Unidentified IIe Card !!!
seb
unidentified...
It's a long card (not that long) with nothing written on it except a grey
sticker that reads "DEC QC-OK". Then there are 16 little chips from various
makes, and one bigger from Nec that says "PIY386-147 D780C"
There are also a small set of 4 jumpers and a red led...
I have no idea of what that might be !
Any suggestions ?
Seb.
Leslie Ayling
seb <mo.c...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:B52AAE49.3BA0%mo.c...@wanadoo.fr...
The 4 jumpers and the LED would perhaps suggest that it is a
Microsoft Softcard Clone.
Leslie
Quadrajet1
>The 4 jumpers and the LED would perhaps suggest that it is a
>Microsoft Softcard Clone.
>
>Leslie
It's been a hunnert years, but that's what I was thinking too.
Raymond
seb
lay...@intercoast.com.au wrote on 25/04/00 12:28:
>
> seb <mo.c...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:B52AAE49.3BA0%mo.c...@wanadoo.fr...
>> Bought a used IIe that came with several cards, but there's one that's
>> unidentified...
>> It's a long card (not that long) with nothing written on it except a grey
>> sticker that reads "DEC QC-OK". Then there are 16 little chips from
> various
>> makes, and one bigger from Nec that says "PIY386-147 D780C"
>> There are also a small set of 4 jumpers and a red led...
>>
>> I have no idea of what that might be !
>>
>> Any suggestions ?
>>
>> Seb.
>>
> From memory, D780C is NEC's version of the Z-80 processor.
> The 4 jumpers and the LED would perhaps suggest that it is a
> Microsoft Softcard Clone.
>
> Leslie
>
>
>
Yeah, that's what many other people seem to think...
Was that the early beginings of PC-compatibility on Apple computers ?
Biggo
> in article 39057...@news.acay.com.au, Leslie Ayling at
> lay...@intercoast.com.au wrote on 25/04/00 12:28:
> > The 4 jumpers and the LED would perhaps suggest that it is a
> > Microsoft Softcard Clone.
> Was that the early beginings of PC-compatibility on Apple computers ?
Erm, no. If it has a Z80, it's probably for CP/M.
--
Biggo. <mailto:bi...@blue-win.ch>
(Remove the hyphen! Spambusters at work!)
*** Half the people you know are below average. ***
Leslie Ayling
> in article 39057...@news.acay.com.au, Leslie Ayling at
> lay...@intercoast.com.au wrote on 25/04/00 12:28:
>
> >
> > news:B52AAE49.3BA0%mo.c...@wanadoo.fr...
> >> Bought a used IIe that came with several cards, but there's one that's
> >> unidentified...
> >> It's a long card (not that long) with nothing written on it except a
grey
> >> sticker that reads "DEC QC-OK". Then there are 16 little chips from
> > various
> >> makes, and one bigger from Nec that says "PIY386-147 D780C"
> >> There are also a small set of 4 jumpers and a red led...
> >>
> >> I have no idea of what that might be !
> >>
> >> Any suggestions ?
> >>
> >> Seb.
> >>
> > The 4 jumpers and the LED would perhaps suggest that it is a
> > Microsoft Softcard Clone.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Yeah, that's what many other people seem to think...
> Was that the early beginings of PC-compatibility on Apple computers ?
No!
The Z-80 card gave CP/M compatability to the Apple ][.
Several other improved Z-80 cards followed the Microsoft Softcard,
inlcuding(but not limited to) The "Star card", and the "Appli-Card"
both had either/or faster clock speeds/more memory to allow
CP/M V3.0 to run.
There was an 8088 card produced that allowed the Apple//e to run
run MSDOS 3.3, one turned up on EBAY last week in fact. Who
manufactured it, I don't recall.
There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
Leslie
seb
lay...@intercoast.com.au wrote on 26/04/00 13:42:
I must have been expensive at the time it was released, right ? I'm pretty
amazed that such compatibility already existed by then...
Scott Alfter
Leslie Ayling <lay...@intercoast.com.au> wrote:
>There was an 8088 card produced that allowed the Apple//e to run
>run MSDOS 3.3, one turned up on EBAY last week in fact. Who
>manufactured it, I don't recall.
You're thinking of the PC Transporter, from Applied Engineering. It
actually used a V20, not an 8088 (or was it a V30 instead of an 8086?).
(The difference was that the V[23]0 was a little bit faster than the 808[86]
at a given clock speed.)
