23 Mar
2006
23 Mar
'06
7:43 a.m.
I don't know where in the overall timeline this is but wasn't the Tandy 2000
based on the 80186? It was introduced in 11/83 and ran an OEM version of DOS
2.11.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:33 AM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: who built the first 8086/88 based puter?
On 3/22/2006 at 6:58 PM Chris M wrote:
in all likelihood Intel is far too simplistic an
answer (although I do recall seeing pictures of
multibus type boxes with an Intel monniker, so things
like that could possibly qualify). I suppose even a
sbc could qualify, or even some sort of add-on for an
established system. But sdks from Intel (or others)
dont. Seattle Gazelle? What about 80186 firsts? 80286?
I know the popular conception is that Compaq built the
first 386 desktop, but I seem to recall ALR being
numero uno (pretty sure it was ALR).
I think the distinction for 8086 may be Altos or one of the other S-100
makers, although Intel may have had a card for the MDS even before that.
Bill Godbout had his 85-88 card considerably before the PC.
As for the 80186/80286, we were debugging pre-release engineering samples
of both chips at Durango (I still remember the bug where DMA activity
would clobber the DI register). For sure, the 80186 Poppy rolled out very
early. I don't think any 80286 versions were delivered until the Xenix
port got finished. But there was a socket on the board for one before
that--just nothing to run on it.
By the time of the 386, Mobo profiles had pretty much standardized for PCs,
so I suspect someone like Mylex may have had the first motherboard, but I
don't know if that counts as a "computer". The PS/2 386 boxes were also
out fairly early--didn't the Model 50 have a bug that required replacement
of the mobo?
Cheers,
Chuck
23 Mar
23 Mar
12:36 p.m.
On 3/23/2006 at 7:43 AM Cini, Richard wrote:
I don't know where in the overall timeline this is
but wasn't the Tandy
2000 based on the 80186? It was introduced in 11/83 and ran an OEM version
of
DOS 2.11.
Yes, and the 80186 was a marketing disaster for any company that tried to
turn it into a PC. The integrated peripherals, while generally better than
same facilities present on the PC aren't the least compatible. The wrong
thing in a world dominated by hardware-manipulating applications, such as
games, graphics utilities, backup programs, etc. I still have the Durango
80186 IO.SYS source for MS-DOS 1.25, as well as the OEM docs for 2.0.
All of this was a shame, because an 80186-based PC offers a pretty
substantial bang for the buck; the few NEC V40-based systems faced pretty
much the same demise also. Yet, the 80186/88 found plenty of places
embedded in things like modems where it was very successful.
There is probably a fairly substantial list of "Almost PCs"--machines based
on the x86 architecture but not 100% software compatible with the PC.
Cheers,
Chuck
12:50 p.m.
Yes, and the 80186 was a marketing disaster for any company that tried to
turn it into a PC. The integrated peripherals, while generally better than
same facilities present on the PC aren't the least compatible. The wrong
thing in a world dominated by hardware-manipulating applications, such as
games, graphics utilities, backup programs, etc. I still have the Durango
80186 IO.SYS source for MS-DOS 1.25, as well as the OEM docs for 2.0.
All of this was a shame, because an 80186-based PC offers a pretty
substantial bang for the buck; the few NEC V40-based systems faced pretty
much the same demise also. Yet, the 80186/88 found plenty of places
embedded in things like modems where it was very successful.
There is probably a fairly substantial list of "Almost PCs"--machines based
on the x86 architecture but not 100% software compatible with the PC.
IIRC the ICON computer used in Ontario, Canada schools was 80186 based...
Cheers,
Bryan
1:06 p.m.
In article <200603230936420756.38C42B8C at 10.0.0.252>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
There is probably a fairly substantial list of
"Almost PCs"--machines based
on the x86 architecture but not 100% software compatible with the PC.
You can add to that list the Apricot Xi and Apricot F1, which were
MS-DOS compatible, but not BIOS compatible.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
28 Mar
28 Mar
7:56 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2006 at 7:43 AM Cini, Richard wrote:
not sure what OEM means in this context, but it was a
customized version that only ran on the 2000. Same for
all the pseudo-compatibles...no need for a list I'm
sure.
Not 3 days ago began imaging a stack of disks for
this thing. The developer from the Chicago area was
working on a mod that would make it 100% compatible or
nearly so. Somehow he got hold of the sources for the
rom bios (my understanding anyway). 2 of the 4 disks
exhibited a bad sector. Just thought someone would
like to know...
I don't know where in the overall timeline
this is
but wasn't the Tandy
2000 based on the 80186? It was introduced in
11/83
and ran an OEM version
of
>DOS 2.11. Yes, and the 80186 was a marketing disaster for any
company that tried to
turn it into a PC. The integrated peripherals,
while generally better than
same facilities present on the PC aren't the least
compatible. The wrong
thing in a world dominated by hardware-manipulating
applications, such as
games, graphics utilities, backup programs, etc. I
still have the Durango
80186 IO.SYS source for MS-DOS 1.25, as well as the
OEM docs for 2.0.
All of this was a shame, because an 80186-based PC
offers a pretty
substantial bang for the buck; the few NEC V40-based
systems faced pretty
much the same demise also. Yet, the 80186/88 found
plenty of places
embedded in things like modems where it was very
successful.
Believe it or not there was 1 manufacturer on
California who offered a fully compatible (presumably)
80186 based motherboard/pc. IIRC their name was
Computer Products United. I have the ad somewhere.
Anyone got one?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
6672
days inactive
6678
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
bpope＠wordstock.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
Richard.Cini＠wachovia.com