19 Nov
2007
19 Nov
'07
8:24 p.m.
We've all seen different varieties of 8088 to 80286
upgrades. A few at least plug into the 8088's socket.
I saw a '286 to '486 upgrade (must have been similar
in that respect) at a show a while back (didn't buy
it). We also know about OverDrive products. What would
happen if you pig-piled all these things in an old
8088 machines? What would happen? Cataclysmic
explosion?
Were there ever 8086 to 80286 upgrades for the few
machines that used them?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
19 Nov
19 Nov
8:50 p.m.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Chris M wrote:
We've all seen different varieties of 8088 to
80286
upgrades. A few at least plug into the 8088's socket.
I saw a '286 to '486 upgrade (must have been similar
in that respect) at a show a while back (didn't buy
it). We also know about OverDrive products. What would
happen if you pig-piled all these things in an old
8088 machines? What would happen? Cataclysmic
explosion?
You would simply have the slowest, least compatible, and least reliable
modern machine available. 4.77MHz 640K Pentium Core 2 Duo?
8:52 p.m.
At 04:24 PM 11/19/2007, you wrote:
We've all seen different varieties of 8088 to
80286
upgrades. A few at least plug into the 8088's socket.
I saw a '286 to '486 upgrade (must have been similar
in that respect) at a show a while back (didn't buy
it). We also know about OverDrive products. What would
happen if you pig-piled all these things in an old
8088 machines? What would happen? Cataclysmic
explosion?
Were there ever 8086 to 80286 upgrades for the few
machines that used them?
I'd like to know that... The Overdrive will run XP at 8MHz. It
would be fun to see an 8088 booting XP. : )
Grant
9:21 p.m.
From: Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts"<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:24:13 -0800 (PST)
To: talk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: *updating* 8088's
We've all seen different varieties of 8088 to 80286
upgrades. A few at least plug into the 8088's socket.
I saw a '286 to '486 upgrade (must have been similar
in that respect) at a show a while back (didn't buy
it). We also know about OverDrive products. What would
happen if you pig-piled all these things in an old
8088 machines? What would happen? Cataclysmic
explosion?
Were there ever 8086 to 80286 upgrades for the few
machines that used them?
I'd like to see an 80286 to 80486 upgrade card. It would need to somehow
multiplex the 32-bit bus onto the 16-bit bus, perhaps running the
multiplexing process at double the CPU clock speed. The SX wasn't 16-bit was
it? Or am I thinking of the 386SX. If it's 16-bit it wouldn't need
multiplexing.
Perhaps to hack an 80386 onto an 8088 board you could take a 386SX and run
it at 1/2 of the crystal speed. I think that's 14.3MHz which would be about
7.2MHz, where each of the crystal clock cycles latches a consecutive byte of
data and the 1/2 speed is sent to the 386SX. A 74F646 would be good for the
latch.
You might run into an issue of minimum clock speed too. I don't know what
the minimum for the 386/486 is. I know RISC microcontrollers can go down to
DC, but the 8386/486 might not.
Alexis.
9:31 p.m.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Alexis wrote:
I'd like to see an 80286 to 80486 upgrade card. It
would need to somehow
multiplex the 32-bit bus onto the 16-bit bus, perhaps running the
multiplexing process at double the CPU clock speed. The SX wasn't 16-bit was
it? Or am I thinking of the 386SX. If it's 16-bit it wouldn't need
multiplexing.
Depending on how you DEFINE "16 bit", the 80386SX is a 16 bit version of
the 32 bit 80386[DX]. It therefore is "relatively" easy to retrofit it to
replace a 80286.
The 80486SX and 80486DX are the same bit sizes. Their differences involve
whether or not the math FPU is included.
I ran an 80386 board in a 5150 (8088) machine. There didn't seem to be
much point to it.
20 Nov
20 Nov
5:37 p.m.
--- Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
The 80486SX and 80486DX are the same bit sizes.
Their differences involve
whether or not the math FPU is included.
Wasn't there a 486slc or something, that was in
reality a '386 under the hood (or something)?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
19 Nov
19 Nov
9:46 p.m.
On 20 Nov 2007 at 12:51, Alexis wrote:
You might run into an issue of minimum clock speed
too. I don't know what
the minimum for the 386/486 is. I know RISC microcontrollers can go down to
DC, but the 8386/486 might not.
Well, there's clock speed and then there's "apparent clock speed".
Let's see, a 16MHz 80386sx is equivalent to what, a 10MHz 80286?
Cheers,
Chuck
10:39 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Well, there's clock speed and then there's
"apparent clock speed".
Let's see, a 16MHz 80386sx is equivalent to what, a 10MHz 80286?
So what speed
does the memory run at is my question and how wide?