>There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
>you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
I think I saw an ad for one of these long ago, but it was aimed more at
running MacOS than CP/M-86 (wasn't that an x86-based OS anyway?). There
were also add-ons for several memory-expansion cards that allowed you to
replace the 65(C)02 in a IIe with a 65C816 (had one from Applied Engineering
for their RamWorks III...played with it for a little while, but I liked my
10-MHz RocketChip better :-) ).
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (salfter at (yo no quiero spam) delphi dot com)
\_^_/ http://salfter.dyndns.org
Roy and/or Janet Miller
>
>
> > >There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
> > >you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
> >
> > I think I saw an ad for one of these long ago, but it was aimed more at
> > running MacOS than CP/M-86 (wasn't that an x86-based OS anyway?).
>
> nothing to do with it.
>
> The 68K version of OS/9 seems a more likely prospect. MacOS would be
> highly improbable.
>
> Was there ever actually a 68K card which made it to the market? I
> remember hearing about one being designed, but I don't remember it being
> released.
>
> --
> David Empson
There was a CP/M 68K. I understand that it is the basis for the
operating system of the Atari ST. Which makes some sense, since Atari
used the GEM GUI and both came from Digital Research.
I remember seeing adds for 68000 (and 6800) cards for the Apple ][,
usually to do some scientific or engineering work. What that would
involve is beyond me though.
Roy
David Empson
> In article <3906d...@news.acay.com.au>,
> Leslie Ayling <lay...@intercoast.com.au> wrote:
> >There was an 8088 card produced that allowed the Apple//e to run
> >run MSDOS 3.3, one turned up on EBAY last week in fact. Who
> >manufactured it, I don't recall.
>
> You're thinking of the PC Transporter, from Applied Engineering. It
> actually used a V20, not an 8088 (or was it a V30 instead of an 8086?).
V30. It has a 16-bit data bus. The processor runs at about 7.2 MHz,
which works out about 3 times the speed of a PC/XT (4.77 MHz 8088).
Disk I/O sluggishness throws the calculation back in favour of the real
PC, however.
> (The difference was that the V[23]0 was a little bit faster than the 808[86]
> at a given clock speed.)
Another difference is that the V20/V30 have several extra instructions
(a close match to the extra instructions in the 80188/6, if not
identical). Some MS-DOS software which nominally requires an 80286 but
runs in real mode will also work on a V20/V30/80188/80186.
> >There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
> >you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
>
> I think I saw an ad for one of these long ago, but it was aimed more at
> running MacOS than CP/M-86 (wasn't that an x86-based OS anyway?).
Yes. CP/M-86 requires an 8088 or 8086, so a 68000 card would have
nothing to do with it.
The 68K version of OS/9 seems a more likely prospect. MacOS would be
highly improbable.
Was there ever actually a 68K card which made it to the market? I
remember hearing about one being designed, but I don't remember it being
released.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Snail mail: P O Box 27-103, Wellington, New Zealand
Leslie Ayling
David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:1e9rr1z.1f8a2bh18sdqvmN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz...
> Scott Alfter <sal...@chakotay.ncc74656.org> wrote:
>
> > >There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
> > >you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
> >
> > I think I saw an ad for one of these long ago, but it was aimed more at
> > running MacOS than CP/M-86 (wasn't that an x86-based OS anyway?).
>
> Yes. CP/M-86 requires an 8088 or 8086, so a 68000 card would have
> nothing to do with it.
>
> The 68K version of OS/9 seems a more likely prospect. MacOS would be
> highly improbable.
>
> Was there ever actually a 68K card which made it to the market? I
> remember hearing about one being designed, but I don't remember it being
> released.
>
> --
> David Empson
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz
> Snail mail: P O Box 27-103, Wellington, New Zealand
DOH!
Sorry slip of the fingers. That should have read CPM-68K
The 68000 card I have has 128k on the board and originally sold
for $1850 (AUS) when it was released!
Mine was in a unit that was given to me so I don't know where the
card was originally purchased.
There is also some software included in the package to speed up
Applesoft Basic string handling functions.
OS/9 was available on the Apple][ with the addition of a card called
"The Mill" by Stellation Two. It didn't have any RAM onboard but
as far as I can recall it re-mapped the Apple ][ memory in a similar way
to the Microsoft Softcard. It also had Applesoft speed-up software
patches that came with it.
Leslie
Scott Alfter
David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>Scott Alfter <sal...@chakotay.ncc74656.org> wrote:
>> In article <3906d...@news.acay.com.au>,
>> >There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
>> >you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
>>
>> I think I saw an ad for one of these long ago, but it was aimed more at
>> running MacOS than CP/M-86 (wasn't that an x86-based OS anyway?).
>
>highly improbable.
