29 Sep
2001
29 Sep
'01
2:28 p.m.
> What's the deal with the BASIC in ROM on
these machines? Any other
early
PeeCee's
have this feature?
It's standard Microsoft cassette BASIC. Similar to (say) TRS-80 CoCo
BASIC.
The true-blue IBM PC. PC/XT (and therefore PortablePC), PC/AT, PCjr, etc
all have BASIC in ROM. I don't think it was ever licensed to clones, and
I don't think any clone company ever wrote a ROM BASIC from scratch. So
pretty much the only place you'll find it is in IBM machines. 
29 Sep
29 Sep
5:36 p.m.
Glen Goodwin wrote:
Tony, I think you are correct as I've never seen a
clone mb with BASIC in
ROM, but I *have* seen clone boards -- including early Pentium boards --
which would cough up "no rom basic" if they didn't find a bootable device.
Oddly enough the text of this message is always displayed in 40-column
low-res mode. Doesn't this suggest that part of the ROM BIOS code was
"borrowed" from early IBM code?
On early IBM machines, ROM Basic was entered by performing an INT 18h
instruction. On machines not implementeing ROM Basic, calling int 18
would simply display the "no rom basic" message, often in 40 col mode
since that was the lowest resolution suupported.
Many bootstraps terminate with a call on Int 18 to indicate the absence
of bootable code on the media hence the message would appear.
[OT] On modern PCs, Int 18 is still used to signal that a bootsrap has
not found an operating system but now the BIOS retains control and tries
the next boot device in the list defined by the user. If no OS is found
a message to that effect is displayed.
-- HBP
30 Sep
30 Sep
5:19 a.m.
On early IBM machines, ROM Basic was entered by
performing an INT
18h instruction. On machines not implementeing ROM Basic, calling
int 18 would simply display the "no rom basic" message, often in 40
col mode since that was the lowest resolution suupported.
Many bootstraps terminate with a call on Int 18 to indicate the absence
of bootable code on the media hence the message would appear.
It's been a while since I powered one up, but since the IBM
PCjr's BASIC ROM is on a cartridge vice on the mainboard, what do you
get if you boot the machine with neither a DOS floppy or the
cartridge BASIC inserted? Were there other IBM PC's that didn't have
the BASIC ROM on the mainboard?
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
5:41 a.m.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Jeff Hellige wrote:
It's been a while since I powered one up, but
since the IBM
PCjr's BASIC ROM is on a cartridge vice on the mainboard, what do you
get if you boot the machine with neither a DOS floppy or the
cartridge BASIC inserted? Were there other IBM PC's that didn't have
the BASIC ROM on the mainboard?
TRY IT.
The cartridge SUPPLEMENTED the BASIC, it did not contain it.
6:39 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 399 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010930/bb5ab77a/at…
10:40 a.m.
Same as I remember the Jr has a ROM BASIC, and extended BASIC on a cart as
Tony points out. I'm sure someone on the list has a Jr in use and can define
it.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Tony Duell
-> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 1:40 PM
-> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> Subject: Re: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
->
->
-> > It's been a while since I powered one up, but since the IBM
-> > PCjr's BASIC ROM is on a cartridge vice on the mainboard, what do you
-> > get if you boot the machine with neither a DOS floppy or the
->
-> THe PCjr has at least some kind of BASIC in ROM. I know there was an
-> extended BASIC cartridge (which I don't have), but a PCjr with no
-> cartridges or boot floppy will still go into BASIC.
->
-> -tony
->
12:18 p.m.
Same as I remember the Jr has a ROM BASIC, and
extended BASIC on a cart as
Tony points out. I'm sure someone on the list has a Jr in use and can define
it.
You, sir, are correct. And I'm still looking for a cartridge BASIC for mine.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I'm still right. -------
12:47 a.m.
If memory serves the one real thing that cloners couldn't duplicate, maybe
due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated everything
else including the BIOS or a very good part of it. That pretty much led to
IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
Now why they kept the BASIC on ROM even into the PS/2 line is beyond me. It
served no real purpose that late in life when most people had moved on to
C++ and Pascal and it was rare to find someone that used BASIC or BASICA -
especially since the cassette port was gone as of the XT 5160.
The BASIC on ROM was in 40 column mode at start as well, I guess to
accomodate any display that might be attached.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Glen Goodwin
-> Tony, I think you are correct as I've never seen a clone mb with BASIC in
-> ROM, but I *have* seen clone boards -- including early Pentium boards --
-> which would cough up "no rom basic" if they didn't find a
-> bootable device.
