>> YKYBHTLW
>What the heck?
Enjoying puzzles, I'd guessed "You know you better HTL when "...
Search engine says "You Know You've Been Hacking Too long When"..
Re: a thread from long, long ago last week - according to
www.x86.org (Not an Intel friendly site), they have a copyright
on the letter 'I', and also 'bunny people'??
Chuck
cswiger(a)widomaker.com
http://www.spectrum.lovely.net/
Emulators don't impress me that much today as much as they did before,
because of the massive amounts of cpu power we have availible to us now.
BUT.
This one is cool. Its done in java, and will even run in your browser
window.
The site even has a list of games that you can just click on, download
into a window, and it runs the game in the java emulator.
Slick!
Even on the slow setting most of the games run 2-3 times as fast as the
original machine, so unfortunately its too fast...but on a p233mmx,
thats damn impressive fast java code....especially running in a netscape
browser!
--
============================================================---------
Dominique Cormann Email:kozmik@wave.home.com
dcormann(a)uoguelph.ca Homepage:http://members.home.net/kozmik
If Intel's 8088 was stripped of half it's bus width, why was it used so much
more than the 8086? One of the few computers that I've seen with an 8086 is
the WANG WLTC (in the SCSI drive string). With being only 4 MHz (I think),
it way out-performs my 8088 8MHz Zenith (I just wish it wasn't so dang big).
I remember someone on here saying that an 8086 and 8088 were
interchangeable. Is this true, and would there be an advantage?
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Hotze <tim(a)thereviewguide.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: OT, but info needed: RAM uprade
>
>That's why it's Windows 95. It takes forever to boot. Anyway, cache's the
>only thing that makes the K6-2 slower than a PII at the same clock speed.
>If I remove my cache entirely on my 200MHz MMX system, then it performs
>considerably slower than my 486 with 136K (IE 8K on chip, 128K on the
>motherboard) cache. Also the bus speed matters a lot, especially on a
>pre-486 (or 486SX with 487) system if you're doing heavy math, etc. I
>don't know why Intel's 'low cost' processors are always so bone headed:
>486SX, which removed the one true thing that made it a 486, 8088, removing
>the crucial 16-bit bus of the 8086, 386SX, which worked pretty well, but
>still halfed the external bandwidth (did Intel ever make a cheap version of
>a 286?), and now we've got Celeron: Until the Celron A, no cache at all...
>
>Tim
>------------------------------------------------------*
>*Ever onward, always forward. *
>*Tim D. Hotze Panel Member, The Ultimate Web Host List*
>*http://www.webhostlist.com worldsfate(a)geocities.com *
>------------------------------------------------------*
>
Hi. I read about the AMD 29000 series microprocessors, and they seemed to
be pretty interesting. Does anyone have any examples of micros that used
such a processor? (And: Does anyone have one that they'd want to get rid
of with compensation?)
Tim
------------------------------------------------------*
*Ever onward, always forward. *
*Tim D. Hotze Panel Member, The Ultimate Web Host List*
*http://www.webhostlist.com worldsfate(a)geocities.com *
------------------------------------------------------*
Farat Mazullin has written several emulators, one of them being
fMSX, which emulates the MSX platform. It is available for
download at his site, along with a great deal of information
on the platform:
http://www.komkon.org/fms/MSX/
Hope this helps!
--Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu
[mailto:CLASSICCMP-owner@u.washington.edu]On Behalf Of Richard A. Cini,
Jr.
Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 8:02 AM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Old Microsoft MSX standard?
Hello, all:
While reading some late-1984 Byte mags, I came across a description of
the Microsoft MSX computer standard. Implemented mostly by Japanese computer
manufacturers, an MSX computer is CP/M based with 32k of RAM, a cassette
port, RF modulator, and cartridge slots for expansion. I picture a Z80-based
VIC-20 or C64, although not in that physical form.
Anyone have any info on this?
[ Rich Cini/WUGNET
[ ClubWin!/CW7
[ MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
[ Collector of "classic" computers
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/pdp11/
<================ reply separator =================>
O.K. I already LLF'ed it, but that was with the wrong jumper settings, so
it probably didn't do much good. I'll just have to find another 360k disk
somewhere to copy DEBUG off of my 5170.
ThAnX,
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Maslin <donm(a)cts.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, December 27, 1998 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Seagate ST-506 DIP switch settings needed
>Probably no great point in that. FDISK cannot usually see an ST-506/412
>interface HD that has not been low level formatted on the controller in
>use at the time. Set the switch for the appropriate cable, and power up
>the computer. Bring up DEBUG and at the '-' prompt, enter DC800:0<CR>.
>If you see ASCII text that indicates that you are looking at a WD
>controller, then enter G=C800:5 and follow the prompts to low level
>format the disk. If this is successful - if the disk is good - then
>FDISK should see it on the next bootup and you can go on from there.
>
>If it is not successful, you probably have a bad HD. Also, if your
>DC800:0 search does not yield ASCII, try other addresses in 200H
>increments. That is, such as CA00:0, CC00:0, etc.
>
> - don
>
>
<>8088 actually runs for the same clock about 20% slower than the 8086
<>but using significantly fewer glue chips.
<
<Hmm... but it still had the half width bus, right?
You confuse bus width in bit with data rate. the 8088 uses the bus harder
to keep that performance. the 8086 has a log of dead time on the bus
when nothing is happening relevent to the cpu (this is good for DMA).
<Yeah, but it's still a 'downgrade'. But the 386SX was a fairly good
<success, and I take back anything bad I said about it. But once again, th
<386SX didn't give the 386 all it's glory.
Sure it did. it gave you 32bit performance and program execution at far
less power and cost.
<Yeah. I'm not argueing with that. Actually, the 128K's at full clock
<speed, not half, like in a PII, so eventually, you loose an amazingly smal
<amount of performance. When you add in the fact that you can overclock th
the advantage of larger onchip cache is that it's faster as you don't need
external glue logic and the attendant propagation delays (part of the
reason why the PII needs two clock for cache). the difference between a
128k cache and 512k is small anyway unless you have a really intense
application with really large databases.
<Celeron a lot more than a PII (a 333 can go to 450MHz, according to some
<reports, but I don't have that kind of a cooling system. Tropics, and all.
What the point of pushing? In the end it's still wanting for the next
keystroke, mouse click or byte from a slow modem.
Allison
<>DEC used it as a graphics drawing engine for a high speed laser printer
<>(40ppm!).
<
<Whew! Probably cost the life salry of my extended family. That'd be fast
<enough to do something like print out hard copies of logs for a server...
It was about $55k and it was considered a medium speed, medium duty printer.
For the task you mention a Xerox9700 with a big vax on the side at 100+ppm
was the ticket.
Oh, theses were 1987 products. ;)
Allison