Playing around with homebrew micro design I am working on, a 500 ns
memory cycle ( 2Mhz ) is about as fast as you can go with standard
parts about 150 ns access time. My limiting factor is not memory
speed but EEPROM and I/O chips dead slow speeds.
Cheers,
Chuck
20 Nov
20 Nov
1:30 a.m.
On 19 Nov 2007 at 20:39, woodelf wrote:
So what speed does the memory run at is my question
and how wide?
Playing around with homebrew micro design I am working on, a 500 ns
memory cycle ( 2Mhz ) is about as fast as you can go with standard
parts about 150 ns access time. My limiting factor is not memory
speed but EEPROM and I/O chips dead slow speeds.
Well, most of the "good" upgrade cards have their own BIOS and
memory. The bus is used mostly for I/O device access.
Cheers,
Chuck
5:41 p.m.
"I ran a Leading Edge model D (PC XT clone) with an
Intel Inboard-386.
It gave me 2MB ram and a 16mhz CPU (beats 4.77!) and a
bottleneck of
the 8bit ISA. However it ran winders3.1 and was a
whole lot faster
than the 4.77mhz V20. At the time it was far cheaper
than a real 386
and much better than the 8088."
3.1 needed at least a 386, no? There was Win3.0
(prolly same requirements) and Windows/286. This
wouldn't get you the ability to run any of the above,
but the 8088/86 was available as high as 20mhz IIRC,
or possibly even a bit higher. I don't know what the
'186 capped off at (40mhz at least).
I thought you didn't like throwaway PCs Allison. What
did you finally do with that box? Let me guess, you
threw it away LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
5:54 p.m.
On 20 Nov 2007 at 14:41, Chris M wrote:
3.1 needed at least a 386, no? There was Win3.0
(prolly same requirements) and Windows/286. This
wouldn't get you the ability to run any of the above,
but the 8088/86 was available as high as 20mhz IIRC,
or possibly even a bit higher. I don't know what the
'186 capped off at (40mhz at least).
Nope--you can run 3.1 on a 286--in standard mode. That means no 32-
bit VxDs or other fancy stuff, but you can still play Solitaire.
On your other post, I think you're thinking of the Cyrix Cx486SLC.
486 instruction set with all the limitations of the 386SX--small bus
width, no math coprocessor, 16MB of addressability. Fabbed by TI, I
believe.
Cheers,
Chuck
21 Nov
21 Nov
4:23 p.m.
On Nov 20, 2007 2:54 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Nope--you can run 3.1 on a 286--in standard mode.
That means no 32-
bit VxDs or other fancy stuff, but you can still play Solitaire.
What exactly was the difference between "standard" and "enhanced"
modes beyond the V86 environment for MS-DOS? Windows enhanced mode
executables were still 16bits. It wasn't until Win32s that there was
a 32 bit Windows execution environment for "consumer level" (read
non-NT) windows. A 32bit file system didn't show up until Windows for
Workgroups 3.11
Of course, you could run 32 bit DPMI MS-DOS apps under Windows 3.0 if
you needed 32 bit executables.
Eric
4:50 p.m.
On 21 Nov 2007 at 13:23, Eric J Korpela wrote:
What exactly was the difference between
"standard" and "enhanced"
modes beyond the V86 environment for MS-DOS? Windows enhanced mode
executables were still 16bits. It wasn't until Win32s that there was
a 32 bit Windows execution environment for "consumer level" (read
non-NT) windows. A 32bit file system didn't show up until Windows for
Workgroups 3.11
Well, yes and no. It was still possible to handle 32-bit memory
tasks under Win31 without resorting to Win32S. I seem to recall
quite a number of articles in WDDJ (or was it still PC Tech Journal
then?) about doing this.
Mostly, 386enh gave you the ability to run 32-bit virtual device
drivers and use paged virtual memory. IIRC, the "standard" mode was
usually faster for most 16-bit PM tasks than 386enh mode.
Cheers,
Chuck
6:59 p.m.
On your other post, I think you're thinking of the
Cyrix Cx486SLC.
486 instruction set with all the limitations of the 386SX--small bus
width, no math coprocessor, 16MB of addressability. Fabbed by TI, I
believe.
I suspect that is what's one the kludgeboard in this machine. It would
make sense for a chip to go in place of an 80286, with only 24 address
pins and 16 data pins on the socket. And there is certainly a sepearte
maths comprocessor chip on the PCB too.
Anyway, the only reason I stuck this board in was to run linux, and it
does that with no problems.
-tony
20 Nov
20 Nov
7:14 p.m.
New subject: Windoze reqs (was: *updating* 8088's
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Chris M wrote:
3.1 needed at least a 386, no?
no
3.10 would run on a 286, with 512K RAM + some XMS (It insisted on that
HIMEM.SYS). I installed 3.10 (beta) in August 1991.
