red_avatar wrote:

A DX33 was pretty medium to high end at the time in 1994 (the first half at least) with the DX2/66 being the "dream machine". Pentiums were only spoken off in hushed tones even by the end of 1994 when Pentium PCs started appearing slowly but surely on the consumer markets.

You're off by a year (at least in US markets). DX33s were nowhere near the high end at any point in 1994 and Pentium-60s were in the top Brand Name builds as early as the January 1994 ads which would have been circulated in 1993. Buying a 386SX in 1993 was a severe budgetary decision; we bought ours in 1991(386SX-16) and it was already outdated. Got the job done, though. My P5-90 is from August, 1994. The FDIV bug was all over the media in fall/winter 94, a far cry from 'hushed tones'.

PC Computing, January 1993, Gateway Ad. The best lineup position of a DX33. Generously "mid-range," but definitely low-to-mid. High end held by DX66 in VLB and EISA configurations.

PC Computing, January 1994, Gateway Ad. Same systems with DX2/50 pushing the DX33 even lower in the range, high end adds Pentium-60 systems.

Wiki Pentium CPU. Living in Silicon Valley and next to Intel.corp we alway get the latest Intel CPU’s early.

Which were the Pentium CPU that had the BUG ?

I had a 286 from 1992, according to this ad it was a 700 dollar PC.

https://books.google.com/books?id=uQEAAAAAMBA … omputer&f=false

Intel486dx33 wrote:

Which were the Pentium CPU that had the BUG ?

That information is also in the wiki.

JudgeMonroe wrote:

DX33 seems weak for 1993 and won't push as far into the future as a DX66

Did you work in IT in 1993 or something? Only an IT person would have considered a DX-33 slow in 1993. Plus, the future-proofing argument is bunk. DX-33 and DX/2-66 are the same class of CPU with literally one speed grade in between them. The DX/2-50 was considered barely faster than a DX-33 by most magazines of the time, and the prices reflected that. The DX/2-66 was considered on average 45% faster than a DX-33. Both CPUs became obsolete at pretty much the same time, which would have been shortly after Windows 95 came out, so early 1996.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

JudgeMonroe wrote:

DX33 seems weak for 1993 and won't push as far into the future as a DX66

Did you work in IT in 1993 or something? Only an IT person would have considered a DX-33 slow in 1993. Plus, the future-proofing argument is bunk. DX-33 and DX/2-66 are the same class of CPU with literally one speed grade in between them. The DX/2-50 was considered barely faster than a DX-33 by most magazines of the time, and the prices reflected that. The DX/2-66 was considered on average 45% faster than a DX-33. Both CPUs became obsolete at pretty much the same time, which would have been shortly after Windows 95 came out, so early 1996.

Actually, I could have sworn I had this computer in the 1980's but I guess not. I had a $2500 budget and living in Silicon Valley I always wanted to get into computers.
I use to watch "computer chronicles" allot, A local TV show about emerging computer tech.
https://youtu.be/J5_doCwi608
So a friend and I choose which components to put in my custom built PC.
A good pre-built PC was too much money and did not have all the components I want for the budget I had.
It felt like I had this computer for 10 years before I did anything meaningful with it.
I was a Novice and knew very little about DOS or MS-Windows 3.11 before.
I did take a class at school but it was very limited.
So, wanted a good computer for work and school.

What we selected was this config.

Intel 486dx-33
4mb ram
generic ISA motherboard.
128kb cache
120mb Hard drive
14.4 modem.
Sound blaster clone sound card.
Sony 2x CDROM with ISA controller
14" SVGA monitor

later I purchased a refurbished Laser printer but It was really slow to print.
it had very little ram.

I went with the 486 because of it's speed and It was a mid-level CPU at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdFJZKJMerA

So computers where really taking off at the time and everyone was getting into computers.
I saw a local add in the paper for computer tutoring.
So I hired this guy to setup my computer and teach me.
We where able to get everything set up even the dial-up internet.
with access to Wild Cat BBS servers and AT&T internet service on windows 3.11
and Netscape web browser.

The computer worked fine and it seems like I had it for ten years before I really got into computers.
I also purchased some MS-Windows an MS-Office instructional VHS tapes.

Later I went to school for computers and networking.
UNIX
Sun Solaris
DOS
MS-Windows
Apple
Novell networking
HPUX
CBT's
etc.

That's when I really got into computers and I think it was 1995.

Pentiums never really took off in consumer space until Windows 95 came out. Even then higher speed AMD 486s were still for sale. All the 486sx systems(cheap mostly OEM) I've bought over the years have been upgraded to 486DX2/50s or 486DX2/66s with ram upgrades. Folks used these systems well into the Pentium era. I used my 486DX2/66 to about 2000. Not being a gamer helped. If it was a generic 486 system it was easy enough to swap out the mobo and if you're lucky reuse the ram hdd/fdds/sound cards etc at a lower cost than buying a new system.