You're more than likely right. I was thinking of an ad in the November 1985
issue of _Nibble_ for a product called the "Graphics Tool Kit" (ad is on
page 96). I remembered the heading, "Put a Mac in your Apple II," but the
product appears to be a higher-resolution (640x384) graphics card and not a
68K card.
Quadrajet1
>> actually used a V20, not an 8088 (or was it a V30 instead of an 8086?).
>
>V30. It has a 16-bit data bus. The processor runs at about 7.2 MHz,
>which works out about 3 times the speed of a PC/XT (4.77 MHz 8088).
>Disk I/O sluggishness throws the calculation back in favour of the real
>PC, however.
>
>> (The difference was that the V[23]0 was a little bit faster than the 808[86]
>> at a given clock speed.)
I have a PC Transporter on ebay right now. Probably the one you're talking
about. It's a V30 chip, but mine has the optional 8087 math co-processor for
even better speeds.
>Another difference is that the V20/V30 have several extra instructions
>(a close match to the extra instructions in the 80188/6, if not
>identical). Some MS-DOS software which nominally requires an 80286 but
>runs in real mode will also work on a V20/V30/80188/80186.
>
>> >There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
>> >you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
>>
>> I think I saw an ad for one of these long ago, but it was aimed more at
>> running MacOS than CP/M-86 (wasn't that an x86-based OS anyway?).
>
>Yes. CP/M-86 requires an 8088 or 8086, so a 68000 card would have
>nothing to do with it.
>
>The 68K version of OS/9 seems a more likely prospect. MacOS would be
>highly improbable.
>
>Was there ever actually a 68K card which made it to the market? I
>remember hearing about one being designed, but I don't remember it being
>released.
I have in my hands right now an Enhancement Technology PDQ II 68000 board
for the II. 256K of RAM. The McMill mentioned is not a true 68000, but a 68008
chip. The McMill ran at 1 Mhz, the ET board ran at 10 Mhz. The McMill was
$195, the McMill Plus was $295, the Et PDQ II was $695.
According to a December 1985 A+ article, the 3 boards mentioned above are the
only 68K boards available at the time.
Raymond
Roger Johnstone
----------
In article <1e9rr1z.1f8a2bh18sdqvmN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>Scott Alfter <sal...@chakotay.ncc74656.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <3906d...@news.acay.com.au>,
>> Leslie Ayling <lay...@intercoast.com.au> wrote:
>> >There was also a 68000 card (I know, because I have one) that allowed
>> >you to run CP/M-86 aswell.
>>
>> I think I saw an ad for one of these long ago, but it was aimed more at
>> running MacOS than CP/M-86 (wasn't that an x86-based OS anyway?).
>
>Yes. CP/M-86 requires an 8088 or 8086, so a 68000 card would have
>nothing to do with it.
>
>The 68K version of OS/9 seems a more likely prospect. MacOS would be
>highly improbable.
>
>Was there ever actually a 68K card which made it to the market? I
>remember hearing about one being designed, but I don't remember it being
>released.
Stellation Two advertised a 68008 card with an assembler and Forth to match
(inCider magazine, December 1986). They also sold 6809 cards. Cirtech had a
Macintosh emulator card for the Apple II (GS only I think) but never
released it.
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~rojaws
------------------------------------------
Customer: I'm running Windows '98
Tech: Yes.
Customer: My computer isn't working now.
Tech: Yes, you said that.
Paul R. Santa-Maria
DTACK Grounded series of boards. They had a simple interface card in a
slot and the board (with its own power supply) outside the Apple. Versions
ranged from 8MHz/32K to 12.5 MHz/1MB. I have a web site dedicated to the
newsletter that supported them:
http://people.delphi.com/paulrsm/68k/dg/
--
Paul R. Santa-Maria
Ann Arbor, Michigan USA
pau...@ameritech.net
Quadrajet1 <quadr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20000428234551...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
David Empson
> Stellation Two advertised a 68008 card with an assembler and Forth to match
> (inCider magazine, December 1986). They also sold 6809 cards. Cirtech had a
> Macintosh emulator card for the Apple II (GS only I think) but never
> released it.
That's the one I was thinking of. I wasn't aware of any of the others,
which obviously had far more realistic goals.
Phoenyx
> That's the one I was thinking of. I wasn't aware of any of the
> others, which obviously had far more realistic goals.
Ain't it amazing what these 'toy' computers could do!
--
Cheers and best wishes,
Phoenyx
Have you fed your Apple today?
Phoenyx's Pages are back online...
It seems the ZIP.TO link was down for a while.
It is now working again. This is the preferred
link to my site. You may also use the direct link.
http://zip.to/Phoenyx_A2
http://www.tinyangeldesigns.com/Apple2