| Author |
Message |
Bill Davidsen
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design |
|
|
Grant Schoep wrote:
| Quote: | mschaef@fnord.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) wrote in
news:aPidnRykeuhVMNfeRVn-iw@io.com:
My understanding is that IBM's original offerings were these:
CGA
- 80x25 and 40x25 text with an 8x8 character cell and color attributes
- 640x200 Monochrome Graphics
- 320x200 4-color Graphics Black + (White/Cyan/Magenta or
Red/Yellow/Green)
MDA
- 80x25 text with a 14x9 character cell
These adapters had different base addresses and could be run
on the same machine.
I'm not sure when it came along. But I remeber(wasn't that old at the
time... maybe about) we had this Tandy 1000, which had "Tandy 16 color" I
just remeber I thought it ruled because the graphics on it was better than
a lot of others kids Dad's computers. I think that was later though,
because it wasn't for a few years until we bought a real computer game for
it. Anyone know what time frame in here that Tandy 16 came out?
I remeber sitting at the dos prompt, trying to figure out how to play the
game "driver.exe" I could see that file listed on the dos 3.2 floppy, and
really wanted to figure out how to play it... :
I think the timeframe was mid to late 80's, after the XT came out. From |
memory, it had an 80186 CPU (or 80188) which could be led to some
performance enhancements if you used assembler. It also supported 768k
(six) instead of 640k due to the controllers being in a better place.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:26 am Post subject:
Re: Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:53:50 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
| Quote: | Grant Schoep wrote:
mschaef@fnord.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) wrote in
news:aPidnRykeuhVMNfeRVn-iw@io.com:
My understanding is that IBM's original offerings were these:
CGA
- 80x25 and 40x25 text with an 8x8 character cell and color attributes
- 640x200 Monochrome Graphics
- 320x200 4-color Graphics Black + (White/Cyan/Magenta or
Red/Yellow/Green)
MDA
- 80x25 text with a 14x9 character cell
These adapters had different base addresses and could be run
on the same machine.
I'm not sure when it came along. But I remeber(wasn't that old at the
time... maybe about) we had this Tandy 1000, which had "Tandy 16 color" I
just remeber I thought it ruled because the graphics on it was better than
a lot of others kids Dad's computers. I think that was later though,
because it wasn't for a few years until we bought a real computer game for
it. Anyone know what time frame in here that Tandy 16 came out?
I remeber sitting at the dos prompt, trying to figure out how to play the
game "driver.exe" I could see that file listed on the dos 3.2 floppy, and
really wanted to figure out how to play it... :
I think the timeframe was mid to late 80's, after the XT came out. From
memory, it had an 80186 CPU (or 80188) which could be led to some
performance enhancements if you used assembler. It also supported 768k
(six) instead of 640k due to the controllers being in a better place.
|
The 80186/8 weren't fully PC compatable. The IBM PC devlopers, in their
infinite wisdom, squated on "reserved" interrupts that were reserved for
the 80186/8, relegating the thing to the embedded market. ...too bad, it
was a nice processor. Some tried to make it compatable, but there were
always problems with anything that wrote to the hardware, which was
more than "common".
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Davidsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design |
|
|
keith wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:53:50 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Grant Schoep wrote:
mschaef@fnord.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) wrote in
news:aPidnRykeuhVMNfeRVn-iw@io.com:
My understanding is that IBM's original offerings were these:
CGA
- 80x25 and 40x25 text with an 8x8 character cell and color attributes
- 640x200 Monochrome Graphics
- 320x200 4-color Graphics Black + (White/Cyan/Magenta or
Red/Yellow/Green)
MDA
- 80x25 text with a 14x9 character cell
These adapters had different base addresses and could be run
on the same machine.
I'm not sure when it came along. But I remeber(wasn't that old at the
time... maybe about) we had this Tandy 1000, which had "Tandy 16 color" I
just remeber I thought it ruled because the graphics on it was better than
a lot of others kids Dad's computers. I think that was later though,
because it wasn't for a few years until we bought a real computer game for
it. Anyone know what time frame in here that Tandy 16 came out?