-> Oddly enough the text of this message is always displayed in 40-column
-> low-res mode. Doesn't this suggest that part of the ROM BIOS code was
-> "borrowed" from early IBM code?
1:56 a.m.
Russ Blakeman wrote:
If memory serves the one real thing that cloners
couldn't duplicate, maybe
due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated everything
else including the BIOS or a very good part of it.
Correct. The main BIOS source code was published in the IBM tech ref
manuals. The BASIC was not and AFAIK no clone maker ever included a
BASIC interpreter in the ROM. I don't think anyone missed it. DOS
always included an advanced BASIC interpreter which was available to all.
That pretty much led to IBM losing a lot in the PC
market.
Unclear. They certainly lost market share, but it can be argued that
without the clone market the whole personal computer market would have
been much smaller and diverse and arguably better.
-- HBP
3:10 a.m.
Without the BASIC interpreter we ended up with GW-BASIC, which had some good
points but other bad points. I had a Sanyo MBC-555-2 then and it was a
bigger mess even than the other clones as it had bitmapped CGA, strange
memory mapping, a non-standard BIOS (you had to get Sanyo's own DOS or an
aftermarket enhancement, not PC-DOS or MS-DOS off the shelf). I learned a
lot from that POS though.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Hans B Pufal
-> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:56 AM
-> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> Subject: Re: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
->
->
-> Russ Blakeman wrote:
->
-> > If memory serves the one real thing that cloners couldn't
-> duplicate, maybe
-> > due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated
-> everything
-> > else including the BIOS or a very good part of it.
->
->
-> Correct. The main BIOS source code was published in the IBM tech ref
-> manuals. The BASIC was not and AFAIK no clone maker ever included a
-> BASIC interpreter in the ROM. I don't think anyone missed it. DOS
-> always included an advanced BASIC interpreter which was available to all.
->
-> > That pretty much led to IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
->
-> Unclear. They certainly lost market share, but it can be argued that
-> without the clone market the whole personal computer market would have
-> been much smaller and diverse and arguably better.
->
-> -- HBP
->
->
3:47 a.m.
Yes, the MBC was a mess, but what were the problems with GWBASIC? It wasn't
exactly like IBM basic, but it was OK, wasn't it? What "bad" points were
you
remembering?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Blakeman" <rhblakeman(a)kih.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 9:10 AM
Subject: RE: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
Without the BASIC interpreter we ended up with
GW-BASIC, which had some good
points but other bad points. I had a Sanyo MBC-555-2 then and it was a
bigger mess even than the other clones as it had bitmapped CGA, strange
memory mapping, a non-standard BIOS (you had to get Sanyo's own DOS or an
aftermarket enhancement, not PC-DOS or MS-DOS off the shelf). I learned a
lot from that POS though.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Hans B Pufal
-> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:56 AM
-> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> Subject: Re: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
->
->
-> Russ Blakeman wrote:
->
-> > If memory serves the one real thing that cloners couldn't
-> duplicate, maybe
-> > due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated
-> everything
-> > else including the BIOS or a very good part of it.
->
->
-> Correct. The main BIOS source code was published in the IBM tech ref
-> manuals. The BASIC was not and AFAIK no clone maker ever included a
-> BASIC interpreter in the ROM. I don't think anyone missed it. DOS
-> always included an advanced BASIC interpreter which was available to all.
->
-> > That pretty much led to IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
->
-> Unclear. They certainly lost market share, but it can be argued that
-> without the clone market the whole personal computer market would have
-> been much smaller and diverse and arguably better.
->
-> -- HBP
->
->
5:19 a.m.
Not anything "wrong" just that any program trhat addressed BASICA or ROM
BASIC directly had to be modified, just like any prorgram source that
addressed specific hardware features. Actually I like GW-BASIC more as it
ran nice on all of my early machines and even runs OK on this PII-300.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Richard Erlacher
-> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:47 AM
-> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> Subject: Re: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
->
->
-> Yes, the MBC was a mess, but what were the problems with
-> GWBASIC? It wasn't
-> exactly like IBM basic, but it was OK, wasn't it? What "bad"
-> points were you
-> remembering?
->
-> Dick
->
-> ----- Original Message -----
-> From: "Russ Blakeman" <rhblakeman(a)kih.net>
-> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
-> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 9:10 AM
-> Subject: RE: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
->
->
-> > Without the BASIC interpreter we ended up with GW-BASIC, which
-> had some good
-> > points but other bad points. I had a Sanyo MBC-555-2 then and it was a
-> > bigger mess even than the other clones as it had bitmapped CGA, strange
-> > memory mapping, a non-standard BIOS (you had to get Sanyo's
-> own DOS or an
-> > aftermarket enhancement, not PC-DOS or MS-DOS off the shelf).
