80186
Nico de Jong
80186, today.
I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
system using this uP.
Any ideas?
This processor was dated '82, so it is definitely old enough to be
folklore
Nico
J Ahlstrom
Nico de Jong wrote:
IIRC there were a couple of DOS systems built out of
186s but the 196 integrated several functions that
were separate chips if you had an 86 and provided them
with different commands/interfaces than the chips usually
used with the 86. Maybe it was too much work to be
worth it for most PC builders.
--
You can't reason someone out of something they
haven't been reasoned into.
Ken Guenther
"Nico de Jong" <ni...@farumdata.dk> wrote in message
news:_H5O8.1250$sv5....@news.get2net.dk...
I have a PC motherboard with the 80186. I don't remember what system brand
it came out of. I'll dig the board out and see if it has any indications on
it.
Ken Guenther
Old programmers never die... They just GOTO.
MSCHAEF.COM
The Tandy 2000 used either an 80188 or an 80186. I think it also used an
unusual expansion bus and had better than CGA quality graphics (640x400
sticks in the mind for some reason)
-Mike
John T Maguire
<kguen...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>"Nico de Jong" <ni...@farumdata.dk> wrote in message
>news:_H5O8.1250$sv5....@news.get2net.dk...
>> I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
>> 80186, today.
>> I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
>> system using this uP.
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> This processor was dated '82, so it is definitely old enough to be
>> folklore
>>
>> Nico
>
>I have a PC motherboard with the 80186. I don't remember what system brand
>it came out of. I'll dig the board out and see if it has any indications on
>it.
The Tandy 2000 used a 80186 as I recall.
John T Maguire, Kennebunkport, Maine
The Maine Webcam Network; http://www.maine-webcams.net
Kennebunkport ScreenSavers; http://www.port-gifts.com
Al Kossow
wiz...@port-gifts.com wrote:
> >> I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
> >> system using this uP.
> >> Any ideas?
> >>
A company called Colex built a VME 186 board which ran MSDOS.
Eventually, they added a 68000 board running Unisoft Version 7
and used the 186 board for I/O
Tim McCaffrey
>
>I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
>80186, today.
>I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
>system using this uP.
>Any ideas?
>
>
The Mindset, which sort of died before it got going. The people involved
later went on to help create the Amiga.
One or more Victor PCs (which were somewhat PC compatiable).
The 186 had three problems with PC compatiablity: The I/O perpherials were
not compatible with the PC's. There were several new instructions that caused
exceptions (interrupts) that Microsoft and IBM had decided to use for the
BIOS, despite a note in the 8086 datasheet that said they were RESERVED. And
finally, it was a real pain to interface a 186 to a 8087 (Intel later came
out with a chip to fix this).
- Tim
dwight elvey
DOS interrupts didn't mix well with the hardware interrupts
of the 186.
Dwight
Sam Yorko
Ha! The head of Intel Microprocessor Architecture actually >apologized<
for the 80186 architecture's non-compatibility with the IBM PC to our
college club during a talk.
The 80186 was architected before the IBM PC really took off, and it
incorporated several peripherals into the chip. Unfortunately, as part
of the integration, they used some of the interrupts that the IBM PC
needs. Oops.
Sam
Jim Stewart
That's the correct answer. Besides the interrupts, the on-board
peripherals generally were not binary port-compatable with msdos
programs. That said, the 80186 class processors are still quite alive
and in many cases, running dos in the embedded controller field. I've
written bios's and gotten dos to run on NEC V-25's, the AMD186ed, and
the Intel 386Ex. Granted the 386Ex isn't properly a 186 class chip, but
it is done right from a dos standpoint in that the timers, interrupts,
and serial ports are completely compatible with an AT ISA motherboard.
Charles Richmond
I do *not* remember what the name was). They were replacing
Z-80's in their product with 80186's. So this chip at least
got used in some dedicated applications.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike Isaacs
and also with 80188EB in the slave processors (also 8085
and 8051)
Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3D09B7BE...@ev1.net...
jchausler
Jim Stewart wrote:
> That's the correct answer. Besides the interrupts, the on-board
> peripherals generally were not binary port-compatable with msdos
> programs. That said, the 80186 class processors are still quite alive
> and in many cases, running dos in the embedded controller field. I've
> written bios's and gotten dos to run on NEC V-25's, the AMD186ed, and
> the Intel 386Ex. Granted the 386Ex isn't properly a 186 class chip, but
> it is done right from a dos standpoint in that the timers, interrupts,
> and serial ports are completely compatible with an AT ISA motherboard.
Since you bring up NEC, I recall early PC's using NEC V20's. I think
I still have a motherboard around here with one on it. IIRC the V20 had
an 8080 mode where it would execute 8080 instructions instead of
8086 instructions or something like that or maybe that's just a rumor.
On top of that I still support a single board computer (EPROM based,
not DOS in any way) used for data collection. It uses an NEC V40.
This is a current product (the board is made by Win Systems). Does
anyone know whether the NEC V40 could run a "standard" MS-DOS?
Does it have this 8080 compatibility as well (assuming the V20 did)?
I've frankly never looked that closely at its architecture. I just
occasionally write some C for it. Processor initialization and start up
is done by a purchased product which basically just jumps to my
C main when it is done. It seems to have more or less PC compatible
COM 1 and 2 and parallel ports on the chip as I do set those up.
Chris
AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE
$$
Sam Yorko
>
> Sam Yorko wrote:
> >
> > Nico de Jong wrote:
> > >
> > > I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
> > > 80186, today.
> > > I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
> > > system using this uP.
> > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > This processor was dated '82, so it is definitely old enough to be
> > > folklore
> > >
> > > Nico
> >
> > Ha! The head of Intel Microprocessor Architecture actually >apologized<
> > for the 80186 architecture's non-compatibility with the IBM PC to our
> > college club during a talk.
> >
> > The 80186 was architected before the IBM PC really took off, and it
> > incorporated several peripherals into the chip. Unfortunately, as part
> > of the integration, they used some of the interrupts that the IBM PC
> > needs. Oops.
> >
> I once talked to a medical equipment company about a job (sorry
> I do *not* remember what the name was). They were replacing
> Z-80's in their product with 80186's. So this chip at least
> got used in some dedicated applications.
>
Sure; it got used in a >lot< of dedicated/embedded applications. It
just wasn't Wintel compatible....
Sam
Jim Stewart
I designed an embedded security system controller with the V40 about 15
years ago. We didn't run MS-DOS on on it, but with some bios trickery,
it would have been possible. I don't believe the V40 had an 8080 mode.
The V20 did indeed have a 8080 mode. I don't know of many people that
used it. By the time the chip was released, a Z80 mode would have been
a lot more useful.
Henry Churchyard
Sam Yorko <JOATno...@computer.org> wrote:
> Ha! The head of Intel Microprocessor Architecture actually
> >apologized< for the 80186 architecture's non-compatibility with the
> IBM PC to our college club during a talk. The 80186 was architected
> before the IBM PC really took off, and it incorporated several
> peripherals into the chip. Unfortunately, as part of the
> integration, they used some of the interrupts that the IBM PC needs.
> Oops.
Actually, from what I've heard, the interrupt incompatibilities were
pretty much IBM's fault; the Intel documentation pretty clearly stated
"Interrupts 0-31 are reserved by Intel" (that's what it says on pages
2-8 and 4-6 of my "iAPX 86, 88, 186 and 188 User's Manual:
Programmer's Reference"), but IBM chose to use various interrupts in
the 5-31 range anyway. Intel introduced additional
processor-generated below-32 interrupts in the 286 and 386 (and kept
the 80186 processor-generated interrupts 5-7).
--
Henry Churchyard chu...@crossmyt.com http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
Henry Churchyard
Sam Yorko <JOATno...@computer.org> wrote:
>Charles Richmond wrote:
>> Sam Yorko wrote:
>>> Nico de Jong wrote:
>>>> I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
>>>> 80186, today. I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never
>>>> was a MS-DOS system using this uP. Any ideas? This processor
>>>> was dated '82, so it is definitely old enough to be folklore
>>> The 80186 was architected before the IBM PC really took off, and
>>> it incorporated several peripherals into the chip. Unfortunately,
>>> as part of the integration, they used some of the interrupts that
>>> the IBM PC needs. Oops.
>> I once talked to a medical equipment company about a job (sorry I
>> do *not* remember what the name was). They were replacing Z-80's in
>> their product with 80186's. So this chip at least got used in some
>> dedicated applications.
> Sure; it got used in a >lot< of dedicated/embedded applications. It
> just wasn't Wintel compatible....
The term "Wintel" is rather anachronistic here, since Windows was
conspicuously unsuccessful before 1990, while the 80186 was a ca. 1982
processor...
Charles Richmond
The dedicated applications helped to pay Intel for the chip development.
Don Maslin
: Jim Stewart wrote:
The Ampro Littleboard/PC was NEX V40 based and with an appropriate
BIOS runs DOS just fine. And the V40 also has 8080 compatibility.
- don
Don Quixote
>I have a PC motherboard with the 80186. I don't remember what system brand
>it came out of. I'll dig the board out and see if it has any indications on
>it.
I'd like to know what it was. I worked on and used CT workstations
based on the '186 and liked how they were put together. I liked CTOS
too, so maybe it's just me.
Mario Klebsch
>I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
>80186, today.
>I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
>system using this uP.
>Any ideas?
Tere were MS-DOS systems using top 80168. I have a Siemens PC-D/X,
which ran MX-DOS 2.11. MS-DOS programs ran fine, but unfortunately,
only 2-5% of the programs written for IBM-PC compatible systmes really
were MS-DOS programs. Most of them where programs for IBM PC
compatible systmes, that happen to require MS-DOS as the operating
system on the IBM PC compatible system. :-(
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch ma...@klebsch.de
PGP-Key available at http://www.klebsch.de/public.key
Fingerprint DSS: EE7C DBCC D9C8 5DC1 D4DB 1483 30CE 9FB2 A047 9CE0
Diffie-Hellman: D447 4ED6 8A10 2C65 C5E5 8B98 9464 53FF 9382 F518
Mario Klebsch
>Besides the interrupts, the on-board
>peripherals generally were not binary port-compatable with msdos
>programs.