I ran that setup with Wyse700/Amdek1280 (1280 x 800 B&W) plus
EiconScript (Postscript emulation and HP-PCL emulation) and JLASER (HP-PCL
emulation) cabled to Cordata (Canon CX) printer with ABC switch
(2 360K, 1.2M, 1.4M, 3", 3.25" (on AB switches) Tandon 848 8" and TWO
Seagate 4096's (needed 2 power supplies))
until September 2000.
There was Win3.0 (prolly same requirements)
3.00
would (and did) run on 8088. One of the font editors that I used
would only run on 3.00, and the Cordata board (YAFIYGI font codes & HP-PCL
emulation on position C of the ABC switch) would not install with 80286 or
above.
(2 360K, 720K 3.5", 3", Floptical, Backpack 2.8M, 2 4038's)
until September 2000
5150 with 386 board (2 360K, 720K 5.25", and Shugart 8") didn't have
Windoze.
The other eight machines that I used regularly in my office (bookkeeping,
phone log, modem, misc, TRS80 3, Apple ][, Amiga 1000, Mac 128K) had
little of interest (and even had tops on their cases!) , and there were
other machines (TRS80 1's,Discon, etc.) that didn't get used very often.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
6:42 p.m.
New subject: Windoze reqs
On 21 Nov 2007 at 18:23, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote:
Not only that, it worked properly with a CGA.
...or Hercules mono. Anyone still use GEM for x86?
Cheers,
Chuck
There was
Win3.0 (prolly same requirements)
3.00 would (and did) run on 8088. One of the font
editors that I used
7:04 p.m.
New subject: Windoze reqs
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 21 Nov 2007 at 18:23, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I had one application that used it.
GEM I think is back as open source.
Ben alias woodelf
Fred Cisin wrote:
Not only that, it worked properly with a CGA.
...or Hercules mono. Anyone still use GEM for x86?
Cheers,
Chuck There was
Win3.0 (prolly same requirements)
3.00 would (and did) run on 8088. One of the font
editors that I used
6:58 p.m.
New subject: Windoze reqs
> 3.00 would (and did) run on 8088. One of the font
editors that I used
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Not only that, it worked properly with a CGA.
3.10 would also work with CGA, but like all video modes, it was somewhat
glitchy. It appears to me that 3.10 was written by people using
800 x 600. With a little playing around, it's probably not too hard to
determine which video board they used.
7:11 p.m.
New subject: Windoze reqs
If I may ask, what was glitchy about video modes in Windows 3.1? I ran
it at 640x480 for years without any obvious video issues...
As an aside, I had Win95 running on EGA for awhile just as an
experiment. On a 386sx-20 with 4mb ram on a 65MB Miniscribe MFM drive.
It ran, but that's about the only good thing I can attribute to the
experience ;).
Josh
Fred Cisin wrote:
> 3.00 would
(and did) run on 8088. One of the font editors that I used
>
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Not only that, it worked properly with a CGA.
3.10 would also work with CGA, but like all video modes, it was somewhat
glitchy. It appears to me that 3.10 was written by people using
800 x 600. With a little playing around, it's probably not too hard to
determine which video board they used.
20 Nov
20 Nov
7:49 p.m.
Hi,
....but the 8088/86 was available as high as 20mhz
IIRC,
or possibly even a bit higher....
Hmm, I don't ever recall seeing an XT running at anything like that sort of
speed.
Most "Turbo XT" motherboards which I saw topped out at 10MHz, though I have
a vague recollection of hearing about a manufacturer which produced a 14MHz
(or possibly even 16MHz) board and then had to quickly withdraw it due to
MAJOR instability problems.
If you wanted anything faster you generally had to go to a '286 or better.
TTFN - Pete.
8:38 p.m.
Ensor wrote:
Most "Turbo XT" motherboards which I saw
topped out at 10MHz, though I
have a vague recollection of hearing about a manufacturer which produced
a 14MHz (or possibly even 16MHz) board and then had to quickly withdraw
it due to MAJOR instability problems.
I saw a 14MHz 8088 clone when I was in college in 1990. It was
perfectly stable, which makes sense if you consider it ran at a clock
division of 1...
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
8:48 p.m.
--- Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Ensor wrote:
Then it ran at 14.138..mhz (or something like that).
I wasn't suggesting that PC-mobos were sold that
fast, just that there were (or I thought there were)
faster versions then that. I could swear they went up
to ~20mc.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Most "Turbo XT" motherboards which I
saw topped
out at 10MHz, though I
have a vague recollection of hearing about a
manufacturer which produced
a 14MHz (or possibly even 16MHz) board and then
had to quickly withdraw
it due to MAJOR instability problems.