-> I learned a
-> > lot from that POS though.
-> >
-> > -> -----Original Message-----
-> > -> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> > -> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Hans B Pufal
-> > -> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:56 AM
-> > -> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> > -> Subject: Re: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
-> > ->
-> > ->
-> > -> Russ Blakeman wrote:
-> > ->
-> > -> > If memory serves the one real thing that cloners couldn't
-> > -> duplicate, maybe
-> > -> > due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated
-> > -> everything
-> > -> > else including the BIOS or a very good part of it.
-> > ->
-> > ->
-> > -> Correct. The main BIOS source code was published in the IBM tech ref
-> > -> manuals. The BASIC was not and AFAIK no clone maker ever included a
-> > -> BASIC interpreter in the ROM. I don't think anyone missed it. DOS
-> > -> always included an advanced BASIC interpreter which was
-> available to all.
-> > ->
-> > -> > That pretty much led to IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
-> > ->
-> > -> Unclear. They certainly lost market share, but it can be argued that
-> > -> without the clone market the whole personal computer market
-> would have
-> > -> been much smaller and diverse and arguably better.
-> > ->
-> > -> -- HBP
-> > ->
-> > ->
-> >
-> >
->
->
5:51 a.m.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
Not anything "wrong" just that any program
trhat addressed BASICA or ROM
BASIC directly had to be modified, just like any prorgram source that
addressed specific hardware features. Actually I like GW-BASIC more as it
ran nice on all of my early machines and even runs OK on this PII-300.
For "light level" addressing of BASICA (not calling internals, but using
it in batch files, etc.), Compaq and a few others RENAMED their copies of
GWBASIC to BASICA.
For the second version of Xeno-Copy, the publisher (Vertex (may they rot
in hell)) had a fantasy of peddling it to IBM, and thought that that would
be enhanced by having the program ONLY work on "real" IBM machines. To
accomplish that for them, I used the BASIC floating point accumulator for
passing a value to/from an assembly language subroutine. The result of
that was that the Beta copy supplied to John Dvorak would not work in his
generic clone, resulting in a review stating that the program didn't
work. And PC-World, without mentioning that there was also a version for
use with generic clones, used it as "the acid test of compatibility",
stating that it would not work with ANYTHING other than IBM.
OB_trivia: 1) what did GWBASIC stand for?
2) why? and/or when and how was it named?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
1 Oct
1 Oct
6:44 a.m.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
OB_trivia: 1) what did GWBASIC stand for?
Gee Whiz
(This was a Nerd Trivia Challenge question :)
2) why? and/or when and how was it named?
?
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
30 Sep
30 Sep
6:29 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1211 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010930/209d57a9/at…
2 Oct
2 Oct
2:33 p.m.
On 30-Sep-2001 Tony Duell wrote:
There was one time I was glad I had a true IBM PC/XT
and not a clone. I
needed ROM BASIC. The reason was, my floppy controller had suffered a
hardward failure. The machine managed to give up trying to boot from
floppies, and fell into ROM BASIC. Where I could use OUT commands to
send values to the floppy controller ports, and I could look at signals
on the floppy controller card with a logic probe. Took me about 5 minutes
to find the dead 74LS273 latch that was holding the 8272 in the reset
state.
If I'd not had BASIC in ROM, I'd have had a long day ahead of me trying
to debug that machine...
You, sir, are, and I mean this in the best possible way, INSANE. I am in
awe.
-Philip
11:31 p.m.
gwynp skrev:
On 30-Sep-2001 Tony Duell wrote:
>
> If I'd not had BASIC in ROM, I'd have had a long day ahead of me trying
> to debug that machine...
You, sir, are, and I mean this in the best possible
way, INSANE. I am in
awe.
I was just thinking that Tony treats his PC as if it had never gained market
acceptance and thus has to be treated in the same careful way as some non-PC
machine. A lot of us do the same kind of thing to our computers, I think, only
not to PCs.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
I use OpenBSD 'coz it has a cool blowfish logo. The other BSDs look satanic.
- Anonymous Coward
4 Oct
4 Oct
10:09 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 469 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011004/3d8e579d/at…
2:28 p.m.
