PDA

View Full Version : My two 5150 IBM's



Ken Vaughn
April 7th, 2010, 12:38 PM
I have two IBM PC's (5150). I am the original owner of both systems. I
bought the first in the fall of 1981, not long after it was introduced. It
is shown here with an amber monochrome monitor. The video display adapter
is the original IBM monochrome/printer card. The I/O card with piggyback
RAM is an Apparat Combo Card (Denver, CO company).

http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65c/early_ibm_pc.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65c/pc_interior.jpg

Here are two screen shots of IBM DOS 1.0 and CPM-86 (Digital Research).

http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65c/ibm_dos_1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65c/cpm_86.jpg

I used this system for a couple of years and then gave it to my daughter
when she left home to attend college. I picked up a second PC for a
fraction of what I paid for my early 5150 when a local computer store went
out of business. I added a 33MB hard disk -- Apparat HIM card and external
cabinet. I used a CGA card and color monitor with this system, but it shown
here with a monochrome monitor.

http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65c/pc_with_hd.jpg

Ken Vaughn

BuggZ
April 7th, 2010, 12:55 PM
Sweet systems.

Vint
April 7th, 2010, 06:41 PM
Yes, very nice!
I'm starting to get the itch for a 5150 of my own lately. It just seems like it'd be like owning your own Sherman Tank! They are very appealing machines :)

strollin
April 7th, 2010, 07:05 PM
Your first system has the black power supply and most likely the 64K mobo. Is your 2nd system the one with the silver power supply and 64-256K mobo? I have one of each as well.

k2x4b524[
April 7th, 2010, 08:18 PM
Dos 1.0, must...have.....disk.....image.................... ................ :)

Ken Vaughn
April 8th, 2010, 07:33 AM
Your first system has the black power supply and most likely the 64K mobo. Is your 2nd system the one with the silver power supply and 64-256K mobo? I have one of each as well.

Yes, correct on both counts.
Here are the specs for my two systems:

First system which I bought in 1981:
SN0116140
Black power supply
16-64K motherboard
ROM U29 = 5700019
ROM U30 = 5700027
ROM U31 = 5700035
ROM U32 = 5700043
ROM U33 = 1501476 (appears to have been upgraded)

Second system:
SN09705255150
Silver power supply
64-256K motherboard
ROM U29 = 5000019
ROM U30 = 5000021
ROM U31 = 5000022
ROM U32 = 5000023
ROM U33 = 1501476

An observation -- in comparing the SN's posted by billdeg (under BIOS versions) with mine, it would appear that the later model (64-256K motherboard) has a 7 digit SN followed by "5150", unless that is just coincidence.

linuxlove
April 8th, 2010, 07:43 AM
5150! DO. WANT. :o

Nice systems!

mikey99
April 8th, 2010, 07:49 AM
Its great that you were able to hold onto those systems all these years.
I sold my original systems everytime I upgraded to a faster one.
Fortunately I've been able to obtain two 5150's , one with
the 16-64KB motherboard I found on my local Craigslist for free, and
a second with the 64-256KB I purchased from eBay.

Have you checked out the XT-IDE thread in the forum ? This will allow
you to attach large IDE drives to your 5150's.

Ken Vaughn
April 8th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Its great that you were able to hold onto those systems all these years.
I sold my original systems everytime I upgraded to a faster one.
Fortunately I've been able to obtain two 5150's , one with
the 16-64KB motherboard I found on my local Craigslist for free, and
a second with the 64-256KB I purchased from eBay.

Have you checked out the XT-IDE thread in the forum ? This will allow
you to attach large IDE drives to your 5150's.

No, probably not interested in adding a large IDE drive. I'm not really a collector, just happen to be old enough and having lived in the same house for more than 45 years, I kept those two IBM's.

I got rid of several systems over the years -- 286, 386 systems to name a couple. I kept a 486DX mid sized tower box with both a 5.25" and a 3.5" floppy drive. This is my "DOS only" system, although I still have an early laptop which runs Windows 98 and will also boot to DOS. I used this laptop a lot when I was capturing disk images from my "old PC" -- an 1977 IMSAI with Northstar disks (hard sector). I am the original owner of that system as well. I ran Northstar DOS, CP/M 1.4, and the UCSD Pascal system on that IMSAI. It still works fine, as does my first printer, an IDS-225 7-pin impact printer. If you think original IBM PC's were expensive, I would hate to tell you what I put into that system -- $1600 for memory alone, and that got me all of 65K, four 16K boards at an average of $400 each!

barythrin
April 8th, 2010, 08:51 AM
:-) Always impressive to see nicely kept systems. Did you think they'd be collector items one day? Dos 1.0 very impressive too! So, again .. with the almost but not quite useful information (I'm great at that) isn't the IBM 5150 with the 16-64 motherboard the one that goes into the thousands on ebay? Opposed to a later 5150 which is $100 or so depending what's with it?