I saw a 14MHz 8088 clone when I was in college in
1990. It was
perfectly stable, which makes sense if you consider
it ran at a clock
division of 1...
10:38 p.m.
Hi,
I saw a 14MHz 8088 clone when I was in college in
1990....
You know, ever since I mentioned that V30 motherboard I've had something
nagging at the back of my mind saying it ran at "14MHz"...? I wish I could
remember for sure.
....It was perfectly stable, which makes sense if you
consider it
ran at a clock division of 1....
Probably 16MHz boards then; ISTR it had something to do with bad board
layout, rather than silicon being unable to keep up though.
TTFN - Pete.
2:34 p.m.
I'd like to see an 80286 to 80486 upgrade card. It
would need to somehow
I have one. It's currently running in the machine I am typing this on.
It's a little module with a TI 486-compatile processor on one side and,
IIRC, the floating poiut coprocessor for it on the other (or at least
that's the only explanation I can find for 2 large PQFPs). A couple of
PLDs and a PLCC 'plug' to go into the 80286 socket. It's not an ISA card
or anyhting like that, it just goes into the processor socekt. Packed
with it was a PLCC socket, the idea being you could plug that into the
PGA socket of that type of 80286, then plug the module on top. Doing that
clashed with one of the expansion cards in this PC/AT, so I desoldered
the PGA socket, soldered a PLCC socket in its place, and stuck the module in.
I think I looked up the processor chip in a databook once to find it was
actually designed for laptops, and could run iwth a 16 bit external bus.
Which simplified things a lot.
-tony
8:33 p.m.
On Nov 20, 2007 11:34 AM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Is it a true 486? or a 486SLC (which is really a Cyrix 386SX with an
internal cache and a couple of the 486 instructions included)? IBM
and TI were second sources for the Cyrix processor. But it really
wasn't instruction compatible with the 486, and most instruction
timings were more 386 like than 486 like. It didn't work like a 486
especially where cache control was involved, even though it had 486 in
the name. But the cache, and better integer multiply circuitry, made
it significantly faster than a 386SX of the same clock speed. That
is, assuming you could run the program to enable the cache, or had
BIOS support for the cache.
Cyrix also made a 486SRX2 which was clock doubled, as well as the
32bit versions, the 486DLC and 486DRX2 which would work in a 386DX
socket.
Anyway, the SLX or SRX2 (which have 386SX pinouts) would be much
easier to adapt to an 80286 socket than a true 486 would be.
Eric
I'd like
to see an 80286 to 80486 upgrade card. It would need to somehow
I have one. It's currently running in the machine I am typing this on.
It's a little module with a TI 486-compatile processor on one side and,
IIRC, the floating poiut coprocessor for it on the other (or at least
that's the only explanation I can find for 2 large PQFPs). A couple of
PLDs and a PLCC 'plug' to go into the 80286 socket. 
3:44 p.m.
On Nov 20, 2007 11:34 AM, Tony Duell <ard at
p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Is it a true 486? or a 486SLC (which is really a Cyrix 386SX with an
internal cache and a couple of the 486 instructions included)? IBM
and TI were second sources for the Cyrix processor. But it really
wasn't instruction compatible with the 486, and most instruction
timings were more 386 like than 486 like. It didn't work like a 486
especially where cache control was involved, even though it had 486 in
the name. But the cache, and better integer multiply circuitry, made
it significantly faster than a 386SX of the same clock speed. That
is, assuming you could run the program to enable the cache, or had
BIOS support for the cache.
Cyrix also made a 486SRX2 which was clock doubled, as well as the
32bit versions, the 486DLC and 486DRX2 which would work in a 386DX
socket.
Anyway, the SLX or SRX2 (which have 386SX pinouts) would be much
easier to adapt to an 80286 socket than a true 486 would be.
Eric
Eric and others:
Ever you had IBM sourced 486 SLC/SLC2/SLC3? Far better than Cyrix/TI
486SLC wannabes. Cyrix/TI utilized 1K cache. IBM had 8K and 16K and
much better optimizations.
Cheers, Wizard
I'd
like to see an 80286 to 80486 upgrade card. It would need to somehow
I have one. It's currently running in the machine I am typing this on.
It's a little module with a TI 486-compatile processor on one side and,
IIRC, the floating poiut coprocessor for it on the other (or at least
that's the only explanation I can find for 2 large PQFPs). A couple of
PLDs and a PLCC 'plug' to go into the 80286 socket.
6 p.m.
--- Alexis <thrashbarg at kaput.homeunix.org> wrote:
You might run into an issue of minimum clock speed
too. I don't know what
the minimum for the 386/486 is. I know RISC
microcontrollers can go down to
DC, but the 8386/486 might not.
