21 Jul
2011
21 Jul
'11
8:45 p.m.
something tells me no, but I just thought I'd ask.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180697999162&ssP…
item # is embedded in link
22 Jul
22 Jul
4:31 a.m.
On 21 Jul 2011 at 17:45, Chris M wrote:
something tells me no, but I just thought I'd
ask.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180697999162&ssP…
Name=STRK:MESELX:IT
item # is embedded in link
Nope, the 330 series with a P60 were introduced in November 1994:
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/dwbook.pdf
The P75 versions weren't introduced until October 1995.
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/dwbook.pdf
--Chuck
4:45 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
There were 60, 66 and 90MHz versions of the PS/2 Model 95. They might
be older. PC 330 was a low-end machine. PS/2 95 was a top of the line
machine.
Peace... Sridhar
something
tells me no, but I just thought I'd ask.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=180697999162&ssP…
Name=STRK:MESELX:IT
item # is embedded in link
Nope, the 330 series with a P60 were introduced in November 1994:
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/dwbook.pdf
The P75 versions weren't introduced until October 1995.
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/dwbook.pdf
23 Jul
23 Jul
12:36 a.m.
On 22 Jul 2011 at 16:45, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
There were 60, 66 and 90MHz versions of the PS/2 Model
95. They might
be older. PC 330 was a low-end machine. PS/2 95 was a top of the
line machine.
AFAIK, the PS/2 systems using the (alternate) Pentium CPU used the
P24T "overdrive" which was introduced in 1995. So the 300-series
with the P60 CPU in 1994 is earlier.
--Chuck
24 Jul
24 Jul
12:58 p.m.
On Jul 22, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 22 Jul 2011 at 16:45, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Having been at IBM and working on the PS/2 series of systems, I can tell you that the PS/2
systems were first with the Pentiums from IBM. In particular the PS/2 Model 95 was the
first. It was also the first PS/2 to support > 16MB of RAM (I know 'cause I did
the support in AIX PS/2 for it...was fun having a 64MB system at the time...8 8MB DIMMs).
It was *well* before 1995 (as I moved to Austin in 1995 and hadn't been working on
PS/2 stuff for at least 2-3 years before that). The ISA based machines (of which the
PC330 was) came later.
TTFN - Guy
There were 60, 66 and 90MHz versions of the PS/2
Model 95. They might
be older. PC 330 was a low-end machine. PS/2 95 was a top of the
line machine.
AFAIK, the PS/2 systems using the (alternate) Pentium CPU used the
P24T "overdrive" which was introduced in 1995. So the 300-series
with the P60 CPU in 1994 is earlier.
1:25 p.m.
On 24 Jul 2011 at 9:58, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
Having been at IBM and working on the PS/2 series of
systems, I can
tell you that the PS/2 systems were first with the Pentiums from IBM.
In particular the PS/2 Model 95 was the first. It was also the first
PS/2 to support > 16MB of RAM (I know 'cause I did the support in AIX
PS/2 for it...was fun having a 64MB system at the time...8 8MB DIMMs).
It was *well* before 1995 (as I moved to Austin in 1995 and hadn't
been working on PS/2 stuff for at least 2-3 years before that). The
ISA based machines (of which the PC330 was) came later.
So, was the Pentium you used in the 95 a P24T? I'm just trying to
get a handle on the order of things. The PS/2 guide:
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/ps2book.pdf
seems to say that all PS/2s used the P24T CPU, whose "official" Intel
release date was in 1995, whereas the original P5 Pentium was
available in 1993.
I tried to find a 1994 annoucement by IBM that the Pentium was
available on the PS/2, but no luck.
I don't doubt that you had early access to the Pentium CPUs at IBM,
but that doesn't quite settle the issue. We were fooling with pre-
release steppings of the 80286 when IBM was shipping 64K 5150s with
the 8088.
--Chuck
2:18 p.m.
On Jul 24, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 24 Jul 2011 at 9:58, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
The PS/2 M90 and M95 had replaceable processor cards and originally shipped with 486/50s
in late 1990. They were updated periodically with options for different processors.
It's not clear when they would have announced an update to run with a Pentium but I
did find a reference to the M95 server shipping with a P60 pentium in 8/93 and a P66
pentium in 9/93.
But the processor board initially came with 60MHz CPUs and then was available with 90MHz
CPUs. The P24T came *much* later.
TTFN - Guy
Having been at IBM and working on the PS/2 series
of systems, I can
tell you that the PS/2 systems were first with the Pentiums from IBM.
In particular the PS/2 Model 95 was the first. It was also the first
PS/2 to support > 16MB of RAM (I know 'cause I did the support in AIX
PS/2 for it...was fun having a 64MB system at the time...8 8MB DIMMs).
It was *well* before 1995 (as I moved to Austin in 1995 and hadn't
been working on PS/2 stuff for at least 2-3 years before that). The
ISA based machines (of which the PC330 was) came later.
