Intel does some squirrelly crap but I can assure you that unless it says 80C88 it is NMOS ( the -2 version of the 8088 is Enhanced NMOS or HMOS, but still not CMOS ). CMOS is not necessarily slow either, but at higher frequencies it looses it's low power advantage. We used SOS ( Silicon On Sapphire ) 1802s on spacecraft because of the low power, and the SOS makes it much less static sensitive and Radiation Hardened. Intel screwed us when they stepped the 8031 to CMOS ( 80C31 ) as they forgot to mention the multiple pages of errata of things that didn't work right, like Power on Reset and Interrupts..... Best regards, Steven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris M" <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:10 AM Subject: Re: 8088 vs. 80c88 regardless, and be sure I am no expert on semiconductor manufacturing, I'd be surprised to find out that all 8088's were CMOS after a certain date. The 80c88's were used mostly in small laptops, no? (small being anything smaller then that Zenith big honker, w/the shocking blue display. It used a *real* 8088 IINM). A CMOS version would be slower and more prone to damage from static electricity. And it would require less power. Off the top of my head I can't think of any desktops that used them, but I may have actually ran into 1 or 2 in my travels. But I am glad you managed to answer your own question Jimbo :) --- On Thu, 2/12/09, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote: From: Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> Subject: Re: 8088 vs. 80c88 To: General at mail.mobygames.com, "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 2:49 PM Jim Leonard wrote: something like: