clock speed of just under 4MHz) and an XT (640Kb/8-bit)............I missed out on the AT, but have the *286 onwards.
N00b> STFU i r teh 1337 (english: You must be mistaken, good sir or madam. I believe myself to be quite a good player. On an unrelated matter, I also apparently enjoy math.)
August 24th, 2004, 07:29 PM
Jdenny and Nihil - of course, you're most likely right. Going on a memory like mine it's no wonder I get things confused. I've slept since then don't yanno Apols for mis-information but hey, at least the concept was in there somewhere and I stayed on thread!
Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.
Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!
August 24th, 2004, 08:19 PM
I can't read the guys mind or anything, but I have noticed a lot of people don't speak english very well around here. Maybe he didn't mean to ask if he could exploit someone else over dialup, but if someone could exploit his computer. He hasn't come back on to defend himself but it is a possiblity.
August 24th, 2004, 11:10 PM