So, was the Pentium you used in the 95 a P24T? I'm just trying to
get a handle on the order of things. The PS/2 guide:
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/ps2book.pdf
seems to say that all PS/2s used the P24T CPU, whose "official" Intel
release date was in 1995, whereas the original P5 Pentium was
available in 1993.
I tried to find a 1994 annoucement by IBM that the Pentium was
available on the PS/2, but no luck.
I don't doubt that you had early access to the Pentium CPUs at IBM,
but that doesn't quite settle the issue. We were fooling with pre-
release steppings of the 80286 when IBM was shipping 64K 5150s with
the 8088.
25 Jul
25 Jul
12:40 a.m.
Guy Sotomayor wrote:
The PS/2 M90 and M95 had replaceable processor cards
and originally
shipped with 486/50s in late 1990. They were updated periodically
with options for different processors. It's not clear when they
would have announced an update to run with a Pentium but I did find a
reference to the M95 server shipping with a P60 pentium in 8/93 and a
P66 pentium in 9/93.
The 486DX-50 was the Type-III complex. The Model 90/95 came out way
before that. The Type-0 complex had a 486-20 and no level 2 cache. The
Type-I complex had a 486DX-25 and an optional cache daughterboard. The
Type-II complex had on-board cache and a 486DX2-50. The Type-III had
on-board cache and a 486DX-50 (yes, the one with the 50MHz core clock,
single-clocked). The Type-IV had either a 60MHz or 66MHz Pentium P5.
Sometimes referred to as a Type-IVa, but referred to by IBM as just
another Type-IV, was a CPU complex with a 90MHz P54C Pentium and updated
firmware. These are still worth a good chunk of change. Actually, even
the Type-III is worth a bit of money, because some people have had luck
with running AMD Am5x86-P75 chips (which have a 4x clock multiplier) at
200MHz using a 50MHz core clock using a big heatsink with a fan on it.
I have examples of all this hardware in my collection.
Peace... Sridhar
12:31 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
The PS/2 Server 95 *definitely* didn't use the Pentium Overdrive. The
machines were available with 60MHz and 66MHz P5 chips. Later, there was
added a Type-IV CPU complex which came with a 90MHz P54C, a different
CPU socket (obviously) and different firmware.
The document you linked has none of the "server grade" PS/2s in it.
Peace... Sridhar
Having been at
IBM and working on the PS/2 series of systems, I can
tell you that the PS/2 systems were first with the Pentiums from IBM.
In particular the PS/2 Model 95 was the first. It was also the first
PS/2 to support> 16MB of RAM (I know 'cause I did the support in AIX
PS/2 for it...was fun having a 64MB system at the time...8 8MB DIMMs).
It was *well* before 1995 (as I moved to Austin in 1995 and hadn't
been working on PS/2 stuff for at least 2-3 years before that). The
ISA based machines (of which the PC330 was) came later.
So, was the Pentium you used in the 95 a P24T? I'm just trying to
get a handle on the order of things. The PS/2 guide:
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/ps2book.pdf
seems to say that all PS/2s used the P24T CPU, whose "official" Intel
release date was in 1995, whereas the original P5 Pentium was
available in 1993.
12:30 p.m.
--- On Sun, 7/24/11, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
I don't doubt that you had early access to the
Pentium CPUs
at IBM,
but that doesn't quite settle the issue.? We were
fooling with? pre-
release steppings of the 80286 when IBM was shipping 64K
5150s with
the 8088.
Which is a different discussion altogether. I neither care what systems utilized
overdrive processors (in a discussion of Pentium "firsts") - you can always
retrofit a box w/some *official* or aftermarket cpu upgrade (for instance there was a 3rd
party 486 retrofit for 286 based machines, though likely came out a good while after
_actual_ 486 boxes were shipping, and even machines like the ALR 386 offering was
supposedly geared towards running a 486, but I don't know the details. Maybe it just
had the main guts on a card). But...since you brought it up - and this is a
vintage/historic forum, I doubt I've received answers to the questions of which were
the earliest machines/upgrades/cpu cards/sbc's used the 8086/8 and 80286 uPs. As far
as IBM is concerned, I suppose the Displaywriter is the first 8088 based system. That
would be a relevant discussion. Another question - did 8086/8 upgrades to 8085s predate
from the ground up 8086/8 based boards? Since
most of the support chips are interchangeable, I would think yes. But personally I
don't know of any.
6:02 p.m.
On 25 Jul 2011 at 9:30, Chris M wrote:
--- On Sun, 7/24/11, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
> I don't doubt that you had early access to the Pentium CPUs
> at IBM,
> but that doesn't quite settle the issue.? We were
> fooling with? pre-
> release steppings of the 80286 when IBM was shipping 64K
> 5150s with
> the 8088.
But...since you brought it up - and this is a
vintage/historic forum,
I doubt I've received answers to the questions of which were the
earliest machines/upgrades/cpu cards/sbc's used the 8086/8 and 80286
uPs. As far as IBM is concerned, I suppose the Displaywriter is the
first 8088 based system.
The DW was an 8086 system, not 8088.
