9 Apr
2008
9 Apr
'08
2:06 a.m.
Title says it all... I picked up a "new" (still in shrink-wrap)
AboveBoard MC with the intent of using it in my PS/2 model 80 and I'm
having serious issues getting it to function properly.
The Model 80 has 4mb of planar memory installed, and I've been running
it with no issues with an Orchid Ramquest 8/32 stocked with 8mb of
memory (so 12mb total). In an attempt to get a little more memory, I've
tried running with the Orchid replaced by the AboveBoard...
The AboveBoard came with 4mb installed (4 1mb simms) which I initially
replaced with 32mb (8 4mb simms, known good). I've since tried running
with the original RAM, as well as other RAM I have lying around, without
any success. I've tried running in different slots (both 32 and 16 bit)
with no change. I've also adjusted the ram speed in the configuration
page (options are 100ns or 80/85ns) with no change, though it seems
slightly happier with 80/85ns selected.
The behavior is very random -- sometimes the startup memory count (which
is separate from the memory count in the PS/2's BIOS) fails to count all
the memory -- on these occasions you can see it "pause" slightly during
the count as if it's hitting bad memory and skipping over it. Sometimes
it counts all the memory just fine. Regardless, the OS crashes or
panics (tried NT & Debian Linux, haven't tried OS/2 yet) eventually.
I've run memtest86 on it and what I find is that if the memory count is
successful, memtest reports no errors, but attempts to run actual OSes
crash after awhile.
I've read that the Model 80 has trouble (not sure precisely /what/
trouble) with more than 16mb of memory, but even limiting the AboveBoard
to 4mb is problematic.
Anyone have any ideas? Similar/different experiences?
Thanks,
Josh
9 Apr
9 Apr
9:14 a.m.
On 09/04/2008, Josh Dersch <derschjo at msu.edu> wrote:
Title says it all... I picked up a "new"
(still in shrink-wrap) AboveBoard
MC with the intent of using it in my PS/2 model 80 and I'm having serious
issues getting it to function properly.
The Model 80 has 4mb of planar memory installed, and I've been running it
with no issues with an Orchid Ramquest 8/32 stocked with 8mb of memory (so
12mb total). In an attempt to get a little more memory, I've tried running
with the Orchid replaced by the AboveBoard...
The AboveBoard came with 4mb installed (4 1mb simms) which I initially
replaced with 32mb (8 4mb simms, known good). I've since tried running with
the original RAM, as well as other RAM I have lying around, without any
success. I've tried running in different slots (both 32 and 16 bit) with no
change. I've also adjusted the ram speed in the configuration page (options
are 100ns or 80/85ns) with no change, though it seems slightly happier with
80/85ns selected.
The behavior is very random -- sometimes the startup memory count (which is
separate from the memory count in the PS/2's BIOS) fails to count all the
memory -- on these occasions you can see it "pause" slightly during the
count as if it's hitting bad memory and skipping over it. Sometimes it
counts all the memory just fine. Regardless, the OS crashes or panics
(tried NT & Debian Linux, haven't tried OS/2 yet) eventually. I've run
memtest86 on it and what I find is that if the memory count is successful,
memtest reports no errors, but attempts to run actual OSes crash after
awhile.
I've read that the Model 80 has trouble (not sure precisely /what/ trouble)
with more than 16mb of memory, but even limiting the AboveBoard to 4mb is
problematic.
Anyone have any ideas? Similar/different experiences?
I have an IBM expansion in my Model 80. Can't remember what model
offhand, I'm afraid - I fitted it >10y ago. It has, from memory, 4 x
2MB parity SIMMs in it. I also have 8MB on the planar for 16MB total,
and you can spot the difference during the POST text very easily -
when it trips over from planar RAM to MCA-slot RAM, the speed of the
RAM test drops by something like 25-33%. It's very noticeable.
At the time, I was wondering if I could find a 2nd expansion board or
even a 3rd, populate 'em with cheap 1MB SIMMs and get 32MB or so. I
had slots to spare. However, on doing some reading at that time, I
found, as I recall, that there was only 1 specific board that could
extend a Model 80 past 16MB and it needed to be the sole RAM
expansion. I /think/ that you needed to max out the planar first, too.
