Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #154537 > unrolled thread

Computer Products United

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#154537 — Computer Products United

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#154538

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:54:28 -0800, chriskeegan2014 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.

'Compatible' in a very loose sense, I guess. Compatible at the BIOS 
level, but not at the hardware level, since the 80186 had marked 
differences in the way it handled certain operations such as interrupts.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154541

On 2015-11-16, Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:54:28 -0800, chriskeegan2014 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.
>
> 'Compatible' in a very loose sense, I guess. Compatible at the BIOS 
> level, but not at the hardware level, since the 80186 had marked 
> differences in the way it handled certain operations such as interrupts.

Was not the Amstrad PC an 80186? And I know the PC add-in board for the
Xerox 6085 was.


-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 28th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154544

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:59:31 +0000, Huge wrote:

> On 2015-11-16, Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:54:28 -0800, chriskeegan2014 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.
>>
>> 'Compatible' in a very loose sense, I guess. Compatible at the BIOS
>> level, but not at the hardware level, since the 80186 had marked
>> differences in the way it handled certain operations such as
>> interrupts.
> 
> Was not the Amstrad PC an 80186? And I know the PC add-in board for the
> Xerox 6085 was.

That made sense, as it was a lower chip count. And the Anstrad PC wasn't 
fully compatible.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154550

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Bob Eager wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:54:28 -0800, chriskeegan2014 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.
>
> 'Compatible' in a very loose sense, I guess. Compatible at the BIOS
> level, but not at the hardware level, since the 80186 had marked
> differences in the way it handled certain operations such as interrupts.
>
Yes.

Since the 80186 had hardware built in, where the hardware was addressed 
was hardwired, meaning it wasn't where it would be in a traditional 
system.  So it was only through software (specifically the BIOS) that
it was compatible.  But at the time, that seemed reasonable.

Radio Shack had a computer that used the 80186.  It was as compatible as 
could be given that the hardware was different.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154553

On 16-Nov-15 10:35, Michael Black wrote:
> Since the 80186 had hardware built in, where the hardware was
> addressed was hardwired, meaning it wasn't where it would be in a
> traditional system.  So it was only through software (specifically
> the BIOS) that it was compatible.  But at the time, that seemed
> reasonable.
> 
> Radio Shack had a computer that used the 80186.  It was as compatible
> as could be given that the hardware was different.

I had one of those as a kid; software thought it was either a 80286 or a
8086/8088 depending on why it cared--and most didn't anyway.  It also
had a unique integrated sound card, which had surprisingly good driver
support from game vendors.

AIUI, this was the only "PC" that used the 80186, and the rest of them
went into, of all things, microwave ovens.

The 80286 was a lot more popular in the PC market; the wider bus and
higher clock speed meant it ran 8086/8088 software much faster, while
its new 24-bit Protected Mode was largely ignored.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154554

Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:

>AIUI, this was the only "PC" that used the 80186, and the rest of them
>went into, of all things, microwave ovens.

Not all of them, the 80186 was used in Burroughs mainframes
in the I/O processor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154555

On 2015-11-16, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 16-Nov-15 10:35, Michael Black wrote:
>> Since the 80186 had hardware built in, where the hardware was
>> addressed was hardwired, meaning it wasn't where it would be in a
>> traditional system.  So it was only through software (specifically
>> the BIOS) that it was compatible.  But at the time, that seemed
>> reasonable.
>> 
>> Radio Shack had a computer that used the 80186.  It was as compatible
>> as could be given that the hardware was different.
>
> I had one of those as a kid; software thought it was either a 80286 or a
> 8086/8088 depending on why it cared--and most didn't anyway.  It also
> had a unique integrated sound card, which had surprisingly good driver
> support from game vendors.
>
> AIUI, this was the only "PC" that used the 80186, 

Not so.