AFAIK MS-DOS never hat a port based ABI. So it was not a problem with
MS-DOS programs, bt with programs, that _not_ MS-DOS-programs.
Mario Klebsch
>IIRC there were a couple of DOS systems built out of
>186s but the 196 integrated several functions that
>were separate chips if you had an 86 and provided them
>with different commands/interfaces than the chips usually
>used with the 86. Maybe it was too much work to be
>worth it for most PC builders.
80186 based MS-DOS systems picked up the idea of system independance,
which was succesfully used with CP/M for several years. Unfortunately,
they were too late and too much programs were not only dependant on
MS-DOS but also on the underlying hardware. :-(
jchausler
Don Maslin wrote:
> jchausler <jcha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> : On top of that I still support a single board computer (EPROM based,
> : not DOS in any way) used for data collection. It uses an NEC V40.
> : This is a current product (the board is made by Win Systems). Does
> : anyone know whether the NEC V40 could run a "standard" MS-DOS?
> : Does it have this 8080 compatibility as well (assuming the V20 did)?
>
> The Ampro Littleboard/PC was NEX V40 based and with an appropriate
> BIOS runs DOS just fine. And the V40 also has 8080 compatibility.
I had forgotten all about the Ampro. I had one of those back around 1990
at a PPOE. We tried to use it to replace a proprietary purchased character
graphics display generator (Aydin 5217) we used extensively at that time.
Unfortunately, although we got it working, it was noticeably slower with
display updates than the Aydin and so we passed on the idea. A couple of
years later, after I had left, I heard they threw it in the trash not knowing
what it was (it was a PC card the size of a 5 1/4 inch floppy) Sad. I think
Ampro is still in business. Anybody know about Aydin Controls?
Tony Ingenoso
Pentiums. They're cheap, dev tools are plentiful and of high quality. Intel still makes'em AFAIK.
"Charles Richmond" <rich...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:3D0A5D0C...@ev1.net...
Tony Ingenoso
A NEC V20/V30 doesn't have that problem, and gets you all the instruction set advantages the 186 had. Lots of V20/V30 clones were
sold...
"Nico de Jong" <ni...@farumdata.dk> wrote in message news:_H5O8.1250$sv5....@news.get2net.dk...
Stephen Neal
Nico de Jong wrote in message <_H5O8.1250$sv5....@news.get2net.dk>...
>I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
>80186, today.
>I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
>system using this uP.
>Any ideas?
In the UK the early versions of the Research Machines (RM) Nimbus were based
on the 80186 running MS-DOS (and Windows v1 or 2), but not PC compatible.
They were mainly used in schools (we had a net of them in the late 80s)
The Apricot F series were 186 based as well (the F1 and FP) - again running
DOS but not fully PC compatible. The FP was a mains powered "transportable"
with an LCD screen (made from two tiles ISTR), a fibre optic linked keyboard
and early speech recognition (with a fold down mic in the screen) - I think
Dragon may have provided the SR software.
Also the second processor board for the Acorn BBC Master series (and
modifiable to run on the BBC Model B) - the 512 - was based on an 80186 and
DR-DOS running GEM.
Steve
Joel Gallun
> Anybody know about Aydin Controls?
They're still around. Not part of Aydin Systems anymore, but still in
Horesham PA.
http://www.aydin-industrial.com/about_us.html
Joel
J. Clarke
directed.com says...
>
> Nico de Jong wrote in message <_H5O8.1250$sv5....@news.get2net.dk>...
> >I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
> >80186, today.
> >I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
> >system using this uP.
> >Any ideas?
>
> In the UK the early versions of the Research Machines (RM) Nimbus were based
> on the 80186 running MS-DOS (and Windows v1 or 2), but not PC compatible.
> They were mainly used in schools (we had a net of them in the late 80s)
>
> The Apricot F series were 186 based as well (the F1 and FP) - again running
> DOS but not fully PC compatible.
Don't mean to be a pain in the butt, but that didn't agree with my
recollection, so I opened up my F10 (F1 with 10 Meg hard disk) and
checked, and is indeed an 8086, as I remembered, not an 80186. I don't
recall now what the source of the incompatibility was, although I recall
having known at one time <the only thing that sucks worse than getting
old is the alternative>.
> The FP was a mains powered "transportable"
> with an LCD screen (made from two tiles ISTR), a fibre optic linked keyboard
> and early speech recognition (with a fold down mic in the screen) - I think
> Dragon may have provided the SR software.
>
> Also the second processor board for the Acorn BBC Master series (and
> modifiable to run on the BBC Model B) - the 512 - was based on an 80186 and
> DR-DOS running GEM.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Rupert Pigott
news:aelmg...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> In article <aekd41$njm$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, stephe...@nospam.as-
> directed.com says...
> >
> > Nico de Jong wrote in message <_H5O8.1250$sv5....@news.get2net.dk>...
> > >I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
> > >80186, today.
> > >I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
> > >system using this uP.
> > >Any ideas?
> >
> > In the UK the early versions of the Research Machines (RM) Nimbus were
based
> > on the 80186 running MS-DOS (and Windows v1 or 2), but not PC
compatible.
> > They were mainly used in schools (we had a net of them in the late 80s)
> >
> > The Apricot F series were 186 based as well (the F1 and FP) - again
running
> > DOS but not fully PC compatible.
>
> Don't mean to be a pain in the butt, but that didn't agree with my
> recollection, so I opened up my F10 (F1 with 10 Meg hard disk) and
> checked, and is indeed an 8086, as I remembered, not an 80186. I don't
> recall now what the source of the incompatibility was, although I recall
> having known at one time <the only thing that sucks worse than getting
> old is the alternative>.
With things like the Act Apricot Xi it was the peripherals.
Stuff like the display controller etc. Those machines should
have flown but everything had to go through the BIOS and
MS-DOS... Nuff said. Just as the other guy said, true MS-DOS
machines, sadly most apps were actually PC compatable... :)
Cheers,
Rupert
Pete Fenelon
> I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
> 80186, today.
> I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
> system using this uP.
> Any ideas?
Research Machines Ltd did some Nimbus PC-clones based on it.
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "serious sport has nothing to do with fair play" - orwell
M. Viet
>
> I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
> 80186, today.
> I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
> system using this uP.
> Any ideas?
Hello,
SMT Goupil made a cute pc not so compatible around this chip :
http://www.silicium.org/ibm/goupil/goupg4.htm (french manufacturer, so
is the page). Widely used in schools, very expensive.
--
(o_ Manuel VIET * mailto:man...@m-viet.net * http://www.m-viet.net
//\ Recueil des Wanadiens en Crise http://www.m-viet.net/WeC.html
V_/ dernière mise à jour le 23 avril 2002.
Unix IS user friendly , it is just selective about who his friends are.
paul
3COM's "3Server" PC file server ran on this processor.
Stephen Neal
Rupert Pigott wrote in message ...
>"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:aelmg...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> In article <aekd41$njm$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, stephe...@nospam.as-
>> directed.com says...
>> >
>> > Nico de Jong wrote in message <_H5O8.1250$sv5....@news.get2net.dk>...
>> > >I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
>> > >80186, today.
>> > >I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
>> > >system using this uP.
>> > >Any ideas?
>> >
>> > In the UK the early versions of the Research Machines (RM) Nimbus were
>based
>> > on the 80186 running MS-DOS (and Windows v1 or 2), but not PC
>compatible.
>> > They were mainly used in schools (we had a net of them in the late 80s)
>> >
>> > The Apricot F series were 186 based as well (the F1 and FP) - again
>running
>> > DOS but not fully PC compatible.
>>
>> Don't mean to be a pain in the butt, but that didn't agree with my
>> recollection, so I opened up my F10 (F1 with 10 Meg hard disk) and
>> checked, and is indeed an 8086, as I remembered, not an 80186. I don't
>> recall now what the source of the incompatibility was, although I recall
>> having known at one time <the only thing that sucks worse than getting
>> old is the alternative>.
Apologies - I owned an FP - and must have mis-remembered the reasons for
non-PC compatibility.
Sorry.
Steve
Chuck Sterling
The NEC V-20 was pin-compatible with an 8088. Seems like there was a V-30 that
replaced the 8086, but maybe that was the V-40. Dunno about that. I had an NCR
Decision Mate V computer with a Z80 on the mainboard and a piggyback board
that had an 8088. The Z80 started the boot process and if the disk header was
MS-DOS it switched to the 8088. Anyway. I switched in an 8Mhz NEC V-20 to
replace the 5Mhz 8088, wired in a different crystal to speed up the clock. Had
a funny problem related to the improved internal processing of some commands.
The NCR didn't have an interrupt controller (unless you bought the fancy 8088
upgrade, which I didn't have) and their MS-DOS just used a dummy loop of
65,000+ cycles of a particular instruction to give the floppy disk time to
spin up, about 3 seconds. The NEC ran the the command in about 25 cycles,
IIRC, but the 8088 took 90 or so, and that caused the floppy to not be ready
when the OS tried to access it. Try again right away and it was okay due to it
already spinning. So I fiddled with the IO.SYS and a few utilities and
substituted another instruction that took about 50 cycles (AAM I think) and
that did the trick. Almost not worth the trouble to swap processors on that
machine, but it worked okay once I got it done. But the 8087 couldn't keep up
and I had to pull it; didn't miss it much, tho...
Ramble, ramble...
Chuck Sterling
FLO
enhancements I performed on my Model "B" 5150. The "V" performed some
instructions quite a bit more efficiently, enough to make the swap
worthwhile. Fully pin and instruction compatible with the 8088, it
was available in clock speeds higher than the 8088, but the ISA bus
cards, memory and ports were often not up to the task until the 8Mhz
mainboards were into production. The V20 ran IBM DOS and MS DOS (on
non-IBM systems) without complaint, nor did the systems suffer I/O
problems after the swap. I seem to remember some early clones BIOS
could take advantage of some additional V20 feature(s)...don't recall
if it was an 8080 mode.
jchausler <jcha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Tony Ingenoso
V30 - 8086
V40 - 80188
V50 - 80186
The V40/50 had a bit more onboard controllers than the Intel parts too
"Chuck Sterling" <cste...@zianet.com> wrote in message news:3D10012B...@zianet.com...
Tony Ingenoso
scenarios. Same would go for the 386SX/DX chips.
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:aelmg...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> Don't mean to be a pain in the butt, but that didn't agree with my
> recollection, so I opened up my F10 (F1 with 10 Meg hard disk) and
> checked, and is indeed an 8086, as I remembered, not an 80186. I don't
> recall now what the source of the incompatibility was...
J. Clarke
aingeno...@prodigy.net says...
On the Apricot it was something more straightforward than that. I mean
the 8086 per se wasn't the culprit, it was some design issue in the
design of the planar, but I don't recall exactly what. Shame they did
that--other than its needing customized versions of any software one
wanted to run on it it was a nice machine.
Steve O'Hara-Smith
J. Clarke <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
JC> On the Apricot it was something more straightforward than that. I mean
JC> the 8086 per se wasn't the culprit, it was some design issue in the
JC> design of the planar, but I don't recall exactly what. Shame they did
JC> that--other than its needing customized versions of any software one
JC> wanted to run on it it was a nice machine.
Quite a lot of MSDOS software would run happily on the Xen - only
stuff that assumed PC hardware layout failed - OK so that was nearly all of
the top 100 selling software of the day, but if the software that you wanted
to use ran on it the Xen was nicer than a PC by far.
What amused me was the 'upgrade' option to make a Xen IBM compatable.
You got back a machine with *less* memory (ISTVR some other losses too) and
you paid for the privilege. This box pretty much marked the end of the brief
period of non IBM clone MSDOS machines (the Sirius springs to mind as another
nice one which also had CP/M-86 as an option).
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see:
| http://www.sohara.org/
Stephen Neal
FLO wrote in message <2adee7d2.02061...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
>I seem to remember some early clones BIOS
>could take advantage of some additional V20 feature(s)...don't recall
>if it was an 8080 mode.
>
Apologies if I am misremembering - but in the late 80s I had to port an old
CP/M accounting system (written in Comal of all languages) from a Gemini
CP/M system (complete with ~5Mb HD) to a PC clone - as the Gemini was
increasingly unreliable, and there was no wish to replace the software as it
was working just fine.
There were two public domain CP/M emulators available for the PC at the
time - ISTR that one required a V20 as it used the 8080 compatibility mode?
(A problem if the code was written to take advantage of Z80 extensions to
the 8080 instruction set?) The PC we were using (a Viglen I think) had a V20
in it. The other emulator also emulated the Z80 in software I think?
(Presumably quite a bit more slowly)
Can't remember now which emulator we used... It was a fun little project
though!
Steve
J. Clarke
directed.com says...
Those were the days. I never will forget the time that for a
demonstration I had CP/M apps running on an emulator under MS-DOS, which
was in turn running under System V on a 286 machine.
I came upon that emulator while I was cleaning up the other day, haven't
tried it on a new machine, but it would be kind of fun to see what 8-bit
dBase II does on a GHz PIII.
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
>
> I came upon that emulator while I was cleaning up the other day, haven't
> tried it on a new machine, but it would be kind of fun to see what 8-bit
> dBase II does on a GHz PIII.
Pretty much the same, or less, as it did on a CP/M Z80 system at NABU
in 1983 -
1) <expletive deleted>
2) displays the ant hill of bugs that were published in a magazine of
that era - and no, I didn't keep a copy.
That they ever got to IV says something about the customer base.
greymaus
Dbase II was actually the first release (beta)?
--
Greymaus;
Follow up , don't e-mail , my killfile is savage ;
Next Year In , well , wherever ;
David Given
J. Clarke <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
[...]
> I came upon that emulator while I was cleaning up the other day, haven't
> tried it on a new machine, but it would be kind of fun to see what 8-bit
> dBase II does on a GHz PIII.
Mmmf.
Once upon a time there was a tiny K&R C compiler for DOS called pcc. It
was actually quite good, even if it did only support tiny mode and the
aforesaid K&R abomination. It was a small collection of COM files
designed to run off floppies.
I tried it on a reasonably high-end 486.
One of the example programs was an implementation of the classic
Caterpillar game, using text mode, direct screen access, and delay loops
for timing.
On my 486, running the game just produced a brief blur for a couple of
seconds and exited. I eventually worked out that it was playing the
game, running through all three lives and exiting.
I must try it on my nice new 1.4GHz Athlon...
--
+- David Given --McQ-+ "A character is considered to be a letter if and
| d...@cowlark.com | only if it is a letter or digit (§20.5.16) but is not
| (d...@tao-group.com) | a digit (§20.5.14)." --- Sun Java language
+- www.cowlark.com --+ specification
Jeff Jonas
>>> 80186, today.
>>> I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
>>> system using this uP.
Convergent made a very cubic computer with the 80186:
the boxes clicked together via connectors on the bottom edge.
Even the RAM was in click-in boxes.
It was also sold under the A-B Dick label.
I never used it but I had all the programming manuals:
it had a real OS, hard drives, floppy drives, QIC tape, etc.
The monitors swiveled nicely in all directions, one of the first to do that.
--
Jeffrey Jonas
jeffj@panix(dot)com
The original Dr. JCL and Mr .hide
Don Quixote
>Convergent made a very cubic computer with the 80186:
>the boxes clicked together via connectors on the bottom edge.
The computer was called the 'NGEN' by Convergent. The bus was called
the 'X-Bus', as I recall. Dual 720k 5.25 floppies, five and ten
megabyte fixed disks, colour/graphics option, SMD option, and
something I am forgetting were all offered. HP-IB, maybe. I think
there was a cottage industry of one-off modules too. Two RS-232c
ports and two RS-422 ports and a single Centronics interface were
built in to the base unit. The RS-422 was used for local
communications, LAN-like. The NGEN lived at least through the 80386,
perhaps later?
>Even the RAM was in click-in boxes.
256K modules, and a larger size that I never saw. 1MB, maybe?
>It was also sold under the A-B Dick label.
This Convergent box was OEM'd by a *lot* of firms, most noteable was
Burroughs, who sold it as the B25. Burroughs acquired rights to
manufacture this line and did so for a while, and then decided they
liked it so much they bought the company. Convergent had a production
line on the west coast of the US, Burroughs had one in Flemington, New
Jersey USA. (I'm sure they had others, but I never got to see and
tour them.) Burroughs cut a deal with MicroSoft and had Windows NT on
the NGEN. I believe Burroughs continues to support this, but will not
accept new customers, nor create new software. I don't know what the
market for this option was, and wish I did. I do recall that the NGEN
was popular with the US military.
Earlier Convergent boxes seemed to not be very popular in comparison,
offhand I can't think of any OEM deals for the IWS or AWS. Actually,
I do recall some ADP logo'd units, but that's about it.
Some contemporary equipment seemed to enjoy success as well. A small
ATT machine was a rebadged CT *mumble*. I don't know if CTIX was a
direct lift of the ATT OS, though. Can anyone fill this in? This
machine was not the MiniFrame, but another, more personal workstation.
The MegaFrame was an 80186 multiprocessor machine, with a Cluster
Processor (local communications (RS-422, and the odd RS-232c)), File
Processor (Radially arranged MFM HDA's, and a SyQuest (10MB?)
removable ridged diskette), a Communications Processor (Multiple
RS-232c), and I think an Applications Processor. Each board had a
80186 and a small amount of on-board RAM, and was (I think) paired
with a dedicated board of RAM. The dedicated boards used 41256 chips,
I think. I forget what hardware managed the memory. These units ran
CTOS, the same as the workstations.
The MiniFrame was a *nix sort of equivalent, I never got to play with
one, so I can't offer much information about it. I seem to recall it
used a 68xxx processor. Details about this appreciated as well.
>I never used it but I had all the programming manuals:
>it had a real OS, hard drives, floppy drives, QIC tape, etc.
>The monitors swiveled nicely in all directions, one of the first to do that.
I liked the whole design, especially the modular stackability of the
power supplies. And for an OS software, CTOS didn't suck too badly.
Corrections welcomed, but that's how I remember it.
Sami Rautiainen
> I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
> 80186, today.
> I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
> system using this uP.
At least Nokia, the Finnish company that nowadays focuses to cellphones, had
186-based MS-DOS machine - MikroMikko 2 released in 1983. This machine was
not IBM PC compatible, but rather just MS-DOS compatible as the hardware was
quite different from IBM PCs and clones.
--
The suespammers.org mail server is located in California, USA;
do not send unsolicited bulk e-mail or unsolicited commercial
e-mail to my suespammers.org address.
Doc
<spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
> Jeff Jonas might have said:
>
>>Convergent made a very cubic computer with the 80186:
>>the boxes clicked together via connectors on the bottom edge.
>
> The computer was called the 'NGEN' by Convergent. The bus was called
> the 'X-Bus', as I recall. Dual 720k 5.25 floppies, five and ten
> megabyte fixed disks, colour/graphics option, SMD option, and
> something I am forgetting were all offered. HP-IB, maybe. I think
> there was a cottage industry of one-off modules too. Two RS-232c
> ports and two RS-422 ports and a single Centronics interface were
> built in to the base unit. The RS-422 was used for local
> communications, LAN-like. The NGEN lived at least through the 80386,
> perhaps later?
I have a Convergent CT-001/8 "Series 186" sitting on my bench at this
moment. It was a birthday present, and an extremely welcome one.
I believe it's a B26 in Burroughs-speak. Came with keyboard, ~13"
display, and the 10M HDD/720K floppy module.
Here's a picture of a base unit like mine:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/pictures/ch009.jpg
The drive module looks just like it, and clips onto the right side.
>>Even the RAM was in click-in boxes.
>
> 256K modules, and a larger size that I never saw. 1MB, maybe?