A distant memory suggests that it was a Kingston RAM expansion that
could do it. I think multiple boards adding <=4MB each to an 8MB
machine could take you to 16MB, but getting above 16MB was very
difficult and even 11-12y ago, getting hold of those special boards
for >16MB was expensive.
So my '80 rests at 16MB, no more, even though I did have more suitable
SIMMs. :?( However, in 16MB, it ran NT Server 3.51SP5 really rather
nicely and was a responsive fileserver on my network, driving 3 or 4
SCSI disks across 2 controllers (1 internal, 1 external), a SCSI
CD-ROM and a SCSI Exabyte 8mm tape drive. Not bad for a machine that
was ~10y old when it was pressed into service, running an OS that
wasn't released until 7y after the H/W was discontinued.
It's still sitting in my garage. Not powered it on this century. :?(
Hope it still works.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
10 Apr
10 Apr
1:14 p.m.
Title says it all... I picked up a "new"
(still in shrink-wrap)
AboveBoard MC with the intent of using it in my PS/2 model 80 and I'm
having serious issues getting it to function properly.
I've read that the Model 80 has trouble (not sure precisely /what/
trouble) with more than 16mb of memory, but even limiting the AboveBoard
to 4mb is problematic.
Anyone have any ideas? Similar/different experiences?
Thanks,
Josh
1. The card is 32 bit not 16 bit MCA? Have to be 32 bits for
stablity and speed in your 386 (model 80 are.), on this reason I went
with 32 bit MCA memory card in my 70-Axx. You need to get a memory
card of 32bit MCA using 72 pin SIMMs. This ram card model you got is
specifically made for 8088 and 286 models.
2. The simms have to be 9 chips ONLY and speed 80ns or less for this
aboveboard/MC. Nothing else will work right on these models. If you
get 32bit MCA ram cards using 72 pin simms, if you got quality
generic ones, modify them to IBM specs by arranging the presence
sense lines via 0 ohm SMD resistors. Info are out there on 'net.
3. That card is good as expanded ram card in 386 machines.
4. You are correct that these older machines have hard 16MB
limitations due to DMA limited to 24bits I think (same as 286) that
as far as I know.
Linky:
http://ps-2.kev009.com:8081/ohlandl/misc/Intel_Aboveboard-MC.html
Cheers, Wizard
11 Apr
11 Apr
2:10 a.m.
jpero at sympatico.ca wrote:
Card is 32 bit, but also works in 16-bit slots (according to the manual
and my experiences). The model 80 is specifically listed in the manual
as being compatible, so I'd hope that it is :). The card takes up to 8
30-pin simms, and came populated with 4 1mb simms.
Title says it
all... I picked up a "new" (still in shrink-wrap)
AboveBoard MC with the intent of using it in my PS/2 model 80 and I'm
having serious issues getting it to function properly.
I've read that the Model 80 has trouble (not sure precisely /what/
trouble) with more than 16mb of memory, but even limiting the AboveBoard
to 4mb is problematic.
Anyone have any ideas? Similar/different experiences?
Thanks,
Josh
1. The card is 32 bit not 16 bit MCA? Have to be 32 bits for
stablity and speed in your 386 (model 80 are.), on this reason I went
with 32 bit MCA memory card in my 70-Axx. You need to get a memory
card of 32bit MCA using 72 pin SIMMs. This ram card model you got is
specifically made for 8088 and 286 models.
2. The simms have to be 9 chips ONLY and speed 80ns or
less for this
aboveboard/MC. Nothing else will work right on these models. If you
get 32bit MCA ram cards using 72 pin simms, if you got quality
generic ones, modify them to IBM specs by arranging the presence
sense lines via 0 ohm SMD resistors. Info are out there on 'net.
The manual says it'll work with 100ns or 85/80ns (or less) simms;
selectable in setup. I've tried mostly 9-chip simms, but I have a few
3-chip ones that yield similar results. Additionally, I get the same
results with the RAM that shipped in-box with the board, so I don't
think the simms are the problem.
