4 Nov
1998
4 Nov
'98
7:18 p.m.
Lawrence Walker wrote:
> Both the model 25 and 30 came out in 8086 and 286 versions. The 25 had
2
286 models.
25-286 and 25LS. The models 50 and 60 were also 286s'
The models up to (but not including) the 50 series were ISA and after microchannel. The 25 came out originally as an XT
class machine with an
8086
processor ( see
http://www.can.ibm.com/helpware/8525.html ) and the 286
version of
it was only one version that I'm aware of as seen
at
http://www.can.ibm.com/helpware/8525286.html
The LS may be an aftermarket version, much like putting a Reply
motherboard into
one.
All the info on the vintage IBM machines can be found starting with the
index page
at IBM Canada (eh!) at
http://www.can.ibm.com/helpware/vintage.html
Thanks for the reference. I have bookmarked it.
Thanks also to everyone who has pointed out the model 25 and the 286
versions. Both well after my time - when I left IBM there were just the
30, 50, 60 and 80. I think I had heard of the 25 though - perhaps that
will teach me not to open my mouth quite so wide.
No thanks to whoever said the 8088 and 8086 were the same thing. If that's
the case, the Pentium and the 80386 are the same thing :-)
Philip.
4 Nov
4 Nov
7:52 a.m.
Philip.Belben(a)pgen.com wrote:
Thanks for the reference. I have bookmarked it.
Glad to be of help
Thanks also to everyone who has pointed out the model
25 and the 286
versions. Both well after my time - when I left IBM there were just the
30, 50, 60 and 80. I think I had heard of the 25 though - perhaps that
will teach me not to open my mouth quite so wide.
The 25 was really listed as a student network station though, not really as a
PC. They seem older than the others as well but I never really paid much
attention to the date of release.
No thanks to whoever said the 8088 and 8086 were the
same thing. If that's
the case, the Pentium and the 80386 are the same thing :-)
In general terms, without getting into a lot of super-geek discussion, the 8086
and 8088 are in the same category in that they are both predominantly an XT
class processor, despite the 8 and 16 bit differences. The V20 and 30 were way
better than the Intel chips anyway. Guess that's one reason why Intel attempted
to sue NEC for the V series?
5 Nov
5 Nov
10:38 a.m.
Once upon a midnight dreary, Russ Blakeman had spoken clearly:
Philip.Belben(a)pgen.com wrote:
> No thanks to whoever said the 8088 and 8086 were
the same thing. If that's
> the case, the Pentium and the 80386 are the same thing :-)
In general terms, without getting into a lot of
super-geek discussion, the
8086
and 8088 are in the same category in that they are both
predominantly an XT
class processor, despite the 8 and 16 bit differences....
Yes, to say that the 8088 and 8086 were the same is incorrect, but they
_basically_ had the same core and everything... it was just the data bus
was 8 bit on the 8088 and 16-bit on the 8086. They were fully compatible
program-wise, just that the 8086 was faster as it could push 2x data over
the 8088.
Comparing the 80386 and the Pentium wouldn't be fair, tho. Comparing the
80386SX (with the 16-bit data bus) and the 80386DX (with the 32-bit data
bus) would be a lot better comparison... as again, the chips were fully
compatible, but the DX's were faster due to the larger data bus.
Just the way I seem to remember it...
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
11:07 a.m.
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Yes, to say that the 8088 and 8086 were the same is
incorrect, but they
_basically_ had the same core and everything... it was just the data bus
was 8 bit on the 8088 and 16-bit on the 8086. They were fully compatible
program-wise, just that the 8086 was faster as it could push 2x data over
the 8088.
Comparing the 80386 and the Pentium wouldn't be fair, tho. Comparing the
80386SX (with the 16-bit data bus) and the 80386DX (with the 32-bit data
bus) would be a lot better comparison... as again, the chips were fully
compatible, but the DX's were faster due to the larger data bus.
Just the way I seem to remember it...
Do I not recall correctly that the 8088 was in fact half of a two chip
set and that the 8086 was 'self contained', and that IBM elected to not use
the other half.
- don
11:23 a.m.
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Don Maslin wrote:
Do I not recall correctly that the 8088 was in fact
half of a two chip
set and that the 8086 was 'self contained', and that IBM elected to not use
the other half.
The 8088 and 8086 really are nearly identical except that the 8088
multiplexes an 8-bit data bus. I can't imagine what you're thinking of,
except perhaps for the optional 8087 FPU.
Intel did try to confuse things later on, though. For example, the SX/DX
designation of the 386 originally meant single-wide and double-wide data
bus, but then Intel marketing decided to create the 486SX, which was just
a normal 486 with the FPU crippled.
-- Doug
1:24 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 986 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19981106/1c07575b/at…
3:29 p.m.
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, Tony Duell wrote:
You are quite right, Tony. It was the 8089 I/O processor that I was
recalling. I guess that I erred in thinking that the 8089 was not a part
of the 8086 set.
- don
Do I not
recall correctly that the 8088 was in fact half of a two chip
set and that the 8086 was 'self contained', and that IBM elected to not use
the other half.
I don't know if you _recall_ it correctly, but I don't think it's correct.
You are possibly thinking of a couple of things, but they both apply to
the 8086 _and_ the 8088.
The 8086/8088 was designed as part of a chipset. The other members of the
chipset were the 8087 floating point processor and the 8089 I/O
processor. The latter was a very fancy intellegent DMA engine (and a lot
more). That was what IBM didn't use, alas - they used a kludge based on
the 8237 DMA controller from the 8080 family. Apricot did use the 8089 in
their machines, but, of course, thay weren't really IBM compatibles.
The other thing is that the 8086 and 8088 need an external clock
generator and bus controller. These were the same parts for both CPUs,
and IBM used them in the PC and XT.
4 Nov
4 Nov
8:43 p.m.
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 Philip.Belben(a)pgen.com wrote:
No thanks to whoever said the 8088 and 8086 were the
same thing. If that's
the case, the Pentium and the 80386 are the same thing :-)
More like the 80386SX and 80386DX, but I'm just picking nits. Which
reminds me, does anybody have one of Intel's ill-fated 80376 chips? You
know, the 386 with no real-mode or paging support.
-- Doug
5 Nov
5 Nov
6:42 a.m.
Doug Yowza wrote:
Which reminds me, does anybody have one of Intel's
ill-fated 80376 chips?
You know, the 386 with no real-mode or paging support.
We almost used some 376 chips in one of our low-end routers at Telebit, but
the pricing of 386SX chips was falling so fast that before we even had the
boards back from fab, the 386SX was cheaper.
IIRC, the 376 *did* have paging; our software depended on it. Intel left
out real mode so that it couldn't be used in a PC, since they originally
intended it to sell cheaper than a 386SX for embedded systems. I doubt
that the internal differences between the 376 and 386 were very large; my
guess is that only a small amount of microcode was changed.
I don't have any 376 chips, though. AFAIK they were only offered in PQFP
packages, so it wouldn't be very convenient to play with them.
Eric
6:57 a.m.
I don't have any 376 chips, though. AFAIK they
were only offered in PQFP
packages, so it wouldn't be very convenient to play with them.
The sample packs they used to give out have typical grey PGAs.
I think the 80376 failed because the 80960 took off.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
9545
days inactive
9545
days old
9 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
donm＠cts.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
Philip.Belben＠pgen.com -
rhblake＠bigfoot.com -
william＠ans.net -
yowza＠yowza.com -
zmerch＠30below.com