Bell & Howell Apple II update

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Jan 26 16:44:17 2002

----- Original Message -----
From: <jpero_at_sympatico.ca>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update


> > From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick_at_idcomm.com>
> > To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
> > Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 10:38:21 -0700
> > Reply-to: classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org
>
> > You're thinking about a PC-CHIPS mobo, which came out a little later than
the
> > first "fast" '286 I got. The one I kept, however, was a later PC-CHIPS
NEAT
>
> Hmm...
>
> I'm not referring to chipset maker, I'm referring to maker of MB
> pcchips used to do "PC Mate" I think also. I agree CHIPS is good
> chipset on 286 boards especially single chipset type. But I'm not
> too impressed w/ 386 and 486 that used CHIPS chipsets, lackluster
> performance and very delicate both settings and they breakdown
> easily. 82C206 is always blowing like fuses for any reason
> especially by CHIPS, anything else that made this clone of this
> 82C206 is much better. I remember now, CHIPS is Chipset and
> Technologies, in short: C&T.
>
Well, the databook say "chips and technologies" but that's close enough ...

The 82C206 is the part that lived the longest of all the parts in these sets.
It's the one with the clock/calendar, etc in it. They even used it with the
'386's and early '486's before they put the I/O board components, i.e. FDC,
serial ports, parallel port, etc, on the motherboard. If they broke, it was
usually from some form of abuse and even that was difficult to do.
>
> > One thing I did determine back then was that Win3.0 and later, v3.1x, ran
> > faster on the '286 at a given clock rate than did a '386 at the same rate.
I
> > suppose this was at least in part because the first thing the software did
was
> > lie to the CPU and tell it, "OK ... you're a '286 now ..."
>
> Yuk.
>
Well, there was little installed base of '386 software.
>
> My primary reasons for having 386DX early on was full 32bits and
> speed, games likes 386DX. (WC II) I can buy a 386SX board but
> that's kidding myself to straw-pipe of 16 bits to memory.
>
I had a Peltier-cooled '386 running at 50 MHz for some time. It worked fine,
though it wasn't easy finding memory that would track it. Some of the cache
chips weren't even available in speeds suitable for a 50 MHz '386 back then,
particularly since most cache designs were single-line write-through caches.
>
> > By '91, folks were playing with their '486's.
>
> I got it well after '93, AMD 486DX 40 o/c'ed to 50 once I found a
> good motherboard for it much later, turned out a clone motherboard w/
> SiS 460, 8 pieces of cache chips for 256K, 2 xVLB.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wizard
>
>
Received on Sat Jan 26 2002 - 16:44:17 GMT