3. That card is good as expanded ram card in 386
machines.
The manual says it'll work as either extended or expanded memory.
4. You are correct that these older machines have
hard 16MB
limitations due to DMA limited to 24bits I think (same as 286) that
as far as I know.
Yeah, that's what I read. I don't know what issues that will cause for
operating systems running with more than 16mb installed. I guess I'll
find out if I can get this to run at all :).
Linky:
http://ps-2.kev009.com:8081/ohlandl/misc/Intel_Aboveboard-MC.html
Cheers, Wizard
Thanks for the link and the suggestions; the link indicates that the ROM
is software-updatable, I'll see if any updates were released (mine has
rom 1.00, so maybe it's a bit buggy.)
Thanks,
Josh
5:54 p.m.
Josh Dersch wrote:
I am running a Model 80-061 with many (4?) IBM 80386 XMAs and the
machine is perfectly stable running Linux with 46MB RAM. If I had an
80-Axx (which I would love to get, for the cache), it would be 48MB.
Peace... Sridhar
4. You are
correct that these older machines have hard 16MB
limitations due to DMA limited to 24bits I think (same as 286) that as
far as I know.
Yeah, that's what I read. I don't know what issues that will cause for
operating systems running with more than 16mb installed. I guess I'll
find out if I can get this to run at all :).
6:58 p.m.
On 11/04/2008, Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
Josh Dersch wrote:
Yeah, that's what I read. I don't know what issues that will cause for
operating systems running with more than 16mb installed. I guess I'll find
out if I can get this to run at all :).
I am running a Model 80-061 with many (4?) IBM 80386 XMAs and the machine
is perfectly stable running Linux with 46MB RAM. If I had an 80-Axx (which
I would love to get, for the cache), it would be 48MB.
[Gasp]
*Envy!*
Not only could I only find the one memory adaptor board, I've never
been able to get any Linux distro to even boot on my 80-A21. I was
recommended to Slackware but I got nowhere.
Still, NT3 runs very nicely on it. Much better than Warp Server did,
which could not drive my obscure, unheard of network card, a certain
"Novell NE2000/MCA". I mean, who's ever heard of Novell?
I never got Warp running properly on my Thinkpad Butterfly either.
It's only VGA res, but I wanted at least 16k or 32k colours, sound and
the modem, but nope. IBM O/S on IBM H/W, but no joy.
I recently rescued one of the little 386sx or 486slc desktops from a
skip. Model 56? I don't recall. I shall try OS/2 on it at some point,
if I can max out its RAM.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
> 4. You are correct that these older machines have hard 16MB limitations
due
to DMA limited to 24bits I think (same as 286) that as far as I know.
8:36 p.m.
On Friday 11 April 2008 18:58, Liam Proven wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at
gmail.com> wrote:
I've been running Slackware since 1999 when I started with 4.0. And there was
an awful lot of that setup that turned out to be very much DIY. I also added
stuff later on that wasn't present during the install (like an ISA sound
card) so that and X and a bunch of other stuff all turned out to be DIY as
well.
Josh Dersch wrote:
I am running a Model 80-061 with many (4?) IBM 80386 XMAs and the
machine is perfectly stable running Linux with 46MB RAM. If I had an
80-Axx (which I would love to get, for the cache), it would be 48MB.
[Gasp]
*Envy!*
Not only could I only find the one memory adaptor board, I've never
been able to get any Linux distro to even boot on my 80-A21. I was
recommended to Slackware but I got nowhere. 4. You
are correct that these older machines have hard 16MB
limitations due to DMA limited to 24bits I think (same as 286) that as
far as I know.
Yeah, that's what I read. I don't know what issues that will cause for
operating systems running with more than 16mb installed. I guess I'll
find out if I can get this to run at all :). Still, NT3 runs very nicely on it. Much better than
Warp Server did,
which could not drive my obscure, unheard of network card, a certain
"Novell NE2000/MCA". I mean, who's ever heard of Novell?
Heh.
I never got Warp running properly on my Thinkpad
Butterfly either.
It's only VGA res, but I wanted at least 16k or 32k colours, sound and
the modem, but nope. IBM O/S on IBM H/W, but no joy.
I recently rescued one of the little 386sx or 486slc desktops from a
skip. Model 56? I don't recall. I shall try OS/2 on it at some point,
if I can max out its RAM.
Anyhow, I'm not sure what the hardware is that you're messing with there,
but if you want to get some Slackware running on it let me know.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
10:55 p.m.
On 12/04/2008, Roy J. Tellason <rtellason at verizon.net> wrote:
I've been running Slackware since 1999 when I
started with 4.0. And there was
an awful lot of that setup that turned out to be very much DIY. I also added
stuff later on that wasn't present during the install (like an ISA sound
card) so that and X and a bunch of other stuff all turned out to be DIY as
well.
The first Linux distro I ever tried to actually /install/ was
Slackware, on my notebook: a very odd 486DX50 (not DX2/50) with 8MB of
RAM and onboard SCSI. I never did get it to run. That was '97 or so,
and while I knew some UNIX, I knew next to nothing about Linux. I ghad
played with Lasermoon's Linux-FT, an early LiveCD - in fact, I think
the very first - but that doesn't really count as an "install". I
never got it booting off my hard disk.
However, I have tried Slackware since then, on some fairly recent
version - 10.0, I think. I found it nearly as forbidding as it was a
decade ago, and these days, I'm fairly well-used to Debian, Ubuntu,
Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva and many others.
Anyhow, I'm not sure what the hardware is that
you're messing with there,
but if you want to get some Slackware running on it let me know.
Well, hey, if Slackware is the only modern that still supports MCA, I
might give it a shot. Does it? I don't think modern Debian does...
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
12 Apr
12 Apr
12:11 a.m.
Liam Proven wrote:
I got Debian (Sarge, not Etch) running on my Model 80 (even with just
the 12mb of RAM). None of their boot floppies supports MCA so I ended
up doing the install on another machine (cheating, I suppose) and
compiling a custom 2.4 kernel that supports MCA, compiled specifically
for i386 (with 486 emulation). The 486 emulation proved necessary
because a lot of the base utilities aren't compiled for 386 anymore so
they would die with an illegal instruction fault :). (Guess the optimal
distro would be Gentoo so I can make sure everything's compiled for a
bare 386, but I can't imagine how long that would take.) Oh, and I had
to fix the ibmmca SCSI driver so it wouldn't kernel panic on boot.
Whew. This took a long time to get running.
(I tried the latest Slackware first, but they don't even support booting
Anyhow, I'm not sure what the hardware is
that you're messing with there,
but if you want to get some Slackware running on it let me know.
Well, hey, if Slackware is the only modern that still supports MCA, I
might give it a shot. Does it? I don't think modern Debian does...
from floppy anymore :(. I considered digging out my
Slack 3.0 floppy
set but decided to try for something a little more modern.)
I have this running on a 4gb scsi drive (updated the bios on my
controller to get past the 1gb limit -- it's really hard to get a modern
linux distro, compilers, and kernel source on a 1gb disk and still have
room to compile it.). The result is a working Linux, but it's quite
slow. (That's an understatement - it takes 25% of the CPU just to run
'top'.) I'm in the middle of installing gnome on it just to see how long
it takes to start up on a 20Mhz 386 with 12mb of ram. Yes, there's
something horribly, horribly wrong with me. And if you want to torture
it: http://yahozna.dyndns.org:8080/ !
I'd rather run NetBSD on a machine like this, but they don't support the
IBM SCSI controllers at all.
Josh
9:54 a.m.
On Saturday 12 April 2008 00:11, Josh Dersch wrote:
(I tried the latest Slackware first, but they
don't even support booting
from floppy anymore :(. I considered digging out my Slack 3.0 floppy
set but decided to try for something a little more modern.)
They don't assume that anybody's going to be doing it that way, as an awful
lot of machines will boot from CD any more, but I still have and use some
that won't, and it's still quite possible to make images that you'll need to
boot from floppy from what's contained on the ISO images, no problem...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
2:23 p.m.
Josh Dersch wrote:
I'd rather run NetBSD on a machine like this, but
they don't support the
IBM SCSI controllers at all.
Which is why looking for an Adaptec 1640-series card is a very good
idea. I have two, and they're going to the grave with me. I keep
hoping I'll find a pallet of "new old-stock" cards somewhere, in which
case I'll share.
On a side note, if you ever want to hook an MCA PC of any kind (PS/2,
Tandy 4000, NCR, etc.) to a 100Mbps ethernet network, I have 100Mbps
ethernet cards for MCA from Olicom available, new-in-box.
Peace... Sridhar
3:14 p.m.
On Saturday 12 April 2008 14:23, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Josh Dersch wrote:
I know the 15xx numbers some, but not those that you refer to here -- what
are they like?
I'd rather run NetBSD on a machine like this,
but they don't support the
IBM SCSI controllers at all.
Which is why looking for an Adaptec 1640-series card is a very good
idea. I have two, and they're going to the grave with me. I keep
hoping I'll find a pallet of "new old-stock" cards somewhere, in which
case I'll share. On a side note, if you ever want to hook an MCA PC of
any kind (PS/2,
Tandy 4000, NCR, etc.) to a 100Mbps ethernet network, I have 100Mbps
ethernet cards for MCA from Olicom available, new-in-box.
I have one MCA card which I think is that brand here also, not 100mbps, but
still new-in-box, if anybody can use it...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
8:39 p.m.
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
On Saturday 12 April 2008 14:23, Sridhar Ayengar
wrote:
The 15xx is the ISA version. The 16xx is MCA. Otherwise, very similar.
Peace... Sridhar
Josh Dersch wrote:
I know the 15xx numbers some, but not those that you refer to here -- what
are they like? I'd rather run NetBSD on a machine like this,
but they don't support the
IBM SCSI controllers at all.
Which is why looking for an Adaptec 1640-series card
is a very good
idea. I have two, and they're going to the grave with me. I keep
hoping I'll find a pallet of "new old-stock" cards somewhere, in which
case I'll share.
9:32 p.m.
On Saturday 12 April 2008 20:39, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Ah, okay, gotcha. I've overall done very little with MCA stuff, and in
fact got rid of my one MCA machine to a listmember some time back. Now all I
need to do is find a home for this network card... :-)
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
On Saturday 12 April 2008 14:23, Sridhar Ayengar
wrote:
The 15xx is the ISA version. The 16xx is MCA. Otherwise, very similar. Josh Dersch wrote:
I know the 15xx numbers some, but not those that you refer to here --
what are they like? I'd rather run NetBSD on a machine like this,
but they don't support
the IBM SCSI controllers at all.
Which is why looking for an Adaptec 1640-series card is a very good
idea. I have two, and they're going to the grave with me. I keep
hoping I'll find a pallet of "new old-stock" cards somewhere, in which
case I'll share.
9:45 a.m.
On Friday 11 April 2008 22:55, Liam Proven wrote:
(Snip)
I don't know offhand without digging into things. And we might want to take
this off-list, perhaps. :-)
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
However, I have tried Slackware since then, on some
fairly recent
version - 10.0, I think. I found it nearly as forbidding as it was a
decade ago, and these days, I'm fairly well-used to Debian, Ubuntu,
Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva and many others.
I've not messed with most of those, though occasionally I'll get some kind of
current CDs and boot them just to see what they look like...
Anyhow,
I'm not sure what the hardware is that you're messing with
there, but if you want to get some Slackware running on it let me know.
Well, hey, if Slackware is the only modern that still supports MCA, I
might give it a shot. Does it? I don't think modern Debian does...
2:19 p.m.
Liam Proven wrote:
On 12/04/2008, Roy J. Tellason <rtellason at
verizon.net> wrote:
I *love* 486DX-50 machines. I've had some success in the past
installing Am5x86-133 chips in these machines running at 200MHz.
They're quite a bit faster than the first couple of generations of
Pentium chips.