Presumably the boards these things come with have
their own crystals. I would not expect a '486 upgrade
for a '286 to run at 8mhz or anything comparable (but
Tony could tell us).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
8:35 p.m.
Chris M wrote:
--- Alexis <thrashbarg at kaput.homeunix.org>
wrote:
They did indeed. Which brings us to why these were stopgaps at best:
The processing may have been faster, but the memory/bus interface was
the same, so you were not truly getting the overall performance of the
real machine (that's why the advertised benchmarks were careful to
demonstrate how much faster the upgraded machine was compared to how it
was before, and NOT to a "real" 386).
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
You might run into an issue of minimum clock
speed
too. I don't know what
the minimum for the 386/486 is. I know RISC
microcontrollers can go down to
DC, but the 8386/486 might not.
Presumably the boards these things come with have
their own crystals. I would not expect a '486 upgrade
for a '286 to run at 8mhz or anything comparable (but
Tony could tell us).
21 Nov
21 Nov
7:02 p.m.
Presumably the boards these things come with have
their own crystals. I would not expect a '486 upgrade
for a '286 to run at 8mhz or anything comparable (but
Tony could tell us).
The answer to that is the same as Rutherford's comment on the only
possile result of research in the social sciences, namely 'Some do and
some don't' :-)
I have some upgrade oards that turn an 8088 into an 8086 or 80286-based
machine. Those are ISA cards with a liead that plugs into the 8088
socket, and said boards certainly contain their own clock oscillators. On
the other hand, the oard in this machine -- the 486SLC oard that goes
in the 80286 socket, does not contain a clock crystal, it takes the clock
signal from the 80286 socket.
-tony
19 Nov
19 Nov
9:28 p.m.
On 19 Nov 2007 at 17:24, Chris M wrote:
We've all seen different varieties of 8088 to
80286
upgrades. A few at least plug into the 8088's socket.
I saw a '286 to '486 upgrade (must have been similar
in that respect) at a show a while back (didn't buy
it). We also know about OverDrive products. What would
happen if you pig-piled all these things in an old
8088 machines? What would happen? Cataclysmic
explosion?
Were there ever 8086 to 80286 upgrades for the few
machines that used them?
I don't know--but there were plenty of single-board computers that
simply plugged into an ISA slot--Pentium included. Most likely if
you overdid it, though, your power supply would run out of gas.
But, at the expense of stating the obvious, what's the point?
Cheers,
Chuck
(who also ruminates upon other cosmic questions--such as why the IDE
for a PIC with 1K of memory is 64MB zipped...)
Cheers,
Chuck
20 Nov
20 Nov
11:41 a.m.
On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:28 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Chuck
(who also ruminates upon other cosmic questions--such as why the IDE
for a PIC with 1K of memory is 64MB zipped...)
Why IDEs exist at all is something that puzzles me. Every time
I've tried them, they've just gotten in the way!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
11:44 a.m.
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 16:41:20 Dave McGuire wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:28 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Depends what you're doing. If you've got more than a couple of files open,
they're handy. If you're using ctags or something similar, they're handy.
Gordon
Chuck
(who also ruminates upon other cosmic questions--such as why the IDE
for a PIC with 1K of memory is 64MB zipped...)
Why IDEs exist at all is something that puzzles me. Every time
I've tried them, they've just gotten in the way!
11:58 a.m.
On 20 Nov 2007 at 11:41, Dave McGuire wrote:
Why IDEs exist at all is something that puzzles me.
Every time
I've tried them, they've just gotten in the way!
I'd just rather use command-line MPASM, but the web-distributed
version hasn't been updated with all of the newer device .INC files,
so you've got to download the MPLAB IDE and install it before you can
grab the file you need for MPASM. Bit of a bother. I'll drop
Microchip a suggestion that they package the .INC files separately
for those of us averse to using their IDE.
(Sorry for the OT, Jay.)
Cheers,
Chuck
6:47 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007, at 9:28 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
To each his own, but Eclipse here allows me to write my Java code for
re-implementating Q-Link and also allows me to stay on top of my C code
for small AVR projects that work with the 64.
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X)
brain at jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home: http://www.jbrain.com
Chuck
(who also ruminates upon other cosmic questions--such as why the IDE
for a PIC with 1K of memory is 64MB zipped...)
Why IDEs exist at all is something that puzzles me. Every time I've
tried them, they've just gotten in the way!
-Dave
5:35 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
But, at the expense of stating the obvious,
what's
the point?
OI IT WOULD BE FUN TO WATCH IT GO BOOOOOOM!
Cheers,
Chuck
(who also ruminates upon other cosmic
questions--such as why the IDE
for a PIC with 1K of memory is 64MB zipped...)
feature-bloat prolly
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
19 Nov
19 Nov
11:05 p.m.