Tony Duell skrev:
> I was just thinking that Tony treats his PC as if
it had never gained
> market acceptance and thus has to be treated in the same careful way as
> some non-PC machine. A lot of us do the same kind of thing to our
> computers, I think, only not to PCs.
To me, a PC, particularly an true IBM PC (or PC/XT, or
PC/AT) _is_ a
computer. A computer to be programmed, modified, repaired, etc, in the
same way as all other computers.
What is so strange about that?
Well, you must be the only person on this list who has got a sufficient amount
of TTL chips available to repair any trivial function in your PC but not the
replacement cards. I'm drowning in serial port cards and disk controllers for
PCs, but I haven't got a single loose 16450 UART chip.
To me, PCs are computers, but they are also commodity items of little value.
And they're awfully boring computers. The main use of a PC for me is either a
cheap way to build some computer which I won't personally operate on my desk
(so it makes an ideal router or firewall, something which would be too
expensive to build with Amiga hardware), or as a source of components for
other, more interesting computers. I've now got a sizeable supply of TTL chips
of all kinds which I've removed from old PC motherboards. So nonw I won't need
to go to the electronics shop when I've destroyed a 7402 or a 74ALS373, I just
take one from a PC, and that is putting the PC to good use in my book. =)
I agree that we're living in a strange world where replacing the entire card
is much easier than just getting the damaged component. It's usually cheaper
for me to cut up some pre-made "PC" cable and solder the right connectors onto
it than to buy all the materials at the shop. It seems as though the average
Taiwanese worker is so cheap, he/she's gives only a negative increase to the
price of the final product. =/
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
A Spanish MSX Group "Matra" visited to this Fair. I lent Spanish stand to
them. They showed and did Promotion play of SEX BOMB BUNNY. And this Game has
tema song of Majingar-Z! Why they know Japanese TV animation?
K. Ikeda, MSX-Print
3:37 p.m.
On 05-Oct-2001 Iggy Drougge wrote:
I agree that we're living in a strange world where
replacing the entire
card is much easier than just getting the damaged component.
Especially if you figure in the cost of labour need to find what is
broken... but then you are talking about doing it yourself.
It's usually cheaper for me to cut up some
pre-made "PC" cable and
solder the right connectors onto it than to buy all the materials at
the shop. It seems as though the average Taiwanese worker is so cheap,
he/she's gives only a negative increase to the price of the final
product. =/
Or supply and demand. How many people solder db9 connectors? Compare
that to how many people want mouse "extenders".
-Philip
5 Oct
5 Oct
11:56 a.m.
When I was taking a Digital Electronics course in the early 80s at a major
Toronto tech-school, we were being taught about computers by showing the
interaction of discrete components using an ET3400 and the Heathkit
course. There was a big debate in the faculty regarding it's usefulness in the
"modern" tech world and many were urging that students should simply be
taught fault-finding and card-swapping, We know who won that debate.
The IBM tech manuals are a good example. Just carry a bunch of FRU
replacement modules. People like Tony are few and far between.
Lawrence
On 05-Oct-2001 Iggy Drougge wrote:
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)mts.net
I agree that we're living in a strange world
where replacing the entire
card is much easier than just getting the damaged component.
Especially if you figure in the cost of labour need to find what is
broken... but then you are talking about doing it yourself.
It's usually cheaper for me to cut up some
pre-made "PC" cable and
solder the right connectors onto it than to buy all the materials at
the shop. It seems as though the average Taiwanese worker is so cheap,
he/she's gives only a negative increase to the price of the final
product. =/
Or supply and demand. How many people solder db9 connectors? Compare
that to how many people want mouse "extenders".
-Philip
6 Oct
6 Oct
6:23 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2951 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011006/9f1cdc51/at…
5 Oct
5 Oct
12:08 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1499 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011006/bd255ad3/at…
9 Oct
9 Oct
6:20 p.m.
On 06-Oct-2001 Tony Duell wrote:
An explanation for those who didn't get to see
this rant last time we
had it. The letter afer the 'D' is the shell size. 'B' is the size of
the common 25 pin connector, 'E' is the size of the common 9 pin
connector. Therefore the PC/AT serial ports are DE9 connectors.
hehehe. I knew DB9 is "wrong". However, no one I interact with beyond
this list would know what a DE9 is... so I guess I haven't tried to
remember the proper term.
-Philip
7:09 p.m.
At 02:20 AM 10/10/2001 -0400, gwynp(a)artware.qc.ca wrote:
hehehe. I knew DB9 is "wrong". However, no
one I interact with beyond
this list would know what a DE9 is... so I guess I haven't tried to
remember the proper term.