-- 
Today is Setting Orange, the 28th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154564

In article <n2d3aq$k9p$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Sprunk  <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 16-Nov-15 10:35, Michael Black wrote:
>> Since the 80186 had hardware built in, where the hardware was
>> addressed was hardwired, meaning it wasn't where it would be in a
>> traditional system.  So it was only through software (specifically
>> the BIOS) that it was compatible.  But at the time, that seemed
>> reasonable.
>> 
>> Radio Shack had a computer that used the 80186.  It was as compatible
>> as could be given that the hardware was different.
>
>I had one of those as a kid; software thought it was either a 80286 or a
>8086/8088 depending on why it cared--and most didn't anyway.  It also
>had a unique integrated sound card, which had surprisingly good driver
>support from game vendors.
>
>AIUI, this was the only "PC" that used the 80186, and the rest of them
>went into, of all things, microwave ovens.

Well, there was also the Swedish "COMPIS", 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compis>, which had an 80186 CPU, mostly 
ran CP/M-86 (in ROM) but could also run MS-DOS (from floppy disk).

// Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154567

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> On 16-Nov-15 10:35, Michael Black wrote:
>> Since the 80186 had hardware built in, where the hardware was
>> addressed was hardwired, meaning it wasn't where it would be in a
>> traditional system.  So it was only through software (specifically
>> the BIOS) that it was compatible.  But at the time, that seemed
>> reasonable.
>> 
>> Radio Shack had a computer that used the 80186.  It was as compatible
>> as could be given that the hardware was different.
> 
> I had one of those as a kid; software thought it was either a 80286 or a
> 8086/8088 depending on why it cared--and most didn't anyway.  It also
> had a unique integrated sound card, which had surprisingly good driver
> support from game vendors.
> 
> AIUI, this was the only "PC" that used the 80186, and the rest of them
> went into, of all things, microwave ovens.
> 
> The 80286 was a lot more popular in the PC market; the wider bus and
> higher clock speed meant it ran 8086/8088 software much faster, while
> its new 24-bit Protected Mode was largely ignored.
> 
> S
> 


Heathkit( Zenith? ) S100 used a 8085 and a 80186 for it's main processors.  
You could boot CP/M on the'85 side, or MS Dos on the '186 side.   The '186 
was somewhat compatable.

Freddy,
unhandled interupts, anyone?

-- 
Stands up to hot water.

/|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\|
/|  I may be demented                          \|
/|                      but I'm not crazy!     \|
/|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\|
*    SPAyM trap:  there is no X in my address   *

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154628

Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:

> AIUI, this was the only "PC" that used the 80186, and the rest of them
> went into, of all things, microwave ovens.

Also Nokia had one model (MikroMikko 2,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MikroMikko#MikroMikko_2) with the 80186
but it used a custom MS-DOS 2.x so it couldn't have been that
compatible. I vaguely remember fixing one of these back in 1994 when it
was still used to run a pharmacy.

Oh, back when Europe went lead free on electronics around 2004, I was
part of a project to convert some Nokia telecom boards to lead free. And
what do you know, one of them had an Intel 80186 which was swapped to an
AMD model since those were available in lead free.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154847

Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:23:47 -0600
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> schrieb:

[Schnipp]

>AIUI, this was the only "PC" that used the 80186, and the rest of them
>went into, of all things, microwave ovens.

IIRC, the Philips Yes: also a 80186.
-- 
Jan van den Broek      |
balglaas@xs4all.nl     |
                       | "Please put the mouse down and put your hands
                       |  on the keyboard where we can see them."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154753

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:33:11 AM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Bob Eager wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:54:28 -0800, chriskeegan2014 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.
> >
> > 'Compatible' in a very loose sense, I guess. Compatible at the BIOS
> > level, but not at the hardware level, since the 80186 had marked
> > differences in the way it handled certain operations such as interrupts.
> >
> Yes.
> 
> Since the 80186 had hardware built in, where the hardware was addressed 
> was hardwired, meaning it wasn't where it would be in a traditional 
> system.  So it was only through software (specifically the BIOS) that
> it was compatible.  But at the time, that seemed reasonable.
> 
> Radio Shack had a computer that used the 80186.  It was as compatible as 
> could be given that the hardware was different.
> 
>    Michael

The Tandy 2000, I acquired one secondhand.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154774

As for the 80186 being inherently incompatible, this is only true if the design made use of onboard peripherals (it integrated functions typically found on 8088/8086 designs, though external to the microprocessor). If you used the 80186/80188 and ignored the onboard peripherals, there was virtually no difference between it and an 8088/8086.