I believe that the 50-pin connector under the left side-cover accepted
a RAM card as well as some kind of cluster controller, but this one also
has a 512K board on the X-bus. I'm not sure if that's the total, or in
addition to 256K on the CPU board. It looks like that's RAM on the CPU
board, so my guess is a total of 768K.
> The MiniFrame was a *nix sort of equivalent, I never got to play with
> one, so I can't offer much information about it. I seem to recall it
> used a 68xxx processor. Details about this appreciated as well.
IIRC, it's either a 68010 or a 68000 with a custom FPU. It was a
rebadge of an ATT workstation - either a 3b1 or a 3b2. I can't find the
FAQ that verifies it, though.
>>I never used it but I had all the programming manuals:
>>it had a real OS, hard drives, floppy drives, QIC tape, etc.
>>The monitors swiveled nicely in all directions, one of the first to do that.
It _is_ a very sophisticated design. I like it.
> I liked the whole design, especially the modular stackability of the
> power supplies. And for an OS software, CTOS didn't suck too badly.
Maybe you can tell me how to break in? Naturally, I didn't get the
passwords.
> Corrections welcomed, but that's how I remember it.
Seems to match up with what I've got, anyway.
Doc
Matthias Paul
> Also the second processor board for the Acorn BBC Master series
> (and modifiable to run on the BBC Model B) - the 512 - was based
> on an 80186 and DR-DOS running GEM.
Yup, Digital Research's DOS Plus 1.2 (1986, BDOS 4.1) and 2.1
(1987???, BDOS 5.0???) you mean. DR DOS 3.31 (BDOS 6.0) and
later started not before 1988, and AFAIK was neither available
for the Acorn BBC Master 512 nor for the much more PC compatible
Amstrad/Schneider PC1512...
Another 80186 machine that comes to my mind was the Philips :Yes,
also MS-DOS compatible, but not really PC compatible. It had
Digital Research's DOS Plus in its ROM in early 1986, maybe
even in late 1985. It came with MS-DOS 2.1x on floppy disk.
Unfortuntely, I don't know the exact DOS Plus version of the
:Yes, but considering that DOS Plus 1.2 shipped in summer 1986
for the Amstrad and the Acorn it could have been even a 1.0 or
1.1 issue. Does someone still remember this one or even have
such a machine?
AFAIK, the HP 100LX, 200LX, and OmniGo 700LX (maybe even the 95LX)
with DOS 5.0 in ROM also have had a 80186 CPU, or maybe this was
just a custom chip compatible with the 80186, I don't know...
Matthias
--
<mailto:Matthi...@post.rwth-aachen.de>; <mailto:mp...@drdos.org>
http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs180/mpdokeng.html; http://mpaul.drdos.org
"Programs are poems for computers."
Don Quixote
>On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:18:56 -0400, Don Quixote
> <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
>> Jeff Jonas might have said:
> I have a Convergent CT-001/8 "Series 186" sitting on my bench at this
>moment. It was a birthday present, and an extremely welcome one.
> I believe it's a B26 in Burroughs-speak. Came with keyboard, ~13"
>display, and the 10M HDD/720K floppy module.
B-25, shirley? At any rate, I miss mine, and envy you yours.
>Here's a picture of a base unit like mine:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/pictures/ch009.jpg
>
> The drive module looks just like it, and clips onto the right side.
>
>>>Even the RAM was in click-in boxes.
>>
>> 256K modules, and a larger size that I never saw. 1MB, maybe?
>
> I believe that the 50-pin connector under the left side-cover accepted
>a RAM card as well as some kind of cluster controller, but this one also
>has a 512K board on the X-bus. I'm not sure if that's the total, or in
>addition to 256K on the CPU board. It looks like that's RAM on the CPU
>board, so my guess is a total of 768K.
The leftern connectors that are inside the large panel are exclusively
for RAM, AFAIK. The connectors for communications were inside the
little door. I never saw any memory modules for the X-Bus (Right hand
side). .gif? Please? I think there was 256K built into the toaster,
with three slots available behind the large panel. This yields 1MB
RAM, using 256K memory modules.
[CTs MiniFrame]
> IIRC, it's either a 68010 or a 68000 with a custom FPU. It was a
>rebadge of an ATT workstation - either a 3b1 or a 3b2. I can't find the
>FAQ that verifies it, though.
I thought ATT sold Convergent equipment in this case, not the other
way around?
And wasn't the CT/ATT unit the one that was not the miniframe, but a
unit available only via ATT? It's been a *long* time, so I'm sure I
could be dismembering things.
>...
> Maybe you can tell me how to break in? Naturally, I didn't get the
>passwords.
Have you tried the common variants? Security was often lax in those
days. We have Windows now, and can totally ignore security. I'll see
if I can recall where such data was stored, in the event you get a
bootable diskette. There was a debugger/monitor too...
Thanks for the followup, and I'd like to hear how it goes with your
new toy!
Doc
<spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
> Doc might have said:
>
>> I believe it's a B26 in Burroughs-speak. Came with keyboard, ~13"
>>display, and the 10M HDD/720K floppy module.
>
> B-25, shirley? At any rate, I miss mine, and envy you yours.
Could be a B-25, for all I know. It matches the description of a B26 in
the CTOS FAQ, but that's about all I have to go on.
> The leftern connectors that are inside the large panel are exclusively
> for RAM, AFAIK. The connectors for communications were inside the
> little door. I never saw any memory modules for the X-Bus (Right hand
> side). .gif? Please? I think there was 256K built into the toaster,
> with three slots available behind the large panel. This yields 1MB
> RAM, using 256K memory modules.
I must have misunderstood my reading, re the cluster hardware.
I'm in the process of redoing our company webserver, with an eye to making
space to display some of my toys. When that's up, I'll put up scans of the
component boards, and pics of the unit itself.
> [CTs MiniFrame]
>> IIRC, it's either a 68010 or a 68000 with a custom FPU. It was a
>>rebadge of an ATT workstation - either a 3b1 or a 3b2. I can't find the
>>FAQ that verifies it, though.
>
> I thought ATT sold Convergent equipment in this case, not the other
> way around?
This is something I ran across looking for disk specs for my ailing
UnixPC - one 3b2 site claims that the ATT workstation was sold under the
Convergent brand as a MiniFrame, I think. Now I can't get back to that
reference. I'm pretty sure ATT manufactured my 7300, from the
silkscreens on the PCBs, but they may have licensed the design from
Convergent.
> And wasn't the CT/ATT unit the one that was not the miniframe, but a
> unit available only via ATT? It's been a *long* time, so I'm sure I
> could be dismembering things.
Considering that I never heard of NGEN, and was only vaguely aware of
CTOS at all before last week, I'm betting on your info, not mine. :)
> Have you tried the common variants? Security was often lax in those
> days. We have Windows now, and can totally ignore security. I'll see
> if I can recall where such data was stored, in the event you get a
> bootable diskette. There was a debugger/monitor too...
The Help key, pressed at the login prompt, gives the location of the user
profiles. As far as the common variables, all my world is Unix, with a
smattering of VMS. So if there are common entries besides "root", "system".
"guest", "anonymous", "ftp", and "field", with similar passwords, I'm all
ears.
I've gotten to the boot monitor, but don't know what to do with it.
It appears to be pretty minimal, and I haven't found a reference that
accurately describes the various commands and/or options.
I'm also not one of those collectors that refuses to pay for software
or information. Unisys still sells a lot of manuals, and if nothing
else works, I'll be figuring out which one to order.
> Thanks for the followup, and I'd like to hear how it goes with your
> new toy!
I'm sure I'll continue the saga. Even though I'm stumped, I really
admire the design. It ranks right up with my PDP-11s for style.
Doc
Rupert Pigott
news:slrnai28r...@george.home.org...
[SNIP]
> I'm sure I'll continue the saga. Even though I'm stumped, I really
> admire the design. It ranks right up with my PDP-11s for style.
Slips on the Nomex Y-Fronts of flame protection...
I think it looks about 100000000x better than any PDP-11 that I
am aware of ! Certainly beats my Amiga A1000 and ACT Apricot XI
which are pretty good looking machines compared to most.
I'm horribly jealous of you. :)
Cheers,
Rupert
Doc
<dark.try-eati...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Slips on the Nomex Y-Fronts of flame protection...
>
> I think it looks about 100000000x better than any PDP-11 that I
> am aware of ! Certainly beats my Amiga A1000 and ACT Apricot XI
> which are pretty good looking machines compared to most.
>
> I'm horribly jealous of you. :)
Well, thank you!
Granted, the Series 186 is better-looking than just any old PDP-11,
but picture. all looking like it was uncrated yesterday:
A 42" DEC "elephant-ear" rack (the one with the louvred side panels)
A BA23-enclosed MicroPDP-11/93 with TZ30 tape drive, labelled "MAIN"
Just below it, labelled "BACKUP", the twin MicroPDP-11/93 w/TZ30.
Now, THAT is style.
Doc
Jens-Uwe Mager
>Some contemporary equipment seemed to enjoy success as well. A small
>ATT machine was a rebadged CT *mumble*. I don't know if CTIX was a
>direct lift of the ATT OS, though. Can anyone fill this in? This
>machine was not the MiniFrame, but another, more personal workstation.
>
>The MegaFrame was an 80186 multiprocessor machine, with a Cluster
>Processor (local communications (RS-422, and the odd RS-232c)), File
>Processor (Radially arranged MFM HDA's, and a SyQuest (10MB?)
>removable ridged diskette), a Communications Processor (Multiple
>RS-232c), and I think an Applications Processor. Each board had a
>80186 and a small amount of on-board RAM, and was (I think) paired
>with a dedicated board of RAM. The dedicated boards used 41256 chips,
>I think. I forget what hardware managed the memory. These units ran
>CTOS, the same as the workstations.
>
>The MiniFrame was a *nix sort of equivalent, I never got to play with
>one, so I can't offer much information about it. I seem to recall it
>used a 68xxx processor. Details about this appreciated as well.