Peace... Sridhar
I've been running Slackware since 1999 when I
started with 4.0. And there was
an awful lot of that setup that turned out to be very much DIY. I also added
stuff later on that wasn't present during the install (like an ISA sound
card) so that and X and a bunch of other stuff all turned out to be DIY as
well.
The first Linux distro I ever tried to actually /install/ was
Slackware, on my notebook: a very odd 486DX50 (not DX2/50) with 8MB of 
2:27 p.m.
New subject: Corvus Series 386 Fileserver
Anyone seen or have one these?
Its a generic 386 processor system, 2.5mb RAM a 70 or 120mb HD, floppy
and with 8 slots and ran Netware on it.
Had available a Green, white or Amber Monitor.
Its also referred to as Series 386 Omniserver
Curt
3:49 p.m.
I *love* 486DX-50 machines. I've had some success
in the past
installing Am5x86-133 chips in these machines running at 200MHz.
What did you change on the board to get the 200MHz speed? I have a -133
here that I'd love to try that on.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Business is war. -- Jack Tramiel -------------------------------------------
4:45 p.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
My guess is he is running the front side bus at 50mhz (as genuine DX50
systems
do) vs the 33mhz fsb that the Am5x86-133 is designed for (33.3*4 = 133,
50*4 = 200).
I wouldn't have imagined that part would handle a 50% overclock. I have not
found many processors in my limited overclocking experience that exceed 20%
overclock w/o fiddling with "excessive" cooling, increasing core
voltage, etc.
I have been running a 2.4 Prescott P4 at 3.0Ghz... but once in a while
until it is
warmed up it will blue screen and reboot.... so I've backed it off to
2.8 to see how
it goes.... I'm wary of jacking the core voltage... (although it isn't
a northwood
so I don't have to worry about SNDS). I may inherit some 2.8GHZ Prescott
P4s with 800mhz fsb (vs the 2.4/533 I have now OC'd to 2.8)... so may go
with
one of those :-) (plus they have HT (woo... moan...).
-- Curt
I *love*
486DX-50 machines. I've had some success in the past
installing Am5x86-133 chips in these machines running at 200MHz.
What did you change on the board to get the 200MHz speed? I have a -133
here that I'd love to try that on.
8:47 p.m.
Curtis H. Wilbar Jr. wrote:
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
My guess is he is running the front side bus at 50mhz (as genuine
DX50 systems do) vs the 33mhz fsb that the Am5x86-133 is designed for
(33.3*4 = 133, 50*4 = 200).
Exactly.
I *love*
486DX-50 machines. I've had some success in the past
installing Am5x86-133 chips in these machines running at 200MHz.
What did you change on the board to get the 200MHz speed? I have a
-133 here that I'd love to try that on.
I wouldn't have imagined that part would handle a
50% overclock. I
have not found many processors in my limited overclocking experience
that exceed 20% overclock w/o fiddling with "excessive" cooling,
increasing core voltage, etc.
Considering that the Am5x86 ran reasonably reliably with no heatsink at
all, running with a minimal heatsink and fan, it's not that big of a deal.
I have been running a 2.4 Prescott P4 at 3.0Ghz... but
once in a
while until it is warmed up it will blue screen and reboot.... so
I've backed it off to 2.8 to see how it goes.... I'm wary of jacking
the core voltage... (although it isn't a northwood so I don't have to
worry about SNDS). I may inherit some 2.8GHZ Prescott P4s with
800mhz fsb (vs the 2.4/533 I have now OC'd to 2.8)... so may go with
one of those :-) (plus they have HT (woo... moan...).
Back then, processors weren't so high-strung from the factory.
Peace... Sridhar
13 Apr
13 Apr
12:42 a.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Curtis H. Wilbar Jr. wrote:
I tended not to get more than about 20% out of 286s, 386s, 486s, Pentiums,
PIIIs, etc... I've generally used 20% as a rule. 33% was the 2.4 Prescott
P4 at 3.0GHz... I considered that pretty good. It might have gone farther,
but I only have DDR333 in that system. Approaching 3GHz, it would get
picky about startup... process was, hit power button, count to 5, press
reset
button and it would come up fine.... however the first minute or two would
be touch and go... 10-20% of the time if you logged into quick it could
blue screen and reboot. After that first couple of minutes it was
stable....