Well I've learnt something! I always refer to those connectors as DB9's. I
guess I can practice one-upmanship and refer to them as DE9's in future!
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"
10 Oct
10 Oct
2:41 a.m.
Huw Davies skrev:
At 02:20 AM 10/10/2001 -0400, gwynp(a)artware.qc.ca
wrote:
>hehehe. I knew DB9 is "wrong". However,
no one I interact with beyond
>this list would know what a DE9 is... so I guess I haven't tried to
>remember the proper term.
Well I've learnt something! I always refer to those
connectors as DB9's. I
guess I can practice one-upmanship and refer to them as DE9's in future!
I just call them D9s, that way I'm not referring to anything else or non-
existant, though not being absolutely precise.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
11:26 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 383 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011011/a2a2f2e4/at…
2:57 p.m.
Tony Duell skrev:
> >Well I've learnt something! I always refer
to those connectors as DB9's. I
> >guess I can practice one-upmanship and refer to them as DE9's in future!
>
> I just call them D9s, that way I'm not referring to anything else or non-
> existant, though not being absolutely precise.
Yes, but is your D15 a DA15 (PC joystick, ethernet AUI)
or a (H)DE15 (PC
VGA monitor) ?
Either it's a D15 or a D15HD/HD15. That way no-one will be confused.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
G? med i SUGA, Swedish Usergroup of Amiga!
WWW: http://swedish.usergroup.amiga.tm/
BBS: 08-6582572, telnet://sua.ath.cx:42512
11:13 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 895 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011011/4ba28ba8/at…
2:13 p.m.
On 10-Oct-2001 Tony Duell wrote:
But these PC shops tended to use 'MFM' to mean
a hard disk with an
interface similar to the de-facto standard set by the ST506 and ST412
drives. The standard that's commonly called the 'ST506 interface'. On
several occasions I asked for 'An ST506 interface hard disk of about
50Mbytes' and had to explain what I meant...
There was once a computer "sales" person that tried to sell me an Intel
586. Needless to say, the person failed.
-Philip
11 Oct
11 Oct
9:14 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011011/d025d6d6/at…
10:09 a.m.
I saw a component at a shop in Malaysia marked Intel 586 once. Many times
I've regretted not buying it just as a conversation piece. I always
wondered if that would have given me problems coming back into the US at
customs....
Imagine what that might bring on Ebay to the un-informed.
George Rachor
=========================================================
George L. Rachor Jr. george(a)rachors.com
Hillsboro, Oregon http://rachors.com
United States of America Amateur Radio : KD7DCX
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Tony Duell wrote:
There was once
a computer "sales" person that tried to sell me an Intel
586. Needless to say, the person failed.
Why? Do you have an objection to the 82586? (An ethernet chip I believe...)
-tony
12 Oct
12 Oct
6:28 a.m.
I saw a component at a shop in Malaysia marked Intel
586 once. Many times
I've regretted not buying it just as a conversation piece. I always
wondered if that would have given me problems coming back into the US at
customs....
Cyrix sold their pentium clone as a 586, maybe others too.
14 Oct
14 Oct
2:14 a.m.
Wasn't AMD's chip an Am5x86-133 in reference to it's being
a 5th generation 486 chip.
I believe the Cyrix 586 was 486 series too. Their first
Pentium level offering was the 686, wasn't it?
Mike Ford wrote:
I saw a component at a shop in Malaysia marked
Intel 586 once. Many times
I've regretted not buying it just as a conversation piece. I always
wondered if that would have given me problems coming back into the US at
customs....
Cyrix sold their pentium clone as a 586, maybe others too. 
25 Oct
25 Oct
5:30 a.m.
--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On several occasions I asked for 'An ST506
interface hard disk of about
50Mbytes' and had to explain what I meant...
Yes, but how many heads did it have? Was it an ST506-interface drive
or an ST412-interface drive? It's being pedantic, but there is a
single-line difference. One could imagine a controller that could
handle a real ST-506 but not a real ST-412 drive. AFAIK, by the time
PCs supported the ST-225, it was a moot point, but pre-PeeCee controllers
might not be happy.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
8:35 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1171 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011025/a8687cc4/at…
5 Oct
5 Oct
11:41 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1177 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011006/5d97aa18/at…
4:49 p.m.