Ahh, memories. The miniframe was the first Unix box I got my hands on,
around '84. I did not actually use the original Convergent Miniframe,
but the repackaged one from Motorola that was sold as model 6300. The
box used an 68010 processor, came with a thirty something meg hard drive
and 512Kb of memory. The 68010 processor did not include a MMU on chip,
and the MiniFrame did not use the Motorola MMU (68455? was not available
yet?), it used a translation table based on static ram and some more
logic. Our machine was expanded to 1 Mb after a short while and got an
80 Mb hard disk later. The box had 10 serial ports (I believe 8 were on
an extra card) and one RS422 port (there was an in and an out
connector), which was used as kind of terminal network using some smart
terminals that could do up to four horizontally split screens. The
terminals (model TM35) did even boot its firmware via the RS422 bus.
I did use a MegaFrame only very shortly, but it was binary compatible
with the MiniFrame, it used an 68020 processor if I remember right. It
used much more intelligent peripherals and was more extensible.
The AT&T Unix PC used a later version of CTIX with lots of graphics
support. This was more a workstation style machine.
The CTIX OS was a mix of AT&T System V.2 Unix with BSD 4.1 add-ons. As
the plain V.2 was a swapping Unix they added BSD 4.1 paging with all its
warts, vfork inclusive. Unfortunately they did not include reliable
signals nor sockets, that made porting some BSD programs real fun (I
rember Mazewar in particular). Otherwise all the user level utilities
were pretty much plain vanilla System V.
--
Jens-Uwe Mager <pgp-mailto:62CFDB25> <jabber:j...@jabber.com>
Rupert Pigott
Sigh... Sorry, I still can't see DEC gear as looking
stylish. The 8400's were close, but they missed out
on the cigar from a "plasticy" look and the fact that
the grills didn't line up nicely...
I have a sneaking suspicion that DEC gear is styled
in the decade *before* it's released too. That's not
necessarily a bad thing though. :)
Cheers,
Rupert
Toby Thain
>>>>I was replacing an intelligent controller, containing a 12 MHz
>>>>80186, today.
>>>>I then came to think of why (AFAIK) there never was a MS-DOS
>>>>system using this uP.
>>>
>
> Convergent made a very cubic computer with the 80186:
> the boxes clicked together via connectors on the bottom edge.
This reminds me of the Burroughs/Unisys cuboid machines which were
similarly modular (possibly same unit with a different badge?) They ran
CTOS, of which I've heard glowing reports.
T
Doc
<dark.try-eati...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Sigh... Sorry, I still can't see DEC gear as looking
> stylish. The 8400's were close, but they missed out
> on the cigar from a "plasticy" look and the fact that
> the grills didn't line up nicely...
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that DEC gear is styled
> in the decade *before* it's released too. That's not
> necessarily a bad thing though. :)
Well, I suppose it comes down to taste.... I like old pickup trucks
too.
And I will say again that that Convergent system is indeed one of the
most elegant designs I've ever seen. I can't wait to actually use it.
Doc
Don Quixote
>This reminds me of the Burroughs/Unisys cuboid machines which were
>similarly modular (possibly same unit with a different badge?) They ran
>CTOS, of which I've heard glowing reports.
I wrote:
>>D. Q.>This Convergent box was OEM'd by a *lot* of firms, most noteable was
>>D. Q.>Burroughs, who sold it as the B25. Burroughs acquired rights to
>>D. Q.>manufacture this line and did so for a while, and then decided they
>>D. Q.>liked it so much they bought the company. Convergent had a production
>>D. Q.>line on the west coast of the US, Burroughs had one in Flemington, New
>>D. Q.>Jersey USA. (I'm sure they had others, but I never got to see and
>>D. Q.>tour them.) Burroughs cut a deal with MicroSoft and had Windows NT on
>>D. Q.>the NGEN. I believe Burroughs continues to support this, but will not
>>D. Q.>accept new customers, nor create new software. I don't know what the
>>D. Q.>market for this option was, and wish I did. I do recall that the NGEN
>>D. Q.>was popular with the US military.
in <51lshukvo55qnd1ij...@news.fishead.meowkitty.com>,
which is a little up-thread.
Don Quixote
>On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 20:38:51 -0400, Don Quixote
> <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
>> Doc might have said:
> Could be a B-25, for all I know. It matches the description of a B26 in
>the CTOS FAQ, but that's about all I have to go on.
I googled CT a year or so ago, didn't run across a FAQ though. I'll
give you a quarter, a red marble, a harmonica that mostly works, and
half a dead frog for the location of the FAQ.
> I must have misunderstood my reading, re the cluster hardware.
> I'm in the process of redoing our company webserver, with an eye to making
>space to display some of my toys. When that's up, I'll put up scans of the
>component boards, and pics of the unit itself.
Cool beans!
>> [CTs MiniFrame]
>>> IIRC, it's either a 68010 or a 68000 with a custom FPU. It was a
>>>rebadge of an ATT workstation - either a 3b1 or a 3b2. I can't find the
>>>FAQ that verifies it, though.
>>
>> I thought ATT sold Convergent equipment in this case, not the other
>> way around?
>
> This is something I ran across looking for disk specs for my ailing
>UnixPC - one 3b2 site claims that the ATT workstation was sold under the
>Convergent brand as a MiniFrame, I think. Now I can't get back to that
>reference. I'm pretty sure ATT manufactured my 7300, from the
>silkscreens on the PCBs, but they may have licensed the design from
>Convergent.
For information about the CT stuff, I'd recommend site that deal with
such, not the ones that mention it in passing re: ATT. I can't really
explain that, just a gut feel I got based on a long ago web trip down
memory lane.
>> And wasn't the CT/ATT unit the one that was not the miniframe, but a
>> unit available only via ATT? It's been a *long* time, so I'm sure I
>> could be dismembering things.
>
> Considering that I never heard of NGEN, and was only vaguely aware of
>CTOS at all before last week, I'm betting on your info, not mine. :)
This has piqued my curiosity, and I really want to re-learn the family
tree now, so to speak.
>> Have you tried the common variants? Security was often lax in those
>> days. We have Windows now, and can totally ignore security. I'll see
>> if I can recall where such data was stored, in the event you get a
>> bootable diskette. There was a debugger/monitor too...
>
> The Help key, pressed at the login prompt, gives the location of the user
>profiles. As far as the common variables, all my world is Unix, with a
>smattering of VMS. So if there are common entries besides "root", "system".
>"guest", "anonymous", "ftp", and "field", with similar passwords, I'm all
>ears.
Admin and it's variants strike a dim chord.
> I've gotten to the boot monitor, but don't know what to do with it.
>It appears to be pretty minimal, and I haven't found a reference that
>accurately describes the various commands and/or options.
One of the CT manuals detailed it. I had close to a full set and
volunteered them for a test of a scanning system at my last ork. I
was fired (The bastards!) and of course never got the promised CDs,
and discarded the books once they were scanned. Perhaps I need to
write A Letter.
> I'm sure I'll continue the saga. Even though I'm stumped, I really
>admire the design. It ranks right up with my PDP-11s for style.
They am pretty, ain't they?
Don Quixote
>Ahh, memories. The miniframe was the first Unix box I got my hands on,
>around '84. I did not actually use the original Convergent Miniframe,
>but the repackaged one from Motorola that was sold as model 6300.
Argh!
ATT had an Olivetti manufactured MS-DOS PC that (I think) was known as
the 6300. It was Not Nice. I am now whimpering.
>The
>box used an 68010 processor, came with a thirty something meg hard drive
>and 512Kb of memory. The 68010 processor did not include a MMU on chip,
>and the MiniFrame did not use the Motorola MMU (68455? was not available
>yet?), it used a translation table based on static ram and some more
>logic. Our machine was expanded to 1 Mb after a short while and got an
>80 Mb hard disk later. The box had 10 serial ports (I believe 8 were on
>an extra card) and one RS422 port (there was an in and an out
>connector), which was used as kind of terminal network using some smart
>terminals that could do up to four horizontally split screens. The
>terminals (model TM35) did even boot its firmware via the RS422 bus.
The eight extra RS-232 ports rings a bell, but I didn't remember the
RS-422 being on board those, interesting. Is the TM35 designator an
ATT one, or a CT one?
>I did use a MegaFrame only very shortly, but it was binary compatible
>with the MiniFrame, it used an 68020 processor if I remember right. It
>used much more intelligent peripherals and was more extensible.
*AHEM*.
The MegaFrame used Intel 80186 CPU chips, so I kind of doubt binary
compatibility with a 68xxx processor. Perhaps there was or came to be
an add-in board with a 68xxx processor for the MegaFrame though? I do
not recall one, but that don't mean anything. (As an aside, were
there any machines that featured two separate and incompatible
processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like CPUs,
okay?)
>The AT&T Unix PC used a later version of CTIX with lots of graphics
>support. This was more a workstation style machine.
I never had one, but I'd bet the ATT units ran an ATT (branded) OS,
and the CT (or other) badged units ran the same but CT branded OS, no?
>The CTIX OS was a mix of AT&T System V.2 Unix with BSD 4.1 add-ons.
I imagine that could have been 'interesting'.
>As
>the plain V.2 was a swapping Unix they added BSD 4.1 paging with all its
>warts, vfork inclusive. Unfortunately they did not include reliable
>signals nor sockets, that made porting some BSD programs real fun (I
>rember Mazewar in particular). Otherwise all the user level utilities
>were pretty much plain vanilla System V.
Interesting, and thank you!
Doc
<spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
>
> I googled CT a year or so ago, didn't run across a FAQ though. I'll
> give you a quarter, a red marble, a harmonica that mostly works, and
> half a dead frog for the location of the FAQ.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/
Please don't forget to pack the frog parts in dry ice. FedEx already
hates me.
> For information about the CT stuff, I'd recommend site that deal with
> such, not the ones that mention it in passing re: ATT. I can't really
> explain that, just a gut feel I got based on a long ago web trip down
> memory lane.
Makes perfect sense to me. And, I found a MiniScribe HDD for my
UnixPC today, so I'll be inside it next week sometime. I'll see what I
can see.