I now have it at 2.8 and we'll see how startup and stability are.
I'm still quite surprised you got a 50% overclock. I have an upgrade
(little PCB with the surface mount Am586 on it, and a cpu pin header
for the cpu socket... along with a few jumpers/etc. I might have to
try it at 50mhz fsb... I'd think that would make a pretty quick 486
based system.
-- Curt
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
My guess is he is running the front side bus at 50mhz (as genuine
DX50 systems do) vs the 33mhz fsb that the Am5x86-133 is designed for
(33.3*4 = 133, 50*4 = 200).
Exactly.
I *love*
486DX-50 machines. I've had some success in the past
installing Am5x86-133 chips in these machines running at 200MHz.
What did you change on the board to get the 200MHz speed? I have a
-133 here that I'd love to try that on.
I wouldn't have imagined that part would
handle a 50% overclock. I
have not found many processors in my limited overclocking experience
that exceed 20% overclock w/o fiddling with "excessive" cooling,
increasing core voltage, etc.
Considering that the Am5x86 ran reasonably reliably with no heatsink
at all, running with a minimal heatsink and fan, it's not that big of
a deal.
I have been running a 2.4 Prescott P4 at
3.0Ghz... but once in a
while until it is warmed up it will blue screen and reboot.... so
I've backed it off to 2.8 to see how it goes.... I'm wary of jacking
the core voltage... (although it isn't a northwood so I don't have to
worry about SNDS). I may inherit some 2.8GHZ Prescott P4s with
800mhz fsb (vs the 2.4/533 I have now OC'd to 2.8)... so may go with
one of those :-) (plus they have HT (woo... moan...).
Back then, processors weren't so high-strung from the factory.
Peace... Sridhar
12 Apr
12 Apr
8:42 p.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Because the DX-50 had a core speed of 50MHz, nothing needed to be done.
If you start from a board that has a core speed of 33MHz (like a
DX2-66 or DX-33), you would need to set a core speed of 50MHz. Boards
where this is possible are actually reasonably rare.
Peace... Sridhar
I *love*
486DX-50 machines. I've had some success in the past
installing Am5x86-133 chips in these machines running at 200MHz.
What did you change on the board to get the 200MHz speed? I have a -133
here that I'd love to try that on.
9:35 p.m.
On Saturday 12 April 2008 20:42, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Because the DX-50 had a core speed of 50MHz, nothing needed to be done.
If you start from a board that has a core speed of 33MHz (like a
DX2-66 or DX-33), you would need to set a core speed of 50MHz. Boards
where this is possible are actually reasonably rare.
Hmm. I have this box around here someplace, ISA-only (no VLB in there) that
has the CPU on a daughterboard with some jumpers on it. Currently there's a
486dx2/66 chip in there, and I know that moving the jumper to other
positions makes it run slower, faster but way more flaky, and not at all
(in what I assumed at that time was a 100 MHz position). Nice box, built
like a tank, and I'd love to find some info on ie one of these days. Oh
yeah, and it says "digital" on the front. Anybody know if DEC made this
sort of thng ever?
The only downside to it is that it will only recognize parity RAM. Of which I
don't have enough, so there's two 16s and two 4s in there.
I was gonna run OS/2 on that box at some point but may try running linux in
there, maybe. Might try one of those 5x86/133 chips, too.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
I *love*
486DX-50 machines. I've had some success in the past
installing Am5x86-133 chips in these machines running at 200MHz.
What did you change on the board to get the 200MHz speed? I have a -133
here that I'd love to try that on.
2:42 a.m.
New subject: Resolved: Anyone using an Intel AboveBoard MC on a Model 80?
Figured out my problem: The AboveBoard ROM by default was calculating
the wrong address for the start of its memory (it was top of planar
memory + 128k, creating a hole which obviously would cause problems).
The AboveBoard option diskette has a DOS utility (softset.exe) that lets
you adjust this. I've done so and now everything seems to work...
Yay!
