Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #154537 > unrolled thread
| Started by | chriskeegan2014@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-15 20:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-27 12:28 -0800 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 25 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Computer Products United chriskeegan2014@gmail.com - 2015-11-15 20:54 -0800
Re: Computer Products United Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-16 05:28 +0000
Re: Computer Products United Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-16 09:59 +0000
Re: Computer Products United Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-16 11:40 +0000
Re: Computer Products United Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-16 11:35 -0500
Re: Computer Products United Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-16 11:23 -0600
Re: Computer Products United scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-16 17:27 +0000
Re: Computer Products United Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-16 18:27 +0000
Re: Computer Products United cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2015-11-16 21:48 +0000
Re: Computer Products United Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2015-11-16 17:38 -0500
Re: Computer Products United Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2015-11-18 19:52 +0200
Re: Computer Products United Jan van den Broek <fortytwo@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-07 21:26 +0100
Re: Computer Products United Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 12:29 -0800
Re: Computer Products United chriskeegan2014@gmail.com - 2015-12-02 11:31 -0800
Re: Computer Products United chriskeegan2014@gmail.com - 2015-12-02 11:34 -0800
Re: Computer Products United Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-04 00:00 -0500
Re: Computer Products United Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-04 20:56 +0000
Re: Computer Products United Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-04 17:12 -0500
Re: Computer Products United Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-02 18:44 -0500
Re: Computer Products United Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 17:29 -0800
Re: Computer Products United Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 17:29 -0800
Re: Computer Products United "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 08:27 -0500
Re: Computer Products United "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 17:02 +1100
Re: Computer Products United Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-16 11:36 -0500
Re: Computer Products United Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 12:28 -0800
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 17:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <75a77aae-07bf-4809-a5b8-aa7b3cd1991e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #154819 |
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 8:29:14 PM UTC-5, Daiyu Hurst wrote: > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, chriske...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > The Tandy 2000 was incompatible w/virtually all IBM s/w because it used a graphics subsystem based on SMC chips, not the 6845 of the CGA/MDA video cards. It booted MS-DOS just fine - the version that was tailored for it's hardware. It was possibly the only pseudo-compatible that was compatible at the BIOS interrupt and MS-DOS service call level. > > I thought the 8086 (not 8088)-based Victor 9000 was also BIOS compatible but likewise had its own incompatible but beautiful 800x600 bitmap graphics display. We had both MS-DOS 1.1 and 1.25 for it, maybe also CP/M-86? However it wasn't 80186 so OT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 08:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f19a5296c4f44a989d78@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #154819 |
In article <1fa96df8-3788-4e74-9d76-aaf271a5e66e@googlegroups.com>, daiyu.hurst@gmail.com says... > > On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, chriske...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > The Tandy 2000 was incompatible w/virtually all IBM s/w because it used a graphics subsystem based on SMC chips, not the 6845 of the CGA/MDA video cards. It booted MS-DOS just fine - the version that was tailored for it's hardware. It was possibly the only pseudo-compatible that was compatible at the BIOS interrupt and MS-DOS service call level. > > I thought the 8086 (not 8088)-based Victor 9000 was also BIOS compatibe but likewise had its own incompatible but beautiful 800x600 bitmap graphics display. We had both MS-DOS 1.1 and 1.25 for it, maybe also CP/M-86? The Victors also had a unique-to-Victor variable speed diskette drive that couldn't read or write disks that could be used with any non-Victor system. The Video system was not its only problem. The Apricot F series was another with an incompatible video system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 17:02 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dat9raF7kraU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #154537 |
<chriskeegan2014@gmail.com> wrote > I have an ad clipped from some magazine kicking around somewhere. > This company in Anaheim, CA iirc made, to my knowledge, the world's > only 80186 based IBM Compatible motherboard. That's not correct. Can't remember who I am thinking of tho, it certainly wasn't that one. Japanese from memory. > The only thing that comes anywhere near, again to my knowledge, is the V40 > based Ampro LittleBoard/PC. The earlier 80186 Ampro was not compatible. > Anyway if you know about this company, worked for this company, or just > have any of it's older products kicking around collecting dust, please > chime in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 11:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1511161136001.6266@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #154537 |
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, chriskeegan2014@gmail.com wrote: > I have an ad clipped from some magazine kicking around somewhere. This > company in Anaheim, CA iirc made, to my knowledge, the world's only > 80186 based IBM Compatible motherboard. The only thing that comes > anywhere near, again to my knowledge, is the V40 based Ampro > LittleBoard/PC. The earlier 80186 Ampro was not compatible. Anyway if > you know about this company, worked for this company, or just have any > of it's older products kicking around collecting dust, please chime in. > I thought the Littleboard relied on a serial terminal, which out of the box makes it "incompatible", except the BIOS took care of that sort of thing until people started bypassing the BIOS. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 12:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <553998c4-a1ad-45cb-beae-ebc27183ade2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #154537 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 11:54:30 PM UTC-5, chriske...@gmail.com wrote: > I have an ad clipped from some magazine kicking around somewhere. This company in Anaheim, CA iirc made, to my knowledge, the world's only 80186 based IBM Compatible motherboard. The only thing that comes anywhere near, again to my knowledge, is the V40 based Ampro LittleBoard/PC. The earlier 80186 Ampro was not compatible. > Anyway if you know about this company, worked for this company, or just have any of it's older products kicking around collecting dust, please chime in. Yes! I bought a later machine, their AT (286) clone. Phoenix BIOS, it served me well for years, sold it, got it back, used it a little longer but by then I had 386 and 486 machines. They had ads in that huge monthly pulp computer magazine.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web