Talk:Cyrix

Compaq Presario 2100 reference

Incorrect.

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SupportTaskIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&taskId=125&prodSeriesId=242202&prodTypeId=321957&supportTaskId=22964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.201.72 (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

NO SIR YOU ARE INCORRECT

• http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/manualCategory?cc=us&lc=en&product=92269
• http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/bpb12289.pdf

Manual references GX86 processor in the 2100. The 2100 DESKTOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.194.168 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Tone

The fact that this article is a reprint of another article notwithstanding, it suffers from a blatantly unencyclopedic tone and should be significantly edited. It reads more as an op-ed piece than an encyclopedia entry. It could be written more suitably while retaining the acknowledgment to the original author. If there are no objections, I will attempt a rewrite -- strictly a stylistic edot, since I have no technical expertise on this topic -- in the near future. -- Nonstopdrivel 03:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Anyone with queries about the copyright of this, please contact me. Tannin 08:44 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

The link (http://www.redhill.net.au/) given as the source of this article contains nothing about Cyrix, but is seems rather to be a website for buying computers. Sneaky spamming?

Aeons | Talk 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Erm, this is clearly Intel-bashing as is common among most "rebels":

"So while AMD's 386s and even 486s had some Intel-written microcode software, Cyrix's designs were completely independent. Focused on removing potential competitors, Intel spent many years in legal battles with Cyrix, claiming that the Cyrix 486 violated Intel's patents. (Just as Intel did with every other x86 CPU manufacturer right up until 1998.)"

The parenthetical is not necessary. Worse still, it is a fragment. It's fact, yes, but it could be reworded nicely.

I'll leave it to someone more knowledgable.

"this is clearly Intel-bashing as is common among most 'rebels'"

No, it's not. In fact, it's very objective (not to mention true and understated). As they saw their excessive profits fade, Intel was a real a$$hole in those years—the microsoft of hardware. They complained and whined and sued every company that did it cheaper, better, and faster at a given chip price. And compared to AMD & Cyrix, they virtually ignored the enthusiast market. And sometime in the last decade, they decided they only want the business of IT managers who spend someone else's money on hundreds of server processors which, despite their performance, are overpriced.

They continued being as arrogant as MS until they got well-deserved spankings in several ways by several entities—a process that is happening right now, today, in a Delaware and/or New York courthouse. And they'll soon be spanked again when they figure out that they don't make GPUs as well as Nvidia.

All you need do to be a "rebel" is spend your money wisely, and all you need do to "bash" Intel is tell the truth. HelviticaBold 00:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helvitica Bold (talk • contribs)

Cx486

Can anyone add a Cx486 article like German version ? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cx486

--STufaro 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:180px-Cyrix logo.gif

Image:180px-Cyrix logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. i love you Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What is being quantified?

"When Via bought Cyrix, they had 400, and we had 60, and we were turning out more product."

• I think they mean...humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.194.168 (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please say whether this is number of products, employees, fab units, gross income, or what. HelviticaBold 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyrix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614122935/http://www.cpu-info.com/coprocessor/index2.php?mainid=Manu&tabid=3 to http://www.cpu-info.com/coprocessor/index2.php?mainid=Manu&tabid=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614121920/http://www.cpu-info.com/coprocessor/index2.php?mainid=Manu&tabid=3&page=1 to http://www.cpu-info.com/coprocessor/index2.php?mainid=Manu&tabid=3&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)