Thanks for all the helpful suggestions!
Josh
2:17 p.m.
Liam Proven wrote:
I have a whole load of memory expansion boards and an Intel 80486DX-33
upgrade for a Model 80 (! -- I used to use this in my 80-061, but I've
since found an 80486BL2-66 upgrade for my 80, which is what I now use),
which I would be willing to trade if you could get me an 80-Axx system.
I've been looking for some time.
I am running
a Model 80-061 with many (4?) IBM 80386 XMAs and the machine
is perfectly stable running Linux with 46MB RAM. If I had an 80-Axx (which
I would love to get, for the cache), it would be 48MB.
[Gasp]
*Envy!*
Not only could I only find the one memory adaptor board, I've never
been able to get any Linux distro to even boot on my 80-A21. I was
recommended to Slackware but I got nowhere. Still, NT3 runs very nicely on it. Much better than
Warp Server did,
which could not drive my obscure, unheard of network card, a certain
"Novell NE2000/MCA". I mean, who's ever heard of Novell?
The problem with the NE2000/MCA, is that it calls itself "NE2000", but
yet is not fully compatible with the original 8-bit ISA NE2000. They
should have called it "NE2100" or something.
I never got Warp running properly on my Thinkpad
Butterfly either.
It's only VGA res, but I wanted at least 16k or 32k colours, sound and
the modem, but nope. IBM O/S on IBM H/W, but no joy.
I thought the Thinkpad 701C doesn't have an SVGA chip. Does it indeed
have one?
I recently rescued one of the little 386sx or 486slc
desktops from a
skip. Model 56? I don't recall. I shall try OS/2 on it at some point,
if I can max out its RAM.
The 16-bit 486SLC boxes are the 56 and 57. (The 32-bit versions of the
same are the 76 and 77). The difference between the 56 and 57 are the
chassis and number of slots. Maybe number of bays too, but I can't
remember clearly.
Peace... Sridhar
10 Apr
10 Apr
3:56 p.m.
Josh,
Do you have the setup diskette for the Aboveboard? Almost anyone knows
more about PS/2 and MC machines than me, but I recall that expansion
cards came with a diskette to update the machine configuration.
Jim
Josh Dersch wrote:
Title says it all... I picked up a "new"
(still in shrink-wrap)
AboveBoard MC with the intent of using it in my PS/2 model 80 and I'm
having serious issues getting it to function properly.
The Model 80 has 4mb of planar memory installed, and I've been running
it with no issues with an Orchid Ramquest 8/32 stocked with 8mb of
memory (so 12mb total). In an attempt to get a little more memory,
I've tried running with the Orchid replaced by the AboveBoard...
The AboveBoard came with 4mb installed (4 1mb simms) which I initially
replaced with 32mb (8 4mb simms, known good). I've since tried
running with the original RAM, as well as other RAM I have lying
around, without any success. I've tried running in different slots
(both 32 and 16 bit) with no change. I've also adjusted the ram speed
in the configuration page (options are 100ns or 80/85ns) with no
change, though it seems slightly happier with 80/85ns selected.
The behavior is very random -- sometimes the startup memory count
(which is separate from the memory count in the PS/2's BIOS) fails to
count all the memory -- on these occasions you can see it "pause"
slightly during the count as if it's hitting bad memory and skipping
over it. Sometimes it counts all the memory just fine. Regardless,
the OS crashes or panics (tried NT & Debian Linux, haven't tried OS/2
yet) eventually. I've run memtest86 on it and what I find is that if
the memory count is successful, memtest reports no errors, but
attempts to run actual OSes crash after awhile.
I've read that the Model 80 has trouble (not sure precisely /what/
trouble) with more than 16mb of memory, but even limiting the
AboveBoard to 4mb is problematic.
Anyone have any ideas? Similar/different experiences?
Thanks,
Josh
6016
days inactive
6020
days old
25 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
curt＠atarimuseum.com -
derschjo＠msu.edu -
jpero＠sympatico.ca -
lproven＠gmail.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
rescue＠hawkmountain.net -
rtellason＠verizon.net -
scheefj＠netscape.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com