I'll have to try dropping my 386/40 down to 8mhz and run an old game. Which
games did you have problems with? When I got my first pc it was a 286/12 by
then all the games were VGA. I find the amiga/c64 had much nicer graphics
during the cga pc games era.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Allen Jr" <n8uhn_at_yahoo.com>
To: <cctech_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Looking for a 486 system
> Very interesting reading,
>
> I also have a few 8088 games the will not run on
> todays machines,mostly due the the hardcoded timeing
> loops.
>
> one would think that by now someone would write a cpu
> slowdown pgm that does not affect the hardcoded
> graphics code - like all the current ones do.
>
> i have most of the ge numalogic "pc loader" for the
> pc900 - pc1100 and the pc based programer for ge
> series 6 model 60 plc's.
>
> i also have to use a 486 and lower on the plc and
> motorola radio programming software.
>
> the reason that these programs will not run on a
> faster then 486 (some only run releably on a 286)
> is that the cpu speed runs the coded loops too fast.
>
> that results in the pgm trying to read/write to the
> device (radio or plc) faster then the programs i/o
> instructions can respond.
>
> i have had no trouble useing high speed serial ports
> with the newer uart's.
>
> the slowdown programs "time wasting cpu loop" does
> slow down the program run, but the loop chops up the
> i/o also and the devices always want 100% of the i/o
> ports attenation - which results in the i/o loop being
> droped and/or the program hanging or looping.
>
> the problem could be a good one though, at least we do
> have a use for the 8088's to 486's ;)
>
>
> Bill
>
>
> Message: 30
> From: "TeoZ" <teoz_at_neo.rr.com>
> To: <cctalk_at_classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Looking for a 486 system...
> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:00:32 -0500
> Reply-To: cctech_at_classiccmp.org
>
> 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.
Received on Sun Mar 02 2003 - 00:07:00 GMT