I remeber sitting at the dos prompt, trying to figure out how to play the
game "driver.exe" I could see that file listed on the dos 3.2 floppy, and
really wanted to figure out how to play it... :
I think the timeframe was mid to late 80's, after the XT came out. From
memory, it had an 80186 CPU (or 80188) which could be led to some
performance enhancements if you used assembler. It also supported 768k
(six) instead of 640k due to the controllers being in a better place.
The 80186/8 weren't fully PC compatable. The IBM PC devlopers, in their
infinite wisdom, squated on "reserved" interrupts that were reserved for
the 80186/8, relegating the thing to the embedded market. ...too bad, it
was a nice processor. Some tried to make it compatable, but there were
always problems with anything that wrote to the hardware, which was
more than "common".
Good point, although the Tandy 1000 did run most PC software. It run a |
Tandy version of MS-DOS, which let you run 768k of memory. I never tried
to run anything else on the system, other things came along.
The 80186 was nice in many way for embedded, just as you noted. IIRC
there was an interrupt controller and some 1 bit parallel port which
could be taught to do RS-232 just by a driver to the correct voltage.
Speaking of which, wasn't the 8086 5 and 12v and the 8018[68] single 5v?
The memory is going...
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:34 am Post subject:
Re: Intel strikes back with a parallel x86 design |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:49:49 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
| Quote: | keith wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:53:50 +0000, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Grant Schoep wrote:
mschaef@fnord.io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) wrote in
news:aPidnRykeuhVMNfeRVn-iw@io.com:
My understanding is that IBM's original offerings were these:
CGA
- 80x25 and 40x25 text with an 8x8 character cell and color attributes
- 640x200 Monochrome Graphics
- 320x200 4-color Graphics Black + (White/Cyan/Magenta or
Red/Yellow/Green)
MDA
- 80x25 text with a 14x9 character cell
These adapters had different base addresses and could be run
on the same machine.
I'm not sure when it came along. But I remeber(wasn't that old at the
time... maybe about) we had this Tandy 1000, which had "Tandy 16 color" I
just remeber I thought it ruled because the graphics on it was better than
a lot of others kids Dad's computers. I think that was later though,
because it wasn't for a few years until we bought a real computer game for
it. Anyone know what time frame in here that Tandy 16 came out?
I remeber sitting at the dos prompt, trying to figure out how to play the
game "driver.exe" I could see that file listed on the dos 3.2 floppy, and
really wanted to figure out how to play it... :
I think the timeframe was mid to late 80's, after the XT came out. From
memory, it had an 80186 CPU (or 80188) which could be led to some
performance enhancements if you used assembler. It also supported 768k
(six) instead of 640k due to the controllers being in a better place.
The 80186/8 weren't fully PC compatable. The IBM PC devlopers, in their
infinite wisdom, squated on "reserved" interrupts that were reserved for
the 80186/8, relegating the thing to the embedded market. ...too bad, it
was a nice processor. Some tried to make it compatable, but there were
always problems with anything that wrote to the hardware, which was
more than "common".
Good point, although the Tandy 1000 did run most PC software. It run a
Tandy version of MS-DOS, which let you run 768k of memory. I never tried
to run anything else on the system, other things came along.
|
Right, as long as every access to hardware went through a *DOS* interrupt,
the Tandy DOS worked. If it went to BIOS or diddled with bits directly,
not so good. That's clear by your 768K number, though a *compatable*
could have 704K with no problems (until much later when the EGA came out).
| Quote: | The 80186 was nice in many way for embedded, just as you noted. IIRC
there was an interrupt controller and some 1 bit parallel port which
could be taught to do RS-232 just by a driver to the correct voltage.
|
I don't remember any one-bit parallel ports, but it did have
integrated address decode logic (another issue in the DOS map), that I
suppose could be used for such. It also had integrated DMA and timers,
along with a few instruction improvements (stack sorts of thigns IIRC).
| Quote: | Speaking of which, wasn't the 8086 5 and 12v and the 8018[68] single 5v?
The memory is going...
|
Sheesh! ;-) Interesting note though, the 80186 and 80188 were origianlly
the same die, with only a bondout option difference. I think that was the
first time that was done.
--
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in