Hi,
Were there ever 8086 to 80286 upgrades for the
few machines that used them?
There was at least one available. I had one in my first PC clone, a home
built machine with a motherboard sporting an NEC V30 processor (NEC's clone
of the 8086).
It was a 1/2 or 1/3 length 8-bit ISA card from which ran a (very) short
cable which plugged into the processor socket on the motherboard (the 8086
was removed and plugged into the ISA bard). There was a switch on the back
plate which selected "normal" or "286" mode.
I don't recall the manufacturer, but "AST" rings a bell for some reason? I
got it in late '90/early '91 and it was at least a couple of years old then
I think.
Didn't use it much....LOL.
TTFN - Pete.
20 Nov
20 Nov
5:47 p.m.
--- Ensor <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk> wrote:
Hi,
to what degree was it homebuilt? Do you mean simply
assembled from parts? Who made the mobo if that was
the case. I only know of 1 non-8088 mobo (of course
there could have been others). It had an 80186 and was
made in California. Maybe there are others that aren't
coming to mind.
Were there ever 8086 to 80286 upgrades for the
few machines that used them?
There was at least one available. I had one in my
first PC clone, a home
built machine with a motherboard sporting an NEC V30
processor (NEC's clone
of the 8086). I don't recall the manufacturer, but
"AST" rings a
bell for some reason? I
got it in late '90/early '91 and it was at least a
couple of years old then
I think.
I don't specifically recall AST making such an
upgrade. Orchid made a few (one with a 186 and a
follow up with a 286). AST did make some super duper
serial boards ("4 port cards") that usually had an on
board '186.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
6:07 p.m.
On 20 Nov 2007 at 14:47, Chris M wrote:
to what degree was it homebuilt? Do you mean simply
assembled from parts? Who made the mobo if that was
the case. I only know of 1 non-8088 mobo (of course
there could have been others).
The V30 was not an "upgrade" in the traditional sense--it was a pin-
for-pin CMOS replacement for the 8086. Because of some internal
architectural features, it ran somewhat faster than an 8086 of the
same clock speed and implemented many of the 186 instruction set
additions. It also had an emulation mode for running 8080 code.
There were more 8086 mobos than you might imagine. Consider, for
example, the Stearns PC. Since there was a CMOS 80C86 available
before the 80C88, the 8086 also found its way into several laptops.
There were also a few NEC V40 machines.
Cheers,
Chuck
6:59 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
There were more 8086 mobos than you might imagine.
Consider, for
example, the Stearns PC. Since there was a CMOS
80C86 available
before the 80C88, the 8086 also found its way into
several laptops.
There were a bunch of puters brandishing 8086's, but
I don't think I've heard of an 8086 mobo you could
just buy outright. He did so "homebuilt" but I'm still
waiting for clarification on the terminology. Of
course he probably means "home-assembled".
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
7:27 p.m.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
There were more 8086 mobos than you might imagine.
Consider, for
example, the Stearns PC. Since there was a CMOS 80C86 available
before the 80C88, the 8086 also found its way into several laptops.
Wasn't the PS/2 30 an 8086? (can't remember for sure)
8:42 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 at 16:27, Fred Cisin wrote:
confirmed
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Wasn't the PS/2 30 an 8086? (can't
remember for
sure)
Initially. A later version used the 286. The model
25 was, as far
as I'm aware, always an 8086. 
21 Nov
21 Nov
12:45 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 at 16:27, Fred Cisin wrote:
Umm, if you're talking about the all-in-one Model 25 PS/2, I gave a
386 Model 25 to somebody on this list a couple of years ago. No
upgrade, that's how it was manufactured. IIRC it had 4MB onboard and
took one SIMM up to 8MB for a total of 12mb.
It was last seen running DesqView X.
Doc
Wasn't the PS/2 30 an 8086? (can't
remember for sure)
Initially. A later version used the 286. The model 25 was, as far
as I'm aware, always an 8086.
1:47 a.m.
On 20 Nov 2007 at 23:45, Doc Shipley wrote:
Umm, if you're talking about the all-in-one
Model 25 PS/2, I gave a
386 Model 25 to somebody on this list a couple of years ago. No
upgrade, that's how it was manufactured. IIRC it had 4MB onboard and
took one SIMM up to 8MB for a total of 12mb.
You're right! There was a 25XT with the 8086, the 25 286 with a
80286 and the 25SX with a 386SX and room for 12MB memory. There was
also a planar upgrade 7386 for the XT and 286 that had a 386SLC-20
CPU. According to the same web page, Reply Corp also made a planar
upgrade board with a 486DX4-100.