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.

The Mindset had an 80186 and was fairly compatible. How do you explain that?

The original LittleBoard/Z80 or any that was configured the same way used the  serial port w/a terminal. The LittleBoard/PC could take an 8 bit ISA card with a plug in adapter board, and therefore output to a regular monitor. It was highly compatible and based on the NEC V40. The LittleBoard/186 I don't know a lot about. It's purported to boot standard MS-DOS 3.? I think, but not be very compatible. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154775

I've come to learn there are other fully compatible motherboards out there based on the 80186. Well at least 1 to date.

Repeat a computer is not IBM compatible simply because it boots "a" version of MS-DOS. If it booted PC-DOS then we may have a different story.

There were dozens of desktop computers (and handhelds, laptops maybe even) that used the 80186. Most of them weren't truly compatible, but that's not a function of the micro, rather the design, enhanced to improve on IBMs original design, or not to infringe on copyrights. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154786

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, chriskeegan2014@gmail.com wrote:

> I've come to learn there are other fully compatible motherboards out 
> there based on the 80186. Well at least 1 to date.
>
I was thinking about this overnight (especially after I searched and found 
nothing about Computer Products United, though I'm not going to look 
through magazines myself), and if the add said "full compatible" or you 
read it from some third party, how do you know it's true?

The company wanted to sell computers and at the time "compatible" meant 
something else.  You have to look for reviews from the time, because even 
now, someone might just be repeating back what they read in the ad.

> Repeat a computer is not IBM compatible simply because it boots "a" 
> version of MS-DOS. If it booted PC-DOS then we may have a different 
> story.
>
No.

The only big difference I thought there was was that the "IBM PC" had 
BASIC in ROM, so the BASIC on the floppy disk was an incomplete version, 
taking advantage of what was in ROM.

The BIOS was in charge of dealing with interface, so what else in the OS 
needed "fixing" to deal with different hardware?  I gather there might 
have been some 8088 computers that didn't have a BIOS in ROM, so perhaps 
it wsa loaded from disk, and that might require a different arrangement.
But at the time, hardware wsa handled through the BIOS, so what mods would 
be needed?

> There were dozens of desktop computers (and handhelds, laptops maybe 
> even) that used the 80186. Most of them weren't truly compatible, but 
> that's not a function of the micro, rather the design, enhanced to 
> improve on IBMs original design, or not to infringe on copyrights.
>
But you may be looking at it wrong.  There were some features in the 80186 
that improved upon the 8086/8088, but they were relatively minor.  I 
suspect if you look closer, you'll find that the designers went with the 
80186 because of the peripheral hardware built into the "chip", and once 
they'd "broken" compatibility that way, they might as well improve on 
other things.  Or looked at another way, since they wanted better graphics 
and whatever, they decided "why not use the 80186", and get the simpler 
board layout because of the built in peripherals.

I think you'll find, if you actually look deeper, that nobody went to the 
80186 for the sake of a somewhat larger instruction set.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154798

On 2015-12-04, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

> The BIOS was in charge of dealing with interface, so what else in the OS 
> needed "fixing" to deal with different hardware?  I gather there might 
> have been some 8088 computers that didn't have a BIOS in ROM, so perhaps 
> it wsa loaded from disk, and that might require a different arrangement.
> But at the time, hardware wsa handled through the BIOS, so what mods would 
> be needed?

Yes, hardware was handled through the BIOS, but not nearly well enough.
Even serial ports couldn't be driven at reasonable speed through the
BIOS - at least not without chewing up any CPU cycles that the application
might need.  Graphics was even worse, with new generations of hardware
coming out in rapid succession.  Programmers had no choice but to go to
the metal - and there went any hope of portability.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154799

On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2015-12-04, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> The BIOS was in charge of dealing with interface, so what else in the OS
>> needed "fixing" to deal with different hardware?  I gather there might
>> have been some 8088 computers that didn't have a BIOS in ROM, so perhaps
>> it wsa loaded from disk, and that might require a different arrangement.
>> But at the time, hardware wsa handled through the BIOS, so what mods would
>> be needed?
>
> Yes, hardware was handled through the BIOS, but not nearly well enough.
> Even serial ports couldn't be driven at reasonable speed through the
> BIOS - at least not without chewing up any CPU cycles that the application
> might need.  Graphics was even worse, with new generations of hardware
> coming out in rapid succession.  Programmers had no choice but to go to
> the metal - and there went any hope of portability.
>
Which is what "broke" the "IBM PC compatible" that wasn't compatible 
enough.