Ken Vaughn
April 8th, 2010, 09:15 AM
:-) Always impressive to see nicely kept systems. Did you think they'd be collector items one day? Dos 1.0 very impressive too! So, again .. with the almost but not quite useful information (I'm great at that) isn't the IBM 5150 with the 16-64 motherboard the one that goes into the thousands on ebay? Opposed to a later 5150 which is $100 or so depending what's with it?

No, I really didn't think that they might be worth much. There is a store which sells used computers, mostly recent, here in Denver. Several years ago they had a stack of 5150's which they were practically giving away. I think they must have bought out some corporation's old systems.

I was pretty sure my old IMSAI/Northstar would be collectable at some point in time, but the old IBM's were hard to justify keeping. They had a little value to me because I learned so much from them, but didn't consider what they might be worth some day.

I worked in the computer industry since 1961. I started programming old UNIVAC vacuum tube computers with drum memories. I didn't keep any of those old manuals or card decks (UNIVAC round hole punched cards, not IBM Hollerith cards). They must be museum pieces today. I did keep my first assembly language programming manual when I started with Control Data Corp in 1966 and some Fortran program card decks, but that was more by accident than design.

I have a CDC core plane of 1024 bits hanging on the wall over my computer desk. This dates back to the mids 60's -- back when memory was "a buck a bit" on the CDC 6600 machines. I worked for CDC for 25 years.

mikey99
April 8th, 2010, 09:40 AM
.... isn't the IBM 5150 with the 16-64 motherboard the one that goes into the thousands on ebay?

No, its the IBM DOS 1.0 manual + original diskette that goes in the thousands.... :-)

tezza
April 8th, 2010, 10:36 AM
I have two IBM PC's (5150). I am the original owner of both systems. I
bought the first in the fall of 1981, not long after it was introduced. It
is shown here with an amber monochrome monitor. The video display adapter
is the original IBM monochrome/printer card. The I/O card with piggyback
RAM is an Apparat Combo Card (Denver, CO company).

http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65c/early_ibm_pc.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65c/pc_interior.jpg


Nice units Ken.

From memory, here in New Zealand we didn't see any IBM PCs until 1983.

PC-DOS 1.0. Wow. I wouldn't mind seeing what that was like. Anyone know of any disk images around?

Tez

mikey99
April 8th, 2010, 10:53 AM
http://www.retroarchive.org/dos/disks/

Several old DOS versions here including 1.1 , I've seen 1.0 around somewhere but cant remember the site.

I have the original IBM DOS 1.1 manual, with a copy of the diskette.

tezza
April 8th, 2010, 10:56 AM
Thanks. Yes, I'd like to see what the very first version was like. Was 1.1 a bug fix or did it have a few more features/commands? Anyone know?

Tez

mikey99
April 8th, 2010, 11:10 AM
Thanks. Yes, I'd like to see what the very first version was like. Was 1.1 a bug fix or did it have a few more features/commands? Anyone know?

Tez

...... pulled my DOS 1.1 manual off the shelf, popped the first few pages in my scanner and these pages give a quick summary of the diff 1.0 vs 1.1

tezza
April 8th, 2010, 12:54 PM
Just what I wanted to know.

Thank you!

Tez

paul
April 8th, 2010, 01:53 PM
An observation -- in comparing the SN's posted by billdeg (under BIOS versions) with mine, it would appear that the later model (64-256K motherboard) has a 7 digit SN followed by "5150", unless that is just coincidence.I have two 64-256kb 5150s and one has the short number and the other the long number! The short numbered unit is also missing the "IBM" marking on the bezel of the Tandon drives.

Does your DOS 1.0 manual have several pages inserted that were printed on a dot matrix printer?

Ken Vaughn
April 8th, 2010, 01:53 PM
http://www.retroarchive.org/dos/disks/

Several old DOS versions here including 1.1 , I've seen 1.0 around somewhere but cant remember the site.

I have the original IBM DOS 1.1 manual, with a copy of the diskette.

Hi Guys,

I've been away from the computer for a few hours. I checked the disclaimer on the retroarchive.org link included above and it would appear that DOS 1.0 certainly qualifies -- it is much, much older than 10 years old, and is not available from any commercial source. I would be very willing to share a disk image, but I don't have the software to create a self-extracting executable like those on the retroarchive.org. Can anyone offer suggestions as to how I might post a disk image? I used DSKIMAGE 1.0 to create the raw image, and it contains no tracks/heads/sectors info. It is a 160KB binary image -- 40 tracks, single sided, 8 sectors per track.