>> The Help key, pressed at the login prompt, gives the location of the user
>>profiles. As far as the common variables, all my world is Unix, with a
>>smattering of VMS. So if there are common entries besides "root", "system".
>>"guest", "anonymous", "ftp", and "field", with similar passwords, I'm all
>>ears.
>
> Admin and it's variants strike a dim chord.
Cool. I'm fairly sure I've exhausted all the easy ones, but hey.
>> I've gotten to the boot monitor, but don't know what to do with it.
>>It appears to be pretty minimal, and I haven't found a reference that
>>accurately describes the various commands and/or options.
>
> One of the CT manuals detailed it. I had close to a full set and
> volunteered them for a test of a scanning system at my last ork. I
> was fired (The bastards!) and of course never got the promised CDs,
> and discarded the books once they were scanned. Perhaps I need to
> write A Letter.
There seems to be a project underway to do a CD on the Yahoo CTOS
group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ctos/ They don't seem to be
hurrying, though, and that list in general seems more oriented toward
later hardware.
Doc
Steve Woodford
>>I did use a MegaFrame only very shortly, but it was binary compatible
>>with the MiniFrame, it used an 68020 processor if I remember right. It
>>used much more intelligent peripherals and was more extensible.
>The MegaFrame used Intel 80186 CPU chips, so I kind of doubt binary
[putting my old FSE hat on, way back when I was involved with CT kit]
You're right about the Megaframe. It was an x86 machine running CTOS.
Those were the domain of a couple of my ex-Coworkers. I never did get
the hang of CTOS. It seemed very quirky, even by CTIX standards.
ISTR the top-of-the-line CTIX box was the MightyFrame, based on the 68030
cpu initially at 16MHz. Then the boxes were re-branded S80, S320, S640 etc.
The cpu clock on the S640 was something like 25MHz. It was quite a speed
demon for its time, particularly as the ST506 disk interface had been
replaced by SCSI.
The CT terminals were connected to the host by an RS422 "bus". They had
80186 cpus in them (whoa, back on topic ;-) and booted over RS422 by
downloading an image from the host. ISTR the image had to be written to
a particular reserved area on one of the host's disks during system
installation. I still miss those terminals; they were top notch.
Cheers, Steve
Don Quixote
>ISTR the top-of-the-line CTIX box was the MightyFrame, based on the 68030
>cpu initially at 16MHz. Then the boxes were re-branded S80, S320, S640 etc.
>The cpu clock on the S640 was something like 25MHz. It was quite a speed
>demon for its time, particularly as the ST506 disk interface had been
>replaced by SCSI.
YES! I remember the blurbs about the MightyFrame. I drooled.
>The CT terminals were connected to the host by an RS422 "bus". They had
>80186 cpus in them (whoa, back on topic ;-) and booted over RS422 by
>downloading an image from the host. ISTR the image had to be written to
>a particular reserved area on one of the host's disks during system
>installation.
That I don't recall. I recall a reserved filename for the boot image,
and perhaps a configuration switch in the OS gen for supporting the
boot of other devices.
>I still miss those terminals; they were top notch.
Are you saying above that the 186 CPU'd workstations could interact
with the 68xxx boxes? A *very* dim memory is struggling to say that
was done, but I'd appreciate confirmation. Anyhow, yes, CT made some
fine equipment, and the software didn't suck too badly. IMO, of
course.
Don Quixote
[FAQ]
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/4011/
>
> Please don't forget to pack the frog parts in dry ice. FedEx already
>hates me.
Done.
>> Admin and it's variants strike a dim chord.
>
> Cool. I'm fairly sure I've exhausted all the easy ones, but hey.
>>> I've gotten to the boot monitor, but don't know what to do with it.
>>>It appears to be pretty minimal, and I haven't found a reference that
>>>accurately describes the various commands and/or options.
>>
The monitor/debugger also allowed one to boot another image. The
default was [Sys]<sys>*mumble*. Unfortunately I don't recall the
syntax for specifying this, nor any common alternates. Once in the
system, it's a simple command, explained by the help function. It
doesn't set either, I mean it's not sticky, so a power cycle will
always get you back to where you started.
> There seems to be a project underway to do a CD on the Yahoo CTOS
>group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ctos/ They don't seem to be
>hurrying, though, and that list in general seems more oriented toward
>later hardware.
Noted as well, with thanks. Pity they're on Y! though.
Roger Johnstone
Don Quixote <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
> (As an aside, were there any machines that featured two separate and
> incompatible processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like
> CPUs, okay?)
I know of several micros which had dual processors.
The Commodore 128 had an 8502 (a 6502 variant) for running Commodore 64 and
128 software, plus a Z80 for CP/M.
There was an Apple II clone which included a Z80 as standard (again for
running CP/M), though I don't know if it was on the motherboard, it may have
been on an expansion card.
There was a computer available which could run both IBM PC and Apple II
software, but I think that was just a PC clone with a bundled Apple II
emulation card. If so it doesn't count since the emulation cards were really
a computer-on-a-card i.e. each processor had its own bus.
I also once heard of a project at Apple in the early eighties where they had
designed an Apple II with a special slot for a second processor. It was
designed to take a 68000 card to allow it to run UNIX. It was never relesed,
but there were several third-party processor cards available for the Apple
II, including Z80, 68000, 6809 and 8088.
--
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
Apple II - FutureCop:LAPD - iMac Game Wizard
http://homepage.mac.com/rojaws
________________________________________________________________________
"But what is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM
commenting on the micro chip, 1968
Marco S Hyman
> not recall one, but that don't mean anything. (As an aside, were
> there any machines that featured two separate and incompatible
> processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like CPUs,
> okay?)
Didn't the DEC Rainbow contain a Z80 and an 808x? The small company
Digital Microsystems had a diskless unit called the 816 with a Z80
and an 8088. It could boot CP/M, CP/M-86, or MS-DOS from a disk
server depending upon the users mood.
// marc
Tony Ingenoso
with a S/370 procesor set...along the same lines would be the old XT/370 and AT/370's. Like the P390 they ran the S/370 processors
concurrent with the Intel parts.
A 286 based PS/2 fitted with a 38/486 AOX card would have two seperate and incompatible (from a hardware POV) processors. The 286
needs to be kept alive to do low port number I/O's due to the MCA busmaster design.
"Don Quixote" <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote in message
news:6dlciusbgcd3vgh49...@news.fishead.meowkitty.com...
Ross Simpson
>
> > not recall one, but that don't mean anything. (As an aside, were
> > there any machines that featured two separate and incompatible
> > processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like
CPUs,
> > okay?)
>
> Didn't the DEC Rainbow contain a Z80 and an 808x? The small company
> Digital Microsystems had a diskless unit called the 816 with a Z80
> and an 8088. It could boot CP/M, CP/M-86, or MS-DOS from a disk
> server depending upon the users mood.
Yes, the DEC Rainbow does have an 8088 & a Z80 processor.
The version of CP/M-86 which was available for it was a slightly
different variant to the IBM version (which was mostly BIOS related I
think).
Regards,
Ross.
Steve Woodford
[CT terminals]
>Are you saying above that the 186 CPU'd workstations could interact
>with the 68xxx boxes? A *very* dim memory is struggling to say that
>was done, but I'd appreciate confirmation. Anyhow, yes, CT made some
The terminals were just that, terminals. Other than downloading a boot
image from the host, they may as well have been connected by RS232.
The RS422 ports were used in preference simply because of the higher
bitrate available.
I also may have been wrong about them having '186 cpus. Perhaps it
was a regular 8086. Definately not 68k, though.
The other kit I dealt with around the same time was branded "Hartley"
and used widely in accountancy practices running "Hapas" over the top
of Commercial Basic. The later versions of those machines were a
similar physical size to the Miniframe, but used either 186 or 286 cpus.
I've yet to find any significant reference to Hartley computers on the
net, despite the fact we had hundreds installed throughout the UK...
Cheers, Steve
Dave Daniels
Roger Johnstone <roj...@mac.com> wrote:
> > (As an aside, were there any machines that featured two separate and
> > incompatible processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like
> > CPUs, okay?)
> I know of several micros which had dual processors.
The BBC Micro could be used as a dual processor machine. You could
add a second, external, processor via a dedicated interface called
the 'Tube'. This became the main processor with the original one
used for I/O. With the Z80 second processor, for example, you had
a 6MHz Z80 with 64K of memory that ran CP/M. Not sure what the TPA
size was, but with nothing but a rudimentary BIOS to handle
communications with the I/O processor across the tube, most of the
64K was available. There were 6502, Z80 68000 and 16032 second
processors available, and maybe others. in the later BBC Master
the second processor could be fitted internally. Only two such
processors of this type were produced though, a 6502 one and a
80186 one. You could still attach another processor via the
external Tube interface meaning that you could have something like
a 6502/80186/Z80 machine! Only one of the second processors could
be active at a time, though. The BBC Micro was always a bit
cramped for memory space but with a 6502 second processor it was a
lovely machine.
Dave Daniels
Chris Hedley
> not recall one, but that don't mean anything. (As an aside, were
> there any machines that featured two separate and incompatible
> processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like CPUs,
> okay?)
The BBC Micro (6502 based) offered all manner of add-on processors
through some sort of high-speed channel called "the tube" IIRC,
running at 1MB/s (again IIRC) Most popular was the Z80 add on for
using CP/M stuff, but quite an assortment of others were available;
Steve OHS has also posted some pretty interesting stuff on the closely
related Torch system.
Chris.
Rupert Pigott
news:ag8v20$gk$1...@dungeon.mctavish.co.uk...
I'm wondering if there is a connection between that and the
"SyFA" machines I saw (and even wrote some form of COBOL on).
AFAIR I was told that the terminals had 8086 CPUs and the
"minicomputer" was also some x86 series CPU which talked to
a rather large (300 Mbyte IIRC) CDC? disk pack. I remember
some kind of oddity that the terminals had 2x the RAM of
the "minicomputer". :)
I can't find any reference to these things either, I was
starting to believe that I had imagined them... But it appears
that they weren't the only such system with that kind of
architecture.