But initially the expectation was that the BIOS would handle I/O, so it 
didn't matter if the hardware didn't follow the "IBM PC".

I was just questioning the notion of a "custom MS-DOS".  I know there was 
a period when tha seemed to be happening, but was it actually customized, 
or was that about marketing, either from Microsoft or the computer 
company?

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154779

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, chriskeegan2014@gmail.com wrote:

> As for the 80186 being inherently incompatible, this is only true if the 
> design made use of onboard peripherals (it integrated functions 
> typically found on 8088/8086 designs, though external to the 
> microprocessor). If you used the 80186/80188 and ignored the onboard 
> peripherals, there was virtually no difference between it and an 
> 8088/8086.
>
But I remember looking at the datasheet, and there seemed to be no way to 
turn off those internal peripherals.

And there is little reason to choose the 80186 unless you are using those 
internal peripherals.  The prime problem with those internal peripherals 
is that they are at the wrong address.

YOu get a minor improvement from the slightly larger instruction set of 
the 80186, but if you can use those internal peripherals, at the very 
least you can make your computer board smaller.  I don't know about the 
cost of the 80186 versus the cost of the 8086 and peripheral ICs.

If you have to duplicate the internal hardware, then the cost of the 186 
(which was probably more expensive than an 8086) and the external 
peripheral hardware probably becomes a liability.

> 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.
>
You're confusing "IBM compatible".

Like CP/M, "PC-DOS" had a bios, so the operating system could be 
interfaced to different hardware; it was much easier to modify the
software when it's that form, than having to find  the places in the OS 
that dealt with hardware, change the code, and reassemble.

Initially, it didnt' matter what hardware was there, so long as one 
modified the BIOS.  Steve Ciarcia had an "IBM compatible" early on that
could be used with a serial terminal.  There were Heathkit and Godbout 
boards with 8088s that could run the operating system.

So initially companies took advantage of that.  Why not try to scoop the 
competition by having some advanced feature the others didn't have?  Or 
use different hardware to make a cheaper computer?  So long as the BIOS 
could be adapted, all was well.  SInce different hardware could run the 
OS, there seemed no reason to be hardware compatible.

What killed things was that not long after the IBM came out, software 
started addressing the hardware directly, so things worked faster.  And 
that was the downfall.  Since the exotic computers didn't have the 
hardware in the right place (or were the same hardware that the IBM had) 
it no longer mattered that the BIOS had adjusted to the hardware, the 
application software no longer ran on the fancy hardware.

That forced things back in line, so any computer using an 8088 or variant 
had to be identical to the "IBM PC", so all the oddball computers dropped 
away.

> The Mindset had an 80186 and was fairly compatible. How do you explain 
> that?
>
But there's a difference between "fairly" and "completely".  Initially 
"fairly" was good enough, because the BIOS was adapted to the different 
hardware, but once the applications started dealing with the hardware 
directly, it had to be "completely compatible".

> The original LittleBoard/Z80 or any that was configured the same way 
> used the serial port w/a terminal. The LittleBoard/PC could take an 8 
> bit ISA card with a plug in adapter board, and therefore output to a 
> regular monitor. It was highly compatible and based on the NEC V40. The 
> LittleBoard/186 I don't know a lot about. It's purported to boot 
> standard MS-DOS 3.? I think, but not be very compatible.
>
>
The V40 didn't have the peripheral hardware built in, so "compatibility" 
never came into the equation.

Then you get back to the Littleboard using the 186 and you say "not very 
compatible".  Yes, of course, because it used the 186.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154819

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web