Just because something was advertise in mag doesn't mean that type of system was adopted straight away. In '93 I was still using a 286/16 with 4megs of ram with a 40meg and 210meg hdds.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

JudgeMonroe wrote:

DX33 seems weak for 1993 and won't push as far into the future as a DX66

Did you work in IT in 1993 or something? Only an IT person would have considered a DX-33 slow in 1993. Plus, the future-proofing argument is bunk. DX-33 and DX/2-66 are the same class of CPU with literally one speed grade in between them. The DX/2-50 was considered barely faster than a DX-33 by most magazines of the time, and the prices reflected that. The DX/2-66 was considered on average 45% faster than a DX-33. Both CPUs became obsolete at pretty much the same time, which would have been shortly after Windows 95 came out, so early 1996.

In Silicon Valley we have some computer stores called 'Fry's electronics"
https://www.frys.com/

and there was a local monthly publication about computers called "computer shopper"
https://archive.org/details/computer_shopper?tab=collection.

In computer shopper ( a paper back newspaper style large print magazine ) you could shop all kinds of pre-built computers and components and software.
they would review just about everything too. It was a very helpful magazine.

Caluser2000 wrote:

Just because something was advertise in mag doesn't mean that type of system was adopted straight away. In '93 I was still using a 286/16 with 4megs of ram with a 40meg and 210meg hdds.

And so it was. I remember seeing the first Pentium 60 ads in a game magazines back cover in late -93 and the cost was like 3-4 times more than an average 486. My friend had a 486/33 in the Autumn of -92 (bought with his summer job money) and one of my class mates had a 486/50 in late -92. I got my 486/33 in the summer of -93 as did most of my friends. It was still lacking behind when you played the most demanding simulators though. Only one of my friends still had a 286 in -93 and he sure as hell felt it. 🤣

A lot of people seem to want this conversation to be about "the computer I was still using in 1993" or "the best computer I could afford in 1993." I think the conversation is about "the best computer 1993 had to offer," or maybe "the computer that best represents 1993," which in both cases is probably a DX66, disregarding the general availability of the P5-60 systems at the end of the year (which were priced at the top end and mostly enticing to businesses looking at their upgrade cycle). The DX33 was a budget CPU for any date in 1993. If that's what you had, it doesn't mean you suck, it just means you had a budget CPU.

Memories are faulty. Yes, Pentiums were sold in 1994. Yes, they were popular. No, it didn't take until Windows 95 came out for them to take off (they were already on the 3rd generation Socket 7s by then!). Yes, advertisements are representative of what systems were being bought and sold -- if it were any other way, the companies wouldn't be advertising. No, Pentiums didn't cost 3-4 times as much as a 486.

JudgeMonroe wrote:

A lot of people seem to want this conversation to be about "the computer I was still using in 1993" or "the best computer I could afford in 1993." I think the conversation is about "the best computer 1993 had to offer," or maybe "the computer that best represents 1993," which in both cases is probably a DX66, disregarding the general availability of the P5-60 systems at the end of the year (which were priced at the top end and mostly enticing to businesses looking at their upgrade cycle). The DX33 was a budget CPU for any date in 1993. If that's what you had, it doesn't mean you suck, it just means you had a budget CPU.

Memories are faulty. Yes, Pentiums were sold in 1994. Yes, they were popular. No, it didn't take until Windows 95 came out for them to take off (they were already on the 3rd generation Socket 7s by then!). Yes, advertisements are representative of what systems were being bought and sold -- if it were any other way, the companies wouldn't be advertising. No, Pentiums didn't cost 3-4 times as much as a 486.

I like reading about what people were using in 1993.
I don’t think it is about the best or fastest computer. Just what ever suited your needs in 1993.
Since there was only DOS and MS Windows 3x available at the time. Maybe SCO or FREE BSD.
But for most people it was DOS and Win3x.
A 486dx-33 was good enough for most apps and games of that time.

How many of your purchased MS-Office or Perfect Office or Lotus Office ?

Intel486dx33 wrote:

I like reading about what people were using in 1993. I don’t think it is about the best or fastest computer. Just what ever suit […]
Show full quote

I like reading about what people were using in 1993.
I don’t think it is about the best or fastest computer. Just what ever suited your needs in 1993.
Since there was only DOS and MS Windows 3x available at the time. Maybe SCO or FREE BSD.
But for most people it was DOS and Win3x.
A 486dx-33 was good enough for most apps and games of that time.

How many of your purchased MS-Office or Perfect Office or Lotus Office ?

Fair enough. I think the core question posed by the thread has been answered. The "limitations" to a DX33 machine are well-documented. People want to dismiss the forward-looking limitations of such a build, but I think comparing a "1990 machine in 1993" with "a 1993 machine in 1993" are very different propositions even if they're the same computer, because you can't ignore the future and "good enough" doesn't seem that interesting for a retrospective. People didn't buy or build computers to use for 1 year. Obsolescence is hard to quantify, but there's no question that the DX33 had a lot less runway in 1993 than people are trying to make it out -- by 1995 you couldn't buy one from a brand name or run that year's killer game (Command & Conquer), which seem like a hallmark of obsolescence to me. If you bought one new in 1993, it was a budget decision, not a "this is going to be good enough for a while" decision.

