[pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: "Nigel" <npl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pchelpers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:50:01 +1200
The motherboard was a pci one with an amd 5x86 processor. These were a 486
pinout but 5x86 core - nearly a pentium - with p75 performance when running
at 133 meg. The motherboard had a 40 meg clock link so you could overclock
to 160 meg. This gave P100 performance.
It used to have a 486-100 chip in it until I got the 5x86 chip. It was a
good machine and I've still got one lying around somewhere.
However, the modem was a Lucent pci win modem and it worked a helluva lot
better than the 56k Brightcom external with a rockwell chipset that I'm
using to send this!
>
> Whatever the modem was, it was unlikely to have been a software driven
> winmodem. They are PCI cards and require a minimum of a pentium 150 to
> work. Can't remember seeing any 486 machines with PCI slots (although
> there may have been some). There were, however some ISA type internal
> modems that were very well made and were hardware driven. These would be
> the equal of any external modem at the same speed.
>
> Are you sure the external one you had wasn't a 33.6k model or even a
> 28.8k?
>
> Nigel wrote:
> >
> > The old Lucent winmodem I used to have in my 486-100 ALWAYS gave me
> > better
> > download speed than the poxy external one I am now using on my modern
> > computer! Apart from portability, I would prefer an internal one.
> >
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 6/03/2002
- Follow-Ups:
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: John Durham
- References:
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: Scott McNay
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: John Durham
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: Nigel
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: John Durham
Other related posts:
- » [pchelpers] question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- » [pchelpers] Re: question please
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: John Durham
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: Scott McNay
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: John Durham
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: Nigel
- [pchelpers] Re: question please
- From: John Durham