Cheers,
Rupert
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
>
> The small company
> Digital Microsystems had a diskless unit called the 816 with a Z80
> and an 8088. It could boot CP/M, CP/M-86, or MS-DOS from a disk
> server depending upon the users mood.
Betcha Gates&Co. put a quick end to that nonsense, eh?
Rupert Pigott
news:slrnaigo5v....@grendel.clearchannel.com...
> In article <ag851t$14b$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Roger Johnstone wrote:
> > Don Quixote <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> (As an aside, were there any machines that featured two separate and
> >> incompatible processors? Err, commercially available *main*
processors,
> >> like CPUs, okay?)
>
> > I know of several micros which had dual processors.
>
> > The Commodore 128 had an 8502 (a 6502 variant) for running Commodore 64
> > and 128 software, plus a Z80 for CP/M.
>
> booting CP/M and running Borland Turbo Pascal... I used that kit with a
300
> baud modem for my undergrad Pascal homework in 1983. After reading its 13"
> monitor's display in 80 column mode for several months I was really happy
> to switch to a Kaypro II with a much crisper but smaller display.
>
> Also using two separate CPUs of differing brands was the Tandy Color
> Computer, but I don't recall which CPUs.
A hell of a lot of big computers use CPUs of different
brands. For example the VAX-11/785 used an LSI-11/05 (?)
to bootstrap it, including loading up of the microcode
into the "Writeable Control Store". I always wondered
whether some pervert had tried implementing a RISC style
instruction set using that feature.
Cheers,
Rupert
Marco S Hyman
> I wrote:
> >
> > The small company
> > Digital Microsystems had a diskless unit called the 816 with a Z80
> > and an 8088. It could boot CP/M, CP/M-86, or MS-DOS from a disk
> > server depending upon the users mood.
>
> Betcha Gates&Co. put a quick end to that nonsense, eh?
Well, I remember that there was a time when DMS couldn't get support
from MS. The rumor was that the original licence was one royalty
per network, not per network node, and that MS was stonewalling until
a new deal was worked out. That could be complete BS. Support did
start again at some point.
What really killed the 816 was the "diskless" part. The 816 came out
just as software started using the "you must insert the floppy with
the wierdly formated sector so we know you're not bootlegging the code"
method of copy protection. If customers couldn't run their 1-2-3 on
the machine they didn't want it.
(The 8088 part of the machine was "PC like" enough to run 1-2-3, providing
you first hacked the copy protection).
// marc
Charles Richmond
CP/M and a modified version of MS-DOS, called Z-DOS, IIRC.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
John Homes
> >
> > > not recall one, but that don't mean anything. (As an aside, were
> > > there any machines that featured two separate and incompatible
> > > processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like CPUs,
> > > okay?)
> >
Back in the 1980s a machine was developed here in New Zealand that had at
least two different processors. It was called the Poly (mostly because it
was developed at some of our Polytechnics; there might also have been a
punning reference to polymorphism) and it was hoped by the developers that
it would become a standard for use in schools.
Alas for such hopes. It faced dumping thinly disgused as "educational
discounts" from imported machines, and all its processors became superseded
(I believe they were all 8-bit, although it were a long time ago) fairly
quickly.
John Homes
Brian Boutel
John Homes wrote:
>
> Back in the 1980s a machine was developed here in New Zealand that had at
> least two different processors. It was called the Poly (mostly because it
> was developed at some of our Polytechnics; there might also have been a
> punning reference to polymorphism) and it was hoped by the developers that
> it would become a standard for use in schools.
>
That is, they wanted it to be the only machine approved for supply to
schools. They wanted to be a monopoly supplier who could then charge as
much as they liked for upgrades. It was a closed and secret
architecture, so only approved developers could produce any software.
> Alas for such hopes. It faced dumping thinly disgused as "educational
> discounts" from imported machines, and all its processors became superseded
> (I believe they were all 8-bit, although it were a long time ago) fairly
> quickly.
Thank ghod for competition, and for government indecision. The net
result was that schools had a choice of platform and could negotiate
prices. If this scheme had succeeded, they would have been stuck with an
architecture that would rapidly become obsolete, because there was
nothing like a sufficient market base to fund continued development.
Normal businesses were just not interested. Oh, there was some attempt
to sell into China, an even tougher proposition then than now, and
eventually the company that marketed them went broke in another failed
attempt to do business there.
--brian
--
Brian Boutel
Wellington New Zealand
Note the NOSPAM
Peter Ingham
>On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 20:38:51 -0400, Don Quixote
> <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
>> Doc might have said:
>>
>>> I believe it's a B26 in Burroughs-speak. Came with keyboard, ~13"
>>>display, and the 10M HDD/720K floppy module.
>>
>> B-25, shirley? At any rate, I miss mine, and envy you yours.
>
> Could be a B-25, for all I know. It matches the description of a B26 in
>the CTOS FAQ, but that's about all I have to go on.
B25 was the designation for the product family.
Just as the peripheral modules were modular and upgradable, so was the
CPU.
The module designated B26-CPU was a 80186 based CPU, usually with
256KB inbuilt and allowing up to 3 additional 256KB modules.
There were also 80286 modules (B28-CPU, B28-EXP, B28-GXP) and 80386
(B38-CPU, B38-EXP, B38-GXP) and a monster all-in one starter CPU/DISK
module, the B39.
The Bx8-CPU units had 1MB inbuilt and took 1MB memory Cartridges.
The Bx8-xXP units had no inbuilt RAM and could be configured with up
to 14MB of RAM (The GXPs having the advanced graphics card inbuilt).
Some peripheral Modules (B25-EN3 and B26-ID3?) had their own 80186 CPU
to offload workload from the main processor.
Standard Disk modules were MFM or SCSI and varied from either 5 or
10MB through to around 500MB.
BTW although there are 2 RS422 (rs485 on later units) sockets, there
is only one LAN, the LAN was generally constructed as a daisy chain,
so two sockets sort of made it easy.
The MegaFrame (XE 5xx series) was based around multiple CPU cards (of
differing types) in a system. Early cards were 80186 based, some
later cards used 80386. The system could also contain 1 or 2 Motorola
based CPU cards to provide a Unix (or hybrid CTOS/Unix) platform.
These were available with either 68000 or 68020 CPUs.
The Megaframe model designations varied depending on what cards the
chassis contained.
Regarding passwords. Try no user code, no password.
If the system was secured by someone who knew what they were doing
you'll be pretty much out of luck trying to break in.
--
Please remove '_SpamTrap' when replying.
Peter Ingham
Lower Hutt
New Zealand
Doc
<spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
>
> The MegaFrame used Intel 80186 CPU chips, so I kind of doubt binary
> compatibility with a 68xxx processor. Perhaps there was or came to be
> an add-in board with a 68xxx processor for the MegaFrame though? I do
> not recall one, but that don't mean anything. (As an aside, were
> there any machines that featured two separate and incompatible
> processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like CPUs,
> okay?)
Did anybody mention Televideo yet? A Z80-class (don't know which one)
processor and an 80186 in a server running pre-v2 Netware.
I just found out about that one last night, when a client offered to
_give_ me, next time he gets into his storage unit, the Televideo server,
several Televideo diskless workstations, and a "luggable" diagnostics
terminal.
Hopefully, he still has the RS422 (RS432?) network cabling as well.
Doc
Don Quixote
>The BBC Micro (6502 based) offered all manner of add-on processors
>through some sort of high-speed channel called "the tube" IIRC,
>running at 1MB/s (again IIRC)
>...
Interesting. Add-on personalities in a way.
Don Quixote
[Reformatted]
>A 32 bit PS/2 fitted with IBM's i860 Wizard card would qualify.
>So would the IBM P/390 machine - essentially a Server 500 grafted
>with a S/370 procesor set...along the same lines would be the old
>XT/370 and AT/370's. Like the P390 they ran the S/370 processors
>concurrent with the Intel parts.
I forgot all about those, thank you.
>A 286 based PS/2 fitted with a 38/486 AOX card would have two seperate
>and incompatible (from a hardware POV) processors. The 286
>needs to be kept alive to do low port number I/O's due to the MCA busmaster
>design.
I forgot all about those, please don't remind me again, thank you.
Don Quixote
>The terminals were just that, terminals. Other than downloading a boot
>image from the host, they may as well have been connected by RS232.
>The RS422 ports were used in preference simply because of the higher
>bitrate available.
>
>I also may have been wrong about them having '186 cpus. Perhaps it
>was a regular 8086. Definately not 68k, though.
Sorry, I am having just the bit of trouble reconciling terminals and
'..having cpus.' Were they maybe workstations acting as terminals?
Through having down-line-loaded some emulation (perhaps on top of an
OS, perhaps not)? Or is my definition of terminal and workstation too
narrow?
Thanks!
Don Quixote
>Didn't the DEC Rainbow contain a Z80 and an 808x? The small company
>Digital Microsystems had a diskless unit called the 816 with a Z80
>and an 8088. It could boot CP/M, CP/M-86, or MS-DOS from a disk
>server depending upon the users mood.
Could you describe the DEC Rainbow? I had several old DEC personal
machines that started some CP/M from a ST-506, but I don't recall if
they were Rainbows, or if they had two processors. All that is left
of them are two ST-506s at this point, for use in a this is your 506,
this is your 506 on 158 grains display.
Thanks.
Don Quixote
[Dual, incompatible CPUs]
>A hell of a lot of big computers use CPUs of different
>brands. For example the VAX-11/785 used an LSI-11/05 (?)
>to bootstrap it, including loading up of the microcode
>into the "Writeable Control Store". I always wondered
>whether some pervert had tried implementing a RISC style
>instruction set using that feature.
I appreciate all the replies that make mention of microcomputers
(Thank you all! I have read, and kept your responses for future
reference.), but this is where I was trying to go, business machines,
or large(r) business machines, or something like that.
Doc
<spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
> Doc might have said:
>
>>group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ctos/ They don't seem to be
>>hurrying, though, and that list in general seems more oriented toward
>>later hardware.
