What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sun Apr 11 13:56:32 1999

I agree with your comment about the IBM's. The first PC-clone I bought was
an XT based on an 80186. By comparison with other available XT-class
machines, it was EXTREMELY fast. It was, in fact, quicker than the initial
AT-class IBM's, as it ran at 12 MHz. The '186 and '286 had the same
execution unit, hence the same code would run in the same time, if the
clocks were at the same speed. The '286 got the fancy MMU, however, while
the '186 got the built-in peripherals, which the boot firmware had to
relocated out of the way first off.

Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism


><The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint
><about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a
><bunch of stuff/mods. The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said
fo
><the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not.
>
>RS didn't want people opening the box. Since there really wasn't a bus on
>it internally to hook up to there was little reason besides the internal
>hacks (lowercase, speed ups, control ^key, and tape fixes.). The real
>problem is the V1 EI was a total dissaster. Obviously the designer new
>nothing about the timing and skew constraints for Dram. the later V2 EI
>was far better.
>
>The other thing was apple sorta supported adding boards to increase
>functionality or performance. They were amoung the first to have the
>essence of plug and play. That was a very good thing.
>
><When I saw my first PC in a commercial environment, it was running CP/M-86
><because that had the software the business owner was using previously on
hi
><Z-80. I often wondered what motivated him to switch. I also saw a couple
><of people's Apple-II running CP/M-86, and was awed by the fact they'd run
a
><OS that was slower than the previous and better-endowed (with software)
><CP/M-80 in the same basic environment.
>
>it wasn't an operating system thing it was programs like databases (DBASE)
>and spreadsheets (multiplan and VISICALC) what were the killer apps for
>business and they ate RAM big time. The z80 could have banked ram, some
>did but there never got to be a concenses on how to do it and support it at
>the OS level and then the 16bit cpus wer hyped to solve that "64k barrier".
>
><IBM really performed only one major service to the microcomputer world:
><They lent it its own trade name, which was its legitimacy. Having done
><that, the behemoth was overrun by smaller, more adept innovators.
>
>Absolutly. The Compupro and other 8086 S100 systems were far faster and
>could run many more OSs and apps. One outfit held off from PCs until
>1993 when it was a leap to 386s. The leap also was from older DBASE to
>the then hotter Paradox. Sometimes software drives hardware.
>
>
>Allison
>
Received on Sun Apr 11 1999 - 13:56:32 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:31:41 BST