11 May
2004
11 May
'04
2:15 p.m.
I just noticed I have an Altos 686 (without a cover) PC in my stack of 'old computer
stuff'. It's s model 25A with one 5 1/4 inch floppy drive and a Seagate ST225
hard drive. Is this one of Altos computers that people are interested in or something
that needs to be scrapped? Thanks for any help you can give me.
Bill Machacek
14 May
14 May
7:40 p.m.
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:15:56 -0600
"Bill Machacek" <bmachacek(a)pcisys.net> wrote:
I just noticed I have an Altos 686 (without a cover)
PC in my stack of 'old computer stuff'. It's s model 25A with one 5 1/4 inch
floppy drive and a Seagate ST225 hard drive. Is this one of Altos computers that people
are interested in or something that needs to be scrapped? Thanks for any help you can
give me.
Bill Machacek
I once had an Altos 586. It was called that because it used an 8086 processor and had
five serial console ports. Mine ran Microsoft Xenix (from before SCO) in 512K of RAM. I
passed it on to someone in Florida who wanted it more. I imaged the OS installation
floppies as best I could at the time, but have no idea if they were even 'legit'
images.
My 586 ran _Microsoft_ Xenix as indicated all through the binaries. It was a pretty
impressive box, with support for five users on dumb terminals, with an 8086 processor and
only 512K of RAM. Sometimes I wish I had held onto it just as concrete evidence that
_Microsoft_ produced an authentic Unix port. So many people try to hand credit off to
SCO. (deep hatred of Microsoft can lead to that kind of thing)
Does your machine have a bunch of DB25 jacks on it for multiple terminals?
I also once had an Altos 580, which was in a case identical in some respects to the 586,
except it was an 8080 machine with similar terminal ports, and ran CP/M.
15 May
15 May
12:02 p.m.
Scott Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:15:56 -0600
"Bill Machacek" <bmachacek(a)pcisys.net> wrote:
I also once had an Altos 580, which was in a case
identical in some respects to the 586, except it was an 8080 machine with similar terminal
ports, and ran CP/M.
<netcop>
Linewraps, man, linewraps!
</netcop>
I'd have to pull it out of storage to check, but I'm fairly sure my
Altos 580 is a Z80, not an 8080.
Doc
3:41 p.m.
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:02:44 -0500
Doc Shipley <doc(a)mdrconsult.com> wrote:
Scott Stevens wrote:
You're probably right. I should have just said 'the 580 was an 8-bit
CP/M machine.' There weren't that many 8080 machines in the later years
of CP/M, i.e. the Altos 580 time period. By then everyone had switched
to the Z80. And Intel was hyping the 8085. Were there many other
machines besides the Tandy 100 that used the 8085?
On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:15:56 -0600
"Bill Machacek" <bmachacek(a)pcisys.net> wrote:
I also once had an Altos 580, which was in a case
identical in some
respects to the 586, except it was an 8080 machine with similar
terminal ports, and ran CP/M.
<netcop>
Linewraps, man, linewraps!
</netcop>
I'd have to pull it out of storage to check, but I'm fairly sure my
Altos 580 is a Z80, not an 8080.
Doc 
19 May
19 May
11:13 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Stevens" <sastevens(a)earthlink.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: Altos 686
You're probably right. I should have just said
'the 580 was an 8-bit
CP/M machine.' There weren't that many 8080 machines in the later years
of CP/M, i.e. the Altos 580 time period. By then everyone had switched
to the Z80. And Intel was hyping the 8085. Were there many other
machines besides the Tandy 100 that used the 8085?
The Zenith Z-100 is a dual-processor machine featuring both the 8088 and
8085, but most people used them as almost-PCs and the 8085 was pretty much
ignored.
Glen
0/0
7601
days inactive
7609
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
acme＠gbronline.com -
bmachacek＠pcisys.net -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
sastevens＠earthlink.net