The same web page makes note of the "EduQuest" models that look like
a 25, but apparently weren't sold as such. The top model can
accommodate a Pentium Overdrive CPU.
http://www.walshcomptech.com/ps2/m25stuf.htm
Cheers,
Chuck
1:55 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 at 23:45, Doc Shipley wrote:
So, here's the question I forgot to ask - how many PS/2 models had
ISA slots? That 25SX did, but that's the only one I've seen.
Doc
Umm, if you're talking about the
all-in-one Model 25 PS/2, I gave a
386 Model 25 to somebody on this list a couple of years ago. No
upgrade, that's how it was manufactured. IIRC it had 4MB onboard and
took one SIMM up to 8MB for a total of 12mb.
You're right! There was a 25XT with the 8086, the 25 286 with a
80286 and the 25SX with a 386SX and room for 12MB memory. There was
also a planar upgrade 7386 for the XT and 286 that had a 386SLC-20
CPU. According to the same web page, Reply Corp also made a planar
upgrade board with a 486DX4-100. 
3:22 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:55:54AM -0600, Doc Shipley wrote:
So, here's the question I forgot to ask - how
many PS/2 models had
ISA slots? That 25SX did, but that's the only one I've seen.
My Model 30 did. When we outgrew the internal IDE-ish drive (it had a
wide edge connector on the drive, to a 40+ pin connector on the planar),
we didn't want to pay what IBM wanted for a larger drive, so we went
with a 3.5" RLL of some flavor, with an ISA controller (DTC, perhaps?)
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-333-S Current South Pole Weather at 21-Nov-2007 at 08:20 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -37.7 F (-38.7 C) Windchill -58.3 F (-50.2 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 6.0 kts Grid 74 Barometer 683.0 mb (10515 ft)
Ethan.Dicks at usap.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
22 Nov
22 Nov
2:27 a.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:55:54AM -0600, Doc Shipley
wrote:
Any PS/2 with a model number lower than 50 had ISA. 25, 30, 35, 40,
L40SX (sort of) and the PS/2 E (or model 33, I suppose). Probably one
or two I missed.
Peace... Sridhar
So, here's the question I forgot to ask -
how many PS/2 models had
ISA slots? That 25SX did, but that's the only one I've seen.
My Model 30 did. When we outgrew the internal IDE-ish drive (it had a
wide edge connector on the drive, to a 40+ pin connector on the planar),
we didn't want to pay what IBM wanted for a larger drive, so we went
with a 3.5" RLL of some flavor, with an ISA controller (DTC, perhaps?)
21 Nov
21 Nov
8:53 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 at 23:45, Doc Shipley wrote:
And there are a few hundred Model 25XTs on The Bay right now. Item
180111491285 - NOS, $30. Shipping unspecified.
If the one I had hadn't had such a fishbowl picture, I might be
interested.
Doc
Umm, if you're talking about the
all-in-one Model 25 PS/2, I gave a
386 Model 25 to somebody on this list a couple of years ago. No
upgrade, that's how it was manufactured. IIRC it had 4MB onboard and
took one SIMM up to 8MB for a total of 12mb.
You're right! There was a 25XT with the 8086, the 25 286 with a
80286 and the 25SX with a 386SX and room for 12MB memory. There was
also a planar upgrade 7386 for the XT and 286 that had a 386SLC-20
CPU. According to the same web page, Reply Corp also made a planar
upgrade board with a 486DX4-100.
7:15 p.m.
Doc Shipley wrote:
And there are a few hundred Model 25XTs on The Bay
right now. Item
180111491285 - NOS, $30. Shipping unspecified.
Mono, unfortunately.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
22 Nov
22 Nov
2:21 a.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Doc Shipley wrote:
That's a plus in my book, after working with that color 25SX. The
screen on that thing made me want to tear my eyes out. I never figured
out what it was, but it had a serious "fish-eye" distortion.
Doc
And there are a few hundred Model 25XTs on The
Bay right now. Item
180111491285 - NOS, $30. Shipping unspecified.
Mono, unfortunately.
21 Nov
21 Nov
6:25 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 at 16:27, Fred Cisin wrote:
Nope. There was a 286-based one later, followed by a 386-based one
(with 16-bit ISA and VGA instead of MCGA) even later. I heard about a
486-based one, but I doubt it was ever made as a complete machine, only
as an upgrade planar.
Peace... Sridhar
Wasn't the PS/2 30 an 8086? (can't
remember for sure)
Initially. A later version used the 286. The model 25 was, as far
as I'm aware, always an 8086.
8:18 p.m.
--- Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
Nope. There was a 286-based one later, followed by
a 386-based one
(with 16-bit ISA and VGA instead of MCGA) even
later.
get me one please
I heard about a
486-based one, but I doubt it was ever made as a
complete machine, only
as an upgrade planar.
whatever. can i have it
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
8:38 p.m.