Tony Duell skrev:
> Well, you must be the only person on this list who
has got a sufficient
> amount of TTL chips available to repair any trivial function in your PC but
> not the
That's a very worryign statement about the people
on this list (not that
I believe it). Am I the only person still to _make_ things :-)
Sooner or later, everyone in this business (and without a business account)
will have to. I've taken up soldering recently. But only when I have to. Every
wire I solder is a great victory to me. =)
Seriously, I do homebrew design and construction as
well. So I have
components around for that.
Yes, but no replacement cards?
> I agree that we're living in a strange world
where replacing the entire
> card is much easier than just getting the damaged component. It's usually
> cheaper
It's not easier for me. I have to go to get the
replacement card, which
would take me a lot longer than actually changing the faulty component...
If it weren't for the strain it would put on my finances, I'd send you a box
full of PC I/O cards. They're a lot more common than loose TTL chips in the
average household.
> for me to cut up some pre-made "PC"
cable and solder the right connectors
> onto it than to buy all the materials at the shop. It seems as though the
> average
I tried that a few times. Gave up when I realised the
poor quality of the
connectors and cable, and the _terrible_ soldering in some of these
cables. I ended up having to resolder the already-fitted connector
anyway, so it was easier to just buy a new, good-quality connector in the
first place.
But then my own soldering is terrible, so the less I'm involved, the better
the result, I think.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Goto: A programming tool that exists to allow structured programmers to
complain about unstructured programmers.
6 Oct
6 Oct
7:59 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1193 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011006/bc681ae4/at…
3 Oct
3 Oct
7:43 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 917 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011003/923b1347/at…
4 Oct
4 Oct
10:48 a.m.
On 03-Oct-2001 Tony Duell wrote:
[How I diagnosed a fault in an IBM floppy controller
by sending it
commands from ROM BASIC and seeing what the signals did]
Like I said, I'm in awe. While technically, I have sufficient hardware
training to pull a stunt like that off, I've worked on software most of my
professional life. Call me jelous, I supose.
-PHilip
You, sir, are, and I mean this in the best
possible way, INSANE. I am
in
awe
The first time I was called 'insane' (or 'mad') was about 20 years ago.
I can't remember what I was doing, but it would have been
computer-hardware related.... I've got used to it by now (and I am
still doing mad things with computers :-)).
3 Oct
3 Oct
8:56 a.m.
gwynp(a)artware.qc.ca wrote:
On 30-Sep-2001 Tony Duell wrote:
Not at all. Many years ago I developed a tiny basic for a machine for
the very purpose of allowing an engineer to write small test programs
and "scope loops", short sequences of operations used to make scoping of
signals possible. Its a great tools for that.
As a fun project at the moment I am reimplementing tiny BASIC on the pc
(yes I'm sure I could find one on the web but...) Looks like it will
need about 2kb (it's 1800 bytes right now but missing a couple of features)
I have little hope but I will try and see if I can get it incorporated
into the BIOS my employer develops.
-- HBP
There was one time I was glad I had a true IBM
PC/XT and not a clone. I
needed ROM BASIC. The reason was, my floppy controller had suffered a
hardward failure. The machine managed to give up trying to boot from
floppies, and fell into ROM BASIC. Where I could use OUT commands to
send values to the floppy controller ports, and I could look at signals
on the floppy controller card with a logic probe. Took me about 5 minutes
to find the dead 74LS273 latch that was holding the 8272 in the reset
state.
If I'd not had BASIC in ROM, I'd have had a long day ahead of me trying
to debug that machine...
You, sir, are, and I mean this in the best possible way, INSANE. I am in
awe.
10:42 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1028 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011003/b69c0885/at…
12:15 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
I wish more manufacturers would put a program in the boot ROM that allows
reading and writing to memory, running (machine code) programs and
preferably also reading/writing I/O ports (if they're not memory mapped).
It makes debugging the machine a lot easier if it can't boot a disk (or
if you don't have a bootable disk for the machine, at least you can do
something with it.
Tiny (or otherwise) BASIC allows one to do this. So does Forth. Or just a
little machine code monitor. With ROM space being so cheap these days
you'd have thought they could find room for something like this...
Not enough return on investment for that to be done by the BIOS writers or
the PC manufacturers---why waste time on a feature that *may* get used by
less than 1% of 1% of the users?
On the other hand, why not make an ISA card with your own ROM monitor?
Plug it into a PC, during POST, the BIOS will see the extention ROM and
allow it to hook into the vector table, so you could hook INT 18h on any PC
with this board.
-spc (I think you have enough equipment to do that, right?)
