VLB SCSI?

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Oct 27 23:42:23 2001

Well, these guys figured out how to do it with a standard '386. I've never used
a '386sx for anything beyond just a look, and this was definitely not an SX. I
used it for about a year, simply because it would run a "cracked" copy of a 3D
Cad program before the AUTOCAD versions that supporte 3D became conveniently
available. The early AutoCAD didn't require a math coprocessor, but CADKEY did.

A friend had written a program to circumvent the security module that came with
the program, and I was testing his work. AFAIK, the program he wrote worked
perfectly and every time. It took about two minutes to find all the modules
that had to be "fixed" from a completely new batch of diskettes on which this
software was distributed, and made it entirely unnecessary to have the "simm"
that plugged in to the parallel/serial port. Unfortunately, he never did that
with protected WINDOWS software, so I don't use that stuff. It didn't matter
much, but we liked cracking that stuff just to show how transparent the security
really was. Once we'd verified that the crack was complete, we set the software
aside. No point stealing someone else's work. but fun fiddling a way around the
"protection."

I used to take hours doing this stuff manually so I could keep my computer on
the desktop. There were so many security modules in series that, if they worked
at all, I had to have a keyboard drawer, since 7 or 8 modules amounted to a foot
or more at the rear of the computer.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <cmurillo_at_emtelsa.multi.net.co>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: VLB SCSI?


> At 12:29 AM 10/28/01 +0100, Iggy wrote:
> >Richard Erlacher skrev:
> >
> >>I saw a '386 motherboard with VLB slots on Tuesday, but didn't bite. It
> took
> >>me WAY too long to give away all my old '386's, and the only one I kept was
> >>one that uses a '287 coprocessor, just for interest.
> >
> >287? I didn't think that would be possible. Don't they use different length
> >arithmetic, just to name one difference?
>
> No; they both have IEEE operands. I believe that you could use
> 287 parts with 386-SX cpus, but not with normal 386's.
>
> carlos.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo_at_nospammers.ieee.org
>
>
Received on Sat Oct 27 2001 - 23:42:23 BST