Those packages have the same problems as older dos games.
http://www.oldskool.org/pc/help/oldonnew/
"The second advantage is a natural resistance to obscure programming
techniques, like self-modifying code. The 80386 doesn't have an internal
cache like the 486 and higher, so most self-modifying code works as good as
it did on the original 8088."
I found alot of install routines written when the 386 was around would cause
errors on faster machines because they hard coded timer loops for user
input.
Since the PLC software uses the comm ports and they are most likely buffered
newer computers feed the data too fast for the serial port.
One thing to try on faster machines is to disable internal and external
cache in the system bios, then hit the turbo button to slow the processor
down to 8mhz (if possible)
If you really need a 386 motherboards with chip and memory can be found on
ebay really cheap, but are not too common. Buying an old 386 from ebay isn't
worth it because of the shipping costs of the heavy boat anchors, but
motherboards are cheap. Getting a case from a local thrift store to run it
in wouldn't be too expensive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Rice" <jrice54_at_charter.net>
To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: Looking for a 486 system...
> When I was working in process controls, we had PLC programming software
> from two different companies that would only run on certain processors.
> The original SLC-500 series software from Allen-Bradley would not run on
> a 486, but would scream on a 286 or 386. As soon as you tried to run it
> on a 486 or higher, instant crash, taking DOS totally down to the point
> only pushing the reset would reboot it. The PLC-2 series from ICOM
> would run on 8088-Pentiums, but faster than a 286 and the comm port
> control routines refused to communicate with the system making it
> totally useless. There was a MMI package we used, the names elludes me
> (it's early) that wouldn't run if installed on a hard drive over 240mb.
> It had a space checking routine that couldn't handle hard drives over
> 240mb, or a processor over a 486DX25. It would crash if either the
> drive was too large or if the system was too fast. All of this software
> was still current in 1994-98.
>
> As far as finding an older system, except for the 386 that is kind of a
> museum piece, we scrapped eveything below 1ghz a couple of months ago.
>
> chris wrote:
>
> >> Fellow classic'ers, I have a very specific set of old radio service
> >>software packages that require running. Since they were written back
when
> >>the 386 was still in the "Ooooh, Ahhhh!" phase, and discontinued soon
> >>after, they won't run reliably (if at all) on anything newer than a 486.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I have some friends that make the same claim. That they have
> >radio/scanner programming software that will NOT work on anything newer
> >than a 386. I'm curious... WHY? What happens at the faster speeds that
> >makes it useless? I've tried asking my friends, but they are clueless on
> >these matters (and actually, all except one had no idea, they were making
> >the claim simply because they were told that was the case... only one
> >claims to have actually tried it).
> >
> >Is it something that is solveable by running some kind of speed killing
> >software (I had an app that did that. I used it to play old DOS games on
> >newer Pentium machines. The graphics ran so fast that the games were
> >unplayable, so I ran this processor stealing software and it slows the
> >machine down by the % you tell it to).
> >
> >
> >
> >> Here's what I'd like to find. A small tower-style 486, mini or mid,
with
> >>PS/2 type ports for keyboard and mouse built in. Speed-wise, it should
be
> >>in the DX33 or DX2/66 class. It should have switchable "Turbo/Non-Turbo"
> >>mode, either from a front-panel switch or from a keypress combination.
> >>Finally, it needs to have at least two PCI slots in addition to the
usual
> >>ISA or EISA.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ugh.... should have asked a few months ago. I just junked scores of
> >486's. I'm sure one of them probably fit your bill (or at least came
> >close). I have some more coming up to be scrapped, so I'll keep an eye
> >out.
> >
> >-chris
> ><http://www.mythtech.net>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://webpages.charter.net/jrice54/classiccomp2.html
Received on Sat Mar 01 2003 - 11:07:01 GMT