Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.intel > #219
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips, comp.sys.intel, alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64 |
| Subject | Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? |
| Date | 2012-11-25 22:51 -0500 |
| Organization | National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1211252235410.6063@darkstar.example.org> (permalink) |
| References | <50b14e37$1@news.bnb-lp.com> <xuudnQkiNqaQByzNnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <gJtss.256111$%p1.6323@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, GMAN wrote: > In article <xuudnQkiNqaQByzNnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, "geoff" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote: >> Apple was/is like that, limited options in changing out hardware. If Intel >> completely removes the DIY aspect of a PC then they are handing business >> over to Apple. Also, a lot of third party vendors will probably close shop. >> >> Fixed hardware + a Bing OS (aka Windows 8) = a fast declining pc industry. >> >> > Sounds like the 1990's Atari ST, AMIGA all over again. > Really, every computer. Sure you could buy an S100 bus systemin the early days, but there was limited ability to upgrade despite all the boards plugging into a motherboard that only had sockets. It was easy to move to the Z80 from the 8080. But the bus was very much related to the 8080, so "foreign" CPUs took a lot of adapting. Even the front panel on the Altair was too specific to the 8080 to be useful with another CPU. The standardization was often because of CP/M the operating system, since it was written to keep the I/O in a small section, one could fairly eaily adapt it to other hardware (as long as it used the 8080). So the real upgrade path was the 16bit CPU, preferably the 8088 or 8086. But then there were other issues besides differring buss signals, such as lack of address lines for more RAM. There were various schemes to deal with that, but it took time before standardization set in, and then it was mostly too late. When MITS came out with a 6800 based computer in the fall of 1975, they put a different bus on it, and when SWTP put out their computer (which was far more successful 6800 system than the MITS 6800 system) it used a different bus (though that bus tended to be used by other 6800 based computers). The DIgital Group that was more like a hobby trying to turn into a commercial product, it used its own bus which made it easy to have different CPU boards, but they never went further than the Z80 and maybe the 6502. The Apple II wsa fairly flexible, so one could get Z80 cards for it, then later 6809 cards, and at some point 68000 cards. But they were workarounds and usually the 6502 did the I/O. Let's not forget that the original IBM PC was no different from that Amiga or Atari. ALl three had CPUs in sockets, but there was no plug in replacement that made things faster. You could workaround that, but it would need a whole board. And you'd be stuck with the existing clock frequency unless you had complicated timing methods (to run the CPU faster but the bus at its regular rate). It was only with time that the "IBM PC" became more flexible. And that was more a crossover between the CPUs and the motherboard manufacturers. So you could put in a faster CPU, but that's because the motherboard company anticipated faster speeds and put in jumpers. That meant the CPU companies had to keep the other companies informed of where they were going. In the 386 era there was some level of variability, so you could get a cheaper one that had no math coprocessor built in (and oddly then find a math coprocessor to add later). It was really in much more recent times that a motherboard had some hope to be useable over time, and that was because the CPUs generally stopped changing that much, the speed being the key factor. If the motherboard anticipated upgrades, and the CPU kept the same package and other features, then you could use the motehrboard for a few years. Usually a new motherboard was needed if the databus bumped up in size, the exception being eventually with the 32-64 upgrade. Otherwise, it would be no different from the Amiga or Atari, except by that point nobody was making CPUs to plug into the expansion bus (I once found an 80286 card that did that), so you had to replace the motehrboard. But then, the motherboard probably cost as much as one of those plug in upgrade boards in the past, but the new motherboard didn't have to compromise. The only good thing was the case was generally generic so the new motherboard fit (well so long as the area for connectors at the back matched up or could be replaced). Michael
Back to comp.sys.intel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
The end of the road for the DIY PC? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-11-24 17:46 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-11-24 18:16 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? "geoff" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-11-24 23:18 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2013-03-19 21:31 +0100
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Trent <none@dev.null.pissoff> - 2013-03-20 06:28 -0400
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? "geoff" <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-11-24 23:09 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-11-25 18:47 +0000
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-11-25 22:51 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Intel Guy <Intel@Guy.com> - 2012-11-24 23:14 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2012-11-24 23:58 -0600
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? daytripper <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> - 2012-11-28 01:33 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2012-11-28 03:53 -0600
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-11-28 18:34 +0000
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? "Chris S." <cside38@nospamverizon.net> - 2012-11-28 13:45 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-11-28 22:10 +0000
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2012-11-28 17:59 -0600
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.net (GMAN) - 2012-11-29 16:58 +0000
Re: Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? krw@att.bizzz - 2012-11-28 17:12 -0500
Re: Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2012-11-28 22:57 -0600
Re: Re: Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? krw@att.bizzz - 2012-11-29 00:05 -0500
Re: Re: Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2012-11-29 00:19 -0600
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-11-29 01:26 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Bug Dout <buggsy2@mailinator.com> - 2012-11-29 12:51 -0800
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-11-29 17:19 -0500
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2012-12-01 18:11 -0500
Re: Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Gerald Abrahamson <jerryab@visi.com> - 2012-12-02 10:55 -0600
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Flasherly <Flasherly@live.com> - 2012-12-02 15:19 -0800
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? "Chimbo" <chimbox@gmail.com> - 2013-03-17 08:20 +0100
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 10:56 -0800
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? bruce56@topmail.co.nz - 2012-12-08 00:27 -0800
Re: The end of the road for the DIY PC? "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> - 2014-07-31 20:30 +0100
csiph-web