>
>
> Noted as well, with thanks. Pity they're on Y! though.
I know. My Spousal Equivalent wants to refer to them as "newsgroups",
and I'm required not to spank her. I guess they're actually OK, as long
as you turn off the emails and just check the list online.
Newsgroups indeed.
Doc
Steve Woodford
>Steve Woodford might have said:
>>The terminals were just that, terminals. Other than downloading a boot
>>image from the host, they may as well have been connected by RS232.
>Sorry, I am having just the bit of trouble reconciling terminals and
>'..having cpus.' Were they maybe workstations acting as terminals?
Nope. Plain-old terminals (albeit very good ones). All processing
took place on the host.
This is where my memory becomes sketchy, but I don't recall the DB25
RS232 port being available on all models of the CT terminal. Those that
did have them could be brought to life with by pressing a sequence of
keys. Presumably, the terminal feature set available was somewhat limited
compared to that of the RS422-downloaded image.
Cheers, Steve
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Don Quixote <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
DQ> Sorry, I am having just the bit of trouble reconciling terminals and
DQ> '..having cpus.' Were they maybe workstations acting as terminals?
DQ> Through having down-line-loaded some emulation (perhaps on top of an
DQ> OS, perhaps not)? Or is my definition of terminal and workstation too
DQ> narrow?
Most of the later (post 1977 or so) terminals had CPUs (often Z80s),
usually there was no way to program them though.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirrors
The computer obeys and wins. |A Better Way To Focus The Sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licenses available - see:
| http://www.sohara.org/
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Doc <d...@elsewhere.com> wrote:
D> Did anybody mention Televideo yet? A Z80-class (don't know which one)
D> processor and an 80186 in a server running pre-v2 Netware.
Sounds like one of the MMMOST boxes with an 80186 and Netware
added.
D> I just found out about that one last night, when a client offered to
D> _give_ me, next time he gets into his storage unit, the Televideo server,
D> several Televideo diskless workstations, and a "luggable" diagnostics
D> terminal.
D> Hopefully, he still has the RS422 (RS432?) network cabling as well.
Yep that's a familiar set of cabling - star network right ? They
ran Netware over that then ? Would it act as a MMMOST (CP/M and MP/M) hub
as well ?
Jens-Uwe Mager
>Jens-Uwe Mager might have said:
>
>>Ahh, memories. The miniframe was the first Unix box I got my hands on,
>>around '84. I did not actually use the original Convergent Miniframe,
>>but the repackaged one from Motorola that was sold as model 6300.
>
>Argh!
>
>ATT had an Olivetti manufactured MS-DOS PC that (I think) was known as
>the 6300. It was Not Nice. I am now whimpering.
Aehem, what is the connection with ATT here? I referred to a Motorola
rebadged unit. ATT did only resell the Unix PC based on a CT design (as
far as I know).
>>The
>>box used an 68010 processor, came with a thirty something meg hard drive
>>and 512Kb of memory. The 68010 processor did not include a MMU on chip,
>>and the MiniFrame did not use the Motorola MMU (68455? was not available
>>yet?), it used a translation table based on static ram and some more
>>logic. Our machine was expanded to 1 Mb after a short while and got an
>>80 Mb hard disk later. The box had 10 serial ports (I believe 8 were on
>>an extra card) and one RS422 port (there was an in and an out
>>connector), which was used as kind of terminal network using some smart
>>terminals that could do up to four horizontally split screens. The
>>terminals (model TM35) did even boot its firmware via the RS422 bus.
>
>The eight extra RS-232 ports rings a bell, but I didn't remember the
>RS-422 being on board those, interesting. Is the TM35 designator an
>ATT one, or a CT one?
Neither, a Motorola one.
>
>>I did use a MegaFrame only very shortly, but it was binary compatible
>>with the MiniFrame, it used an 68020 processor if I remember right. It
>>used much more intelligent peripherals and was more extensible.
>
>*AHEM*.
>
>The MegaFrame used Intel 80186 CPU chips, so I kind of doubt binary
>compatibility with a 68xxx processor. Perhaps there was or came to be
>an add-in board with a 68xxx processor for the MegaFrame though? I do
>not recall one, but that don't mean anything. (As an aside, were
>there any machines that featured two separate and incompatible
>processors? Err, commercially available *main* processors, like CPUs,
>okay?)
OK, as a later post points out I mismatched MegaFrame and MightyFrame.
The binary compatible one is MightyFrame, not MegaFrame.
>
>>The AT&T Unix PC used a later version of CTIX with lots of graphics
>>support. This was more a workstation style machine.
>
>I never had one, but I'd bet the ATT units ran an ATT (branded) OS,
>and the CT (or other) badged units ran the same but CT branded OS, no?
I think ATT shipped pretty much what they got from CT, as most other
Unix stuff I had seen at that time from ATT (in the form of the 3b
series) looked pretty different.
--
Jens-Uwe Mager <pgp-mailto:62CFDB25> <jabber:j...@jabber.com>
Marco S Hyman
> >Didn't the DEC Rainbow contain a Z80 and an 808x? The small company
> Could you describe the DEC Rainbow? I had several old DEC personal
http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/rainbow/
// marc
Don Quixote
>The MegaFrame (XE 5xx series) was based around multiple CPU cards (of
>differing types) in a system. Early cards were 80186 based, some
>later cards used 80386. The system could also contain 1 or 2 Motorola
>based CPU cards to provide a Unix (or hybrid CTOS/Unix) platform.
>These were available with either 68000 or 68020 CPUs.
Noted, cool.
Don Quixote
>On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 22:38:09 -0400, Don Quixote <spam...@whitehouse.gov.invalid> wrote:
>>Jens-Uwe Mager might have said:
>...
>>but the repackaged one from Motorola that was sold as model 6300.
>
>>ATT had an Olivetti manufactured MS-DOS PC that (I think) was known as
>>the 6300. It was Not Nice. I am now whimpering.
>
>Aehem, what is the connection with ATT here? I referred to a Motorola
>rebadged unit. ATT did only resell the Unix PC based on a CT design (as
>far as I know).
The connection was, the first three letters in the statement, maybe?
Along with the model number too?
>...
>>The eight extra RS-232 ports rings a bell, but I didn't remember the
>>RS-422 being on board those, interesting. Is the TM35 designator an
>>ATT one, or a CT one?
>
>Neither, a Motorola one.
Oh, okay.
>OK, as a later post points out I mismatched MegaFrame and MightyFrame.
>The binary compatible one is MightyFrame, not MegaFrame.
*nods* Makes sense.
Did you also see up-thread in <x71yaag...@hana.snafu.org> that a
68xxx based board was made for the MegaFrame? The best of both
worlds, I suppose.
>I think ATT shipped pretty much what they got from CT, as most other
>Unix stuff I had seen at that time from ATT (in the form of the 3b
>series) looked pretty different.
I would have thought ATT would have made the software, something, you
know? Odd to me.
Don Quixote
> Most of the later (post 1977 or so) terminals had CPUs (often Z80s),
>usually there was no way to program them though.
Ah. If I knew that, I forgot. If I didn't, I do now. Thank you.
Don Quixote
That was them. Thank you.
Chuck Sterling
and a piggyback board, either inside the case or in an external slot had
an 8088 in one of two models, either with or without an interrupt
processor. The BIOS made a decision as to which processor to run based
on the boot sector of the boot disk, either CP/M or MS-DOS. Or UCSD
P-system, but I digress. Somebody at NCR wrote a ramdisk program under
the 8088 and MS-DOS that used the Z80 for its tricks, which was quite an
interesting project. There were a couple of BIOS extender programs to
help it emulate the IBM PC, one of which I wrote, but they never got
much past text modes. Anyway, FWIW, it could be had with two
processors...
Chuck Sterling
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
> Has anyone mentioned the NCR Decision Mate V? The main board had a Z80,
> and a piggyback board, either inside the case or in an external slot had
> an 8088 in one of two models, either with or without an interrupt
> processor. The BIOS made a decision as to which processor to run based
> on the boot sector of the boot disk, either CP/M or MS-DOS. Or UCSD
> P-system, but I digress.
This reads as though some techie entranced some manager to make the
machine to satify all requirements. WOW.
Whatever happened to the concept of doing one thing really well?
(Oh yes, I forgot - companies keep relearning that every business
cycle, on the downturn.)
Clearly, NCR did not target this machine to the mass market. How
many friggin OS commands, editor commands, file maintenance procedures
does a person wish to learn? And without a mass market, it was just
another flash in the pan, if that.
Chuck Sterling
as the IBM PC, and when IBM launched its PC, NCR was scrambling to get
something to market, and that was all they had. I don't believe they intended
anyone to run both operating systems, but to choose one and stay with it. And
I think you're right, it was intended for commercial customers running some
specific application, accounting or whatever, and not for general purposes
like we do today. At and for that time, CP/M was fairly mature and MS-DOS was
at version 2.0 with 2.11 in the wings. Version 1.0 was practically a clone of
CP/M 2.2, and when NCR started manufacturing the DMV I doubt that anyone there
anticipated the effect of the IBM PC on the market, including the software
market. It was not all that bad a system for its day, but we all know what
happened to non-compatibles; having a good one is what got Compaq started.
Within a year or two NCR had a PC compatible that was not much, but enough to
stay in the game for a while, and the fire sale for DMV computers started. I
bought two or three before the last one was sold or given away, and as bad as
they were by today's standards, they taught me a lot, including how to write
that BIOS extender, trapping interrupts and weaving in the code to fool IBM
compatible programs into running, all in MASM assembly language. Did some
other programs in other languages along the way, and that was the first
computer I'd ever fiddled with. The first few weeks the only thing I knew how
to do was play Adventure... It was, more than anything else, responsible for
getting me into this business and teaching me the nuts and bolts of how
computers work. So it's not all bad...
Chuck Sterling
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> It was, more than anything else, responsible for
> getting me into this business and teaching me the nuts and bolts of how
> computers work. So it's not all bad...
>
the goings on at:
<http://www.rickadams.org/adventure/>
There is a download section for the different versions with
downloads for several modern personal computers...