12:38 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1778 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011004/26cfbda1/at…
5:06 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Tiny (or otherwise) BASIC allows one to do this. So
does Forth. Or just a
little machine code monitor. With ROM space being so cheap these days
you'd have thought they could find room for something like this...
I agree entirely, but I suspect the reason it is not done is that there
are so few people capable of using such a tool. A sad commentary I think.
My argument would be, put inthe tool and perhaps it will trigger a few
curious folk into learing how to use it. Which could only be a good thing.
-- HBP
4 Oct
4 Oct
10:50 a.m.
On 03-Oct-2001 Hans B Pufal wrote:
As a fun project at the moment I am reimplementing
tiny BASIC on the pc
(yes I'm sure I could find one on the web but...) Looks like it will
need about 2kb (it's 1800 bytes right now but missing a couple of
features)
I have little hope but I will try and see if I can get it incorporated
into the BIOS my employer develops.
One word : forth.
-Philip
1 Oct
1 Oct
6:24 a.m.
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
If memory serves the one real thing that cloners
couldn't duplicate, maybe
due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated everything
else including the BIOS or a very good part of it. That pretty much led to
IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
It should be pointed out that MS owned the copyright to BASIC, which is
probably why it wasn't included on clones. They would have had to obtain
a license from MS.
Now why they kept the BASIC on ROM even into the PS/2
line is beyond
me. It served no real purpose that late in life when most people had
moved on to C++ and Pascal and it was rare to find someone that used
BASIC or BASICA - especially since the cassette port was gone as of
the XT 5160.
Too bad it isn't still there. It was a simple way for people (especially
kids) to be introduced to programming.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
8:02 a.m.
Yep, and they couldn't copy the BASIC without lawsuits or being licensed,
which would have cost them more (in either repsect) making their machines
cost more, hence they left that out and included an on-disk BASIC
interpreter, known as GW-BASIC. I'm not even sure if MS was responsible for
the GW version either.
Been a long time since I muddled with most of the old BASICs, or for that
fact Pascal, COBOL, etc. No time for programming with all the hardware work
anymore.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Sellam Ismail
-> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:25 PM
-> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> Subject: RE: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
->
->
-> On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
->
-> > If memory serves the one real thing that cloners couldn't
-> duplicate, maybe
-> > due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated
-> everything
-> > else including the BIOS or a very good part of it. That pretty
-> much led to
-> > IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
->
-> It should be pointed out that MS owned the copyright to BASIC, which is
-> probably why it wasn't included on clones. They would have had to obtain
-> a license from MS.
->
-> > Now why they kept the BASIC on ROM even into the PS/2 line is beyond
-> > me. It served no real purpose that late in life when most people had
-> > moved on to C++ and Pascal and it was rare to find someone that used
-> > BASIC or BASICA - especially since the cassette port was gone as of
-> > the XT 5160.
->
-> Too bad it isn't still there. It was a simple way for people (especially
-> kids) to be introduced to programming.
->
-> Sellam Ismail Vintage
-> Computer Festival
-> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -------------
-> International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
10:15 a.m.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
cost more, hence they left that out and included an
on-disk BASIC
interpreter, known as GW-BASIC. I'm not even sure if MS was responsible for
the GW version either.
Yes. MICROS~1 provided GWBASIC to all of the clone NMS-DOS licensees. It
is ALMOST identical to BASICA.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
<A HREF= "http://www.xenosoft.com/dogears" >DogEars</A>
8:11 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:24:40AM -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
So does that mean that BASICA (ROM + disk additions) and GWBASIC (disk only)
shared features or even code?
-- Derek
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
If memory
serves the one real thing that cloners couldn't duplicate, maybe
due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd duplicated everything
else including the BIOS or a very good part of it. That pretty much led to
IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
It should be pointed out that MS owned the copyright to BASIC, which is
probably why it wasn't included on clones. They would have had to obtain
a license from MS.
9:16 a.m.
Not sure but GW would usually run programs made for BASICA without any
problems that I ever saw. Of course there's a certain amount of a standard
to the BASIC language itself that leads to that for most things.
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> [mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Derek Peschel
-> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:11 PM
-> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
-> Subject: Re: IBM ROM BASIC or lack thereof
->
->
-> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:24:40AM -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
-> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
->
-> > > If memory serves the one real thing that cloners couldn't
-> duplicate, maybe
-> > > due to copyright, was the ROM BASIC but that they'd
-> duplicated everything
-> > > else including the BIOS or a very good part of it. That
-> pretty much led to
-> > > IBM losing a lot in the PC market.