In 1993 I was still using a 386sx/16 from 1990 or 1991. The biggest performance pressure was hard disk space, and we didn't even use Windows at all. It didn't last much longer. 4 or 5 years is a pretty good run, especially back then. Today I'm using computers from 2013/2014 and feel no particular pressure to replace them and the biggest hassle is old software, not new stuff. Plus ça change, I guess.

Obsolescence is hard to quantify, but there's no question that the DX33 had a lot less runway in 1993 than people are trying to make it out -- by 1995 you couldn't buy one from a brand name or run that year's killer game (Command & Conquer), which seem like a hallmark of obsolescence to me. If you bought one new in 1993, it was a budget decision, not a "this is going to be good enough for a while" decision.

Well microsoft said 512kb was going to be enough for anyone.
I think Windows 95 took allot of people by surprise and I was still able to run Win95 on my 486dx-33 from what I remember.

Windows 95 didn't take people by surprise. MS was promising it quite early with delay after delay and there was a hell of a balloo when it came out.The first release only supported Fat16 for hdds. It really wasn't really any better than a well set up dos/win 3.x config with a new face when it first came out. Kinda like NT 4 was a facelift version of NT 3.51. Of course they were telling the public that this was the end of Dos. Of course this was a lie and some clever fello even got win95 to run under DrDos. Later Win95 versions had Fat32 support were a bit better. As far as I recall MS never provided an upgrade path to Windows 95 with Fat32 support only supplying OEMs or system building shops. Sure back street or mom and pop stores would saell you a copy when the later versions came out or you could grab a copy from your geek friend.

I never bought an office suite for home use. Things like Claris Works or MS Works were usually offered or bundled with home systems. I personally used PFS Window Works. You could save to Lotus 123, WordPerfect and DBase formats so no biggy transferring files. Those that used MS Office and such at work usually used a pirated copy from work.

Intel486dx33 wrote:

Well microsoft said 512kb was going to be enough for anyone.
I think Windows 95 took allot of people by surprise and I was still able to run Win95 on my 486dx-33 from what I remember.

"Microsoft" never said any such thing. The urban legend is that Bill Gates said "640k ought to be enough for anyone" which probably never happened, either, and regardless it wasn't Bill Gates's decision to make. The 640K limit had nothing to do with Gates or Microsoft or DOS, it was down to the 8088 processor's 20-bit address bus that could only address 1MB RAM and IBM's use of the "upper" 384k of that for ROM and I/O. The rest is history and backward compatibility.

Windows 95 came out of the gate promising to run on just about anything (minimum requirements being a 386DX because 32 bits), and it kind of did. What it wanted most was RAM. I think I remember the effective minimum being 12 MB, below which you got a lot of paging. Contrary to Caluser2000, I consider it a vast improvement over Windows 3.1, and most of the early issues with it had more to do with 16-bit apps not being upgraded. Those apps misbehaved on Win95 in all the same ways they misbehaved on Windows 3.1, but Win95's inability to multitask the 16bit subsystem made people blame Win95 instead of MS Word 6.0 or whatever. Booting into DOS mode for a game or something really wasn't that big a deal, and the configuration options in PIF files were a lot more flexible than multi-boot configs in DOS had been.

Intel486dx33 wrote:

I like reading about what people were using in 1993.
I don’t think it is about the best or fastest computer. Just what ever suited your needs in 1993.
Since there was only DOS and MS Windows 3x available at the time. Maybe SCO or FREE BSD.

Lets not forget OS/2 was a thing and popular for running multiple BBSs. v3 Warp came out in 1994. Runs quite decently on a 486SDx2/66 with 16megs of ram.

JudgeMonroe wrote:

AMemories are faulty. Yes, Pentiums were sold in 1994. Yes, they were popular. No, it didn't take until Windows 95 came out for them to take off (they were already on the 3rd generation Socket 7s by then!).

The Socket7 specification was released before Windows 95, but the actual 3rd generation Pentiums (PMMX) that used it didn't come out until January 1997. Any Pentium with a model number that starts with A80502 is a second generation Pentium.

That's the way I remember it and the bugs with the earlier Pentium cpus and the recall certainly put folk off. I''ve got a P-75 Compaq AIO system made later ''95. It came with original OEM software bundle which was Dos 6.22/windows 3.11 it was sold with Windows 95 upgrade CD. The 486DX2/66 system in the same layout shipped August '94.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

JudgeMonroe wrote:

AMemories are faulty. Yes, Pentiums were sold in 1994. Yes, they were popular. No, it didn't take until Windows 95 came out for them to take off (they were already on the 3rd generation Socket 7s by then!).

The Socket7 specification was released before Windows 95, but the actual 3rd generation Pentiums (PMMX) that used it didn't come out until January 1997. Any Pentium with a model number that starts with A80502 is a second generation Pentium.

See, memories are faulty. I misremembered the Aladdin/Zappa as having a Socket 7. Irrespective of 2nd or 3rd generation Pentium, my point stands.

Reading from various other threads about folks experiences it would seem Pentiums didn't really start becoming a thing/popular in consumer space until P100s- 133s.