That would be a relevant discussion. Another question
- did 8086/8
upgrades to 8085s predate from the ground up 8086/8 based boards?
The first 8086 board reaching the market for sale would probably be
the Intel SDK-86. The S-100 crowd closely on, with SCP's board,
Godbout and others. Bill Godbout's notable because I think he may
have been the first to integrate an 8088 and 8085 on the same S-100
board.
The 8086 was a hard sell to those wating for a real 16-bit CPU, not a
bankswitching 8085 on steriods. I wonder if IBM hadn't used it in
the 5150 if it would have been anything more than a footnote. Even
our sales guy couldn't mention the 8086 without talking about the
"Real Soon Now" 432 chipset.
Has anyone benchmarked a Z80H at 8 MHz against an 8088 at 4.77 MHz?
--Chuck
3 Aug
3 Aug
4:11 p.m.
On 7/25/11 6:02 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Has anyone benchmarked a Z80H at 8 MHz against an 8088
at 4.77 MHz?
I haven't actually benchmarked it, but side-by-side my 4MHz Z80-based
S100 system spanked my 8MHz 8088-based PC clone back in the day.
Installing a NEC V20 mostly evened it out.
I actually built that PC clone to use as a terminal to my PDP-11.
That was (and probably still is) the best use for a PeeCee. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
4:40 p.m.
On 8/3/11 4:32 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
No, it was vastly inferior to my Hazeltine Esprit, mostly due to the
whacked-out PC keyboard layout and crappy CGA video quality (which is
fuzzy nearly to the point of being unusable in my opinion), but it
worked ok otherwise.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I actually
built that PC clone to use as a terminal to my PDP-11.
That was (and probably still is) the best use for a PeeCee. ;)
But probalby not the best way to get a terminal for your PDP11.
5:38 p.m.
On 3 Aug 2011 at 16:11, Dave McGuire wrote:
I actually built that PC clone to use as a terminal
to my PDP-11.
That was (and probably still is) the best use for a PeeCee. ;)
I used mine as a terminal to a VAX 11/750. It had issues keeping up
at 19.2K. I think I was using Procomm at the time.
The big advantage over a conventional terminal was the capability of
capturing output to a file or sending a file to the VAX. And the
keyboard was better than that on the C. Itoh VT220 terminals that
everyone else was using. This allowed me to do my editing off-line--
or even take my work home.
--Chuck
4 Aug
4 Aug
2:30 p.m.
[PCs as terminals]
The big advantage over a conventional terminal was the
capability of
capturing output to a file or sending a file to the VAX. And the
YEs, that was one of the reasons I bought my first PC. Although I had
other machines tht could emulate a terminal, an MS-DOS floppy disk was by
then a de-facto standard, and beign able to transfer files between one of
my machines and such a disk was very handy.
Icidentally, the first pC I owned was a genuineb 5160 PC/XT (It still
runs, it's in front of me now). I tracked down that model because I had
access to the TechRef (well, you know me by now...)
keyboard was better than that on the C. Itoh VT220
terminals that
everyone else was using. This allowed me to do my editing off-line--
or even take my work home.
Reminds me of the tremrinal emiulator ROM for th HP9830, whcih allowed
you to transfer a file between the 9830's memory and the communcation
link and to store/retrieve it from an HP9830 tape. HP advertised this as
being able to save on timesharing system storage charges.
-tony
5:04 p.m.
On 4 Aug 2011 at 19:30, Tony Duell wrote:
Reminds me of the tremrinal emiulator ROM for th
HP9830, whcih allowed
you to transfer a file between the 9830's memory and the communcation
link and to store/retrieve it from an HP9830 tape. HP advertised this
as being able to save on timesharing system storage charges.
When I had an Altair 8800 box and no disk drives, I used a 2-cassette
tape paper-tape emulator (one drive could read/search; the other
could read/write/ and search). I believe it was a unit by Techtran.
I also had a Beehive SuperBee terminal that could be put into page
editing mode. And I had a modem from a TI Silent 700. I'd dial into
work as a terminal, write my program code to the tape unit, then go
offline. I'd swap tapes, read the data in a page at a time into the
Beehive, edit it, then write it to the other tape. Later, I'd stream
the edited text back to the mainframe at work.
Some of the early word processors (e.g. CPT) worked this way also,
just with floppy disks. You'd edit a page at a time, then send it
back to the CPU for writing.
--Chuck
3 Aug
3 Aug
5:46 p.m.
On 3 Aug 2011 at 16:11, Dave McGuire wrote:
I haven't actually benchmarked it, but
side-by-side my 4MHz
Z80-based S100 system spanked my 8MHz 8088-based PC clone back in the
day. Installing a NEC V20 mostly evened it out.
A lot of early PC software was written rather inefficiently. I
recall that MASM 1.0 was very slow. Needed 64K without macros and
96K with. Ugly, buggy as heck.
I mostly cross-assembled in the early days. It was easier than
trying to use the native MS-DOS program.
--Chuck
4808
days inactive
4821
days old
18 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
innfoclassics＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com