-> >
-> > It should be pointed out that MS owned the copyright to BASIC, which is
-> > probably why it wasn't included on clones. They would have
-> had to obtain
-> > a license from MS.
->
-> So does that mean that BASICA (ROM + disk additions) and GWBASIC
-> (disk only)
-> shared features or even code?
->
-> -- Derek
->
10:35 a.m.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russ Blakeman wrote:
Not sure but GW would usually run programs made for
BASICA without any
problems that I ever saw. Of course there's a certain amount of a standard
to the BASIC language itself that leads to that for most things.
MOST micros used MICROSOFT BASIC, thus leading to a perception of more of
a standard than really existed. Even those that went with their own BASIC
usually switched to MICROSOFT for the second version (TRS-80 Level I v
Level II (MICROSOFT) BASIC, "INTEGER" v "APPLESOFT" (MICROSOFT),
etc.)
But when Kurtz and Kemeny first saw "street BASIC", they were
aghast. They were so horrified, that they came out with "TRUE BASIC".
"LET X = 3" DOES help a little bit over "X = 3" towards getting first
time
beginners to understand the non-commutative nature of assignement (why you
can't say 3 = X).
But after Kurtz and Kemeny created BASIC ("Beginners All purpose Symbolic
Instruction Code") at Dartmouth in the mid 1960s, they NEVER EVEN LOOKED
AT ANY OF THE COMMERCIAL BASICS until the 1980s! Talk about parental
abandonment! They abdicated any rights that they might have had towards
it.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
<A HREF= "http://www.xenosoft.com/dogears" >DogEars</A>
11:19 a.m.
Sellam Ismail skrev:
> me. It served no real purpose that late in life
when most people had
> moved on to C++ and Pascal and it was rare to find someone that used
> BASIC or BASICA - especially since the cassette port was gone as of
> the XT 5160.
Too bad it isn't still there. It was a simple way
for people (especially
kids) to be introduced to programming.
Isn't QBASIC delivered even to this day with Windows systems? That's a much
nicer basic, and it features online help, which is great for kids.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
30 Sep
30 Sep
5:53 a.m.
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Glen Goodwin wrote:
Tony, I think you are correct as I've never seen a
clone mb with BASIC in
ROM, but I *have* seen clone boards -- including early Pentium boards --
which would cough up "no rom basic" if they didn't find a bootable device.
Oddly enough the text of this message is always displayed in 40-column
low-res mode. Doesn't this suggest that part of the ROM BIOS code was
"borrowed" from early IBM code?
I would tend to say "yes". Although, I've seen clones with BASIC in ROM,
it wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who just copied IBM
BIOS, but slipped through the cracks of the IBM copyright enforcement
patrol.
Peace... Sridhar
6:08 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1061 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010930/c48bb966/at…
2 p.m.
Tony Duell skrev:
> Tony, I think you are correct as I've never
seen a clone mb with BASIC in
> ROM, but I *have* seen clone boards -- including early Pentium boards --
> which would cough up "no rom basic" if they didn't find a bootable
device.
> Oddly enough the text of this message is always displayed in 40-column
Just in case somebody is using a CGA card connected to
a TV :-)
Time and again, I've read (in old literature, of course) that TVs wouldn't
support 80-column modes. I say that's bollocks. The Amiga has a perfectly
readable 80-column mode on TVs. Old (1.x) versions of the OS could be set to
run in 60 columns instead, but that feature was later on removed (Mind you, by
then, you could set any font as the system font). I know I've got great
eyesight, and I'm thankful it survived all those years staring at an
interlaced fuzzy RF picture on a TV, and I'm certain that it would never have
been certified by any authority as ergonomic, but 80 columns on a TV, even
through RF, and certainly through composite, YC or RGB, is quite doable. At
least if you've got decent circuitry generating the picture (the output of old
RF modulators is seldom nice, often hideous or laughable, and I know that it's
not just due to corrosion).
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Age is a high price to pay for maturity.
1 Oct
1 Oct
8:38 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1587 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011001/16c6d74a/at…
8231
days inactive
8257
days old
57 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
acme_ent＠bellsouth.net -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dpeschel＠eskimo.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
george＠racsys.rt.rain.com -
gwynp＠artware.qc.ca -
hansp＠aconit.org -
Huw.Davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
lgwalker＠mts.net -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
optimus＠canit.se -
rhblakeman＠kih.net -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
vance＠ikickass.org -
vze2mnvr＠verizon.net