Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:10:46 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2003 at 18:05:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: I just went to check my quad P6/200. I thought the sticker said 1/97. In reality, it said 12/97. So my SMP stuff started in late November or December as I had SMP running on the dual PII box a couple of weeks prior to the quad arriving... So that refines the date just a bit... but that still qualifies as 1997 hardware in my book. It _was_ here in 1997. And it was available that Summer in fact, with a MB from AMI, the "Goliath". Bob >On January 14, 2003 at 17:50:26, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 14, 2003 at 16:59:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>>I play standard games at like 5 AM in the night also... ...otherwise it would be >>>>2600+ :) >>>> >>>>After paderborn 2003 i have time perhaps again to care for your statement. >>>> >>>>You *only* ran on a single cpu pro200 in 1997. >>> >>>The pentium pro 200 was a 1995 chip. Bruce got his sometime that Summer I >>>believe. I got mine a month or two later, before the end of the year. The next >>>year I started looking at quads and ordered mine near the end of 1996, and it >>>arrived right after the first of the year. So I have no idea what you are >>>talking >>>about. Crafty played its first game over the Christmas holidays in 1994, and >>>in early 1995 was running on a Sparc 20 followed by a pentium 133mhz box. >>>Followed by the P6/200 in late 1995 and a year and a half later a quad pentium >>>pro. >>>1998 was the year of the quad xeon 400, which I received in december of that >>>year. I think your memory is as bad as you claim mine is... >> >>I think you may be off by a year with some of this. > >That is possible. > >> >>>I ran on a quad pentium pro in 1997, and on a 500mhz alpha at the 1997 WMCCC >>>event so your statement is _wrong_. I can easily scan the invoice for the ALR >>>box >>>I used. It was delivered in January of 1997. Again, you can make statements, >>>but >>>they have no basis in fact. >> >>1995 in Hong Kong, people were running on P5/90's. The hottest micro was a 100 >>(Fritz, I believe). >> >>1995 in Paderborn, the supplied machine was a P5/120, and the hottest machine >>(Lang's) was a P5/133. > >That is possible. The P6 was announced and shipped in 1995. I fiddled with one >but in 1995 I generally ran on the sparc and P5/133 until late that year. >> >>1996 in Jakarta, I believe the supplied machine was a 133, but I can't remember. >> The 200 mhz P6's had been out for a while. That is what I took there. This >>was the hottest machine at the event. > >I had had a P6/200 for most of that year. Someone had another P6/200 built for >us >(I think it was fanning, one of Roman's friends) that we took to Jakarta as >well... That >seems to fit the time-line I gave above as I definitely ran on a P6/200 in >Jakarta and I had >had it since the beginning of that year or right at the end of 1995... > > > >> >>The 1997 Paris event I used an Alpha that had been cooled and overclocked to 767 >>mhz. Crafty ran on a 500. Shredder ran on a 533 that I brought. The supplied >>Intel (actually AMD, I think) machines were 233's, but 300's existed. > >I had a dual PII/300 late that year, for a while, while waiting on my quad >p6/200 to >arrive... It was "ok". > >> >>If you want a 1997 machine, you should use a single processor 533 mhz alpha, or >>a 300 mhz Pentium II. > >Or my Pentium Pro quad. It was delivered in 1997. One thing we always do with >every machine we buy is put a sticker on the back reflecting the month/year it >was >installed. That is how I can track most of these boxes so easily, if I still >have them >around. My old quad xeon and quad p6 are still here. In fact, my original >pentium pro >200 is still here. > > > > >> >>I don't think that you were SMP in 1997, but I could be wrong. > >It was late 1997, as I said. I got the first parallel version running about 3 >days >after the loaner dual PII/300 arrived, while waiting on the quad P6/200. > > > > > >> >>Getting into specific factual arguments with Vincent is only slightly less >>unwise than getting into arguments with Vincent over matters that cannot be >>proven. >> >>bruce > >That I know. :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.