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 20:18, Chris M wrote:
whatever. can i have it
No.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
10:20 p.m.
--- Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 20:18, Chris M wrote:
why not just cuz you want it doesn't mean it shouldn't
be mine. it's all supposed to be mine. It's most
important that i get the things I want. You can have
the rest or throw it out
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
whatever. can i have it
No.
20 Nov
20 Nov
8:43 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Originally, yes, and so was the PS/2 Model 25. A PS/2 Model 30/286 was
released a bit later.
My prized AT&T PC 6300 (rebranded Olivetti M24) was a 7.16MHz 8086
(clock was divided by 2)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
There were more 8086 mobos than you might
imagine. Consider, for
example, the Stearns PC. Since there was a CMOS 80C86 available
before the 80C88, the 8086 also found its way into several laptops.
Wasn't the PS/2 30 an 8086? (can't remember for sure)
8:53 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Cheeky bastard -- don't be so modest ;-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
I spent many
happy hours running CP/M programs "under" MS-DOS on my V30
machine.
Anyone remember the name of the program which facilitated this?
Nope. Haven't a clue.
21 Nov
21 Nov
6:22 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 at 14:47, Chris M wrote:
Or the rather sizeable number of IBM PS/2 Model 25s and 30s.
Peace... Sridhar
to what degree was it homebuilt? Do you mean
simply
assembled from parts? Who made the mobo if that was
the case. I only know of 1 non-8088 mobo (of course
there could have been others).
The V30 was not an "upgrade" in the traditional sense--it was a pin-
for-pin CMOS replacement for the 8086. Because of some internal
architectural features, it ran somewhat faster than an 8086 of the
same clock speed and implemented many of the 186 instruction set
additions. It also had an emulation mode for running 8080 code.
There were more 8086 mobos than you might imagine. Consider, for
example, the Stearns PC. Since there was a CMOS 80C86 available
before the 80C88, the 8086 also found its way into several laptops.
20 Nov
20 Nov
7:39 p.m.
Hi,
Hmmm, you know, it may have been an "Orchid".... I definitely remember
having an Orchid manual in amongst some AST manuals I kept in a little ring
binder.
to what degree was it homebuilt? Do you mean simply
assembled from parts?
Well yes, I assembled it from parts....considering how much I dislike PCs I
was hardly going to design my own motherboard. LOL!
....Who made the mobo if that was the case....
No idea, it was far too many years ago. All I can say with certainty is that
it was of Japanese manufacture.
When I came to build that machine I had a fairly tough time tracking down a
decent XT motherboard, by then even the '286 was old hat with most vendors
pushing '386 based mobos. In fact, IIRC, this was the only V30 motherboard I
could find over here at the time (though that doesn't meant that others
weren't around).
....I only know of 1 non-8088 mobo (of course there
could
have been others)....
There were certainly a few pre-built PC clones around which used the
8086/V30, the Amstrad 1512/1640 spring to mind.
As I said, when I came into PCs no-one wanted XT motherboards anymore (apart
from me, as the '286 was a dog and the '386 was
still too pricey for a
second computer I'd rarely use) so I don't really
know what had been
available previously.
I don't
recall the manufacturer, but "AST" rings a
bell for some reason?....
I don't specifically recall AST making such an
upgrade. Orchid made a few (one with a 186 and a
follow up with a 286).... ....AST did make some super duper serial boards
("4 port
cards") that usually had an on board '186.
I never had any of those, but I did have one or two "multi I/O" cards for
the XT, which assuming the processor upgrade was by "Orchid", would be what
the "AST" manuals were for.
Printer/serial, clock/calendar, that sort of thing.
I got rid of all that stuff sometime in '92 when I upgraded to a '386DX
though, so....
TTFN - Pete.
8:44 p.m.
--- Ensor <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk> wrote:
Hmmm, you know, it may have been an
"Orchid".... I
definitely remember
having an Orchid manual in amongst some AST manuals
I kept in a little ring
binder.
Come to think of it, the original Mac-286 boards were
made by Orchid, then sold by AST (or was it the other
way around?). I have 2 of these sitting in my pile.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
21 Nov
21 Nov
7:08 p.m.
to what degree
was it homebuilt? Do you mean simply
assembled from parts?
Well yes, I assembled it from parts....considering how much I dislike PCs I
was hardly going to design my own motherboard. LOL!
6088
days inactive
6090
days old
63 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
brain＠jbrain.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp＠memory-alpha.org.uk -
derschjo＠msu.edu -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
ethan.dicks＠usap.gov -
gpearce＠curiousgroup.co.uk -
grant＠stockly.com -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
thrashbarg＠kaput.homeunix.org -
trixter＠oldskool.org