DOS 1.0 is pretty minimal -- you have to enter the date manually.

mikey99
April 8th, 2010, 02:05 PM
I think most of the users here have DSKIMAGE so the binary image you created would work fine to create the bootable disk.

Do you have the IBM DOS 1.0 manual ?

barythrin
April 8th, 2010, 02:06 PM
All I recall is no hard drive support and limited fat12 support being an issue with older Dos versions, although I certainly haven't had the pleasure of using 1.0. The date entry is in most versions and more due to the lack of a BIOS or time keeping device (added in later systems or with add-on cards like the AST 6-pack plus, etc). Still, it's neat to see how things developed both for older generations to refresh and relive or younger generations to experience and enjoy the first time.

So my question also.. IBM DOS 1.0 is really Microsoft DOS 1.0 right (i.e. it's Microsoft's port of QDOS, not an IBM written OS) correct? Does it come with any .bas applications like Donkey? :-) I got a huge kick out of donkey.bas as it's written by Bill Gates. Fun to see his coding style.

modem7
April 8th, 2010, 02:27 PM
So my question also.. IBM DOS 1.0 is really Microsoft DOS 1.0 right (i.e. it's Microsoft's port of QDOS, not an IBM written OS) correct? Does it come with any .bas applications like Donkey? :-) I got a huge kick out of donkey.bas as it's written by Bill Gates. Fun to see his coding style.
See http://thestarman.pcministry.com/DOS/ibm100/index.html

Marrr
April 8th, 2010, 02:33 PM
So my question also.. IBM DOS 1.0 is really Microsoft DOS 1.0 right (i.e. it's Microsoft's port of QDOS, not an IBM written OS) correct? Does it come with any .bas applications like Donkey? :-) I got a huge kick out of donkey.bas as it's written by Bill Gates. Fun to see his coding style.
Yes, it has all those example programs in Basic, including the first PC game - Donkey. BTW, I think most PC users back then couldn't play it because it required CGA...

About "Microsoft DOS 1.0" I'm not sure... Yes, this thing has passed through Microsoft hands on its way from Seattle Computer Products to IBM, but as far as I know the first version commercially released by Microsoft on their own was MS-DOS 1.25, in June 1982.

Raven
April 8th, 2010, 02:46 PM
I, having a copy of almost every DOS ever as well as the complete 3.3 leaked source to read through, happen to know that PC-DOS and MS-DOS are 100% identical in every regard - it's literally a compile-time switch to just change branding, so PC-DOS 1.0 is equivalent to MS-DOS 1.0 in every regard but the name and copyright - whether MS released a 1.0 or not.

Perhaps you could show us that IMSAI btw? :D

per
April 8th, 2010, 02:55 PM
http://www.retroarchive.org/dos/disks/

Several old DOS versions here including 1.1 , I've seen 1.0 around somewhere but cant remember the site.

I have the original IBM DOS 1.1 manual, with a copy of the diskette.

I have the DOS 1.0 images (in fact images of all the PC dos versions up to 3.3), BUT, they are curently located on a backup-disk in my parent's home.

I may be able to dig it up this weekend.

About the different versions:

Version 1.x is the most basic version. It's well inspired by CPM, and all file access has to be done with file control blocks (from a programmer's view). No device drivers or batch files are supported, only TSR drivers can be used. Only the 8 sectors/track, 40 tracks/side disk formats (160KB/320KB) are supported.

Version 2.x has a lot of additions in terms of version 1.x. In fact, a major part of the modern DOS envroniment were introduced in version 2.x. Most importaintly, File directories. Other imporiant introductions were Device drivers and batch files were introduced, along with CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT. File access was now possible using a much simpler file-handle system, and more convenient memory managing function were added (again, from the programmer's view). Hard disk support were introduced (even only 2 10MB partions were supported), and the 9 sector/track, 40 tracks/side formats (180KB/360KB) were introduced.

Version 3.x added a lot of support for external devices, like networks, removable nonstandard disk interfaces, and global variations. Larger hard disk drive partions were supported (up to 32MB*), and new floppydisk formats are introduced (720KB/1.2MB). Support for more than 2 partions were introduced in one of the subversions.

Version 4.x added some interfaces nobody really bothered using (DOSSHELL). In addition, multipile HDD partions with sizes up to 2GB were supported, however, limited to around 8GB per disk because of some limitations of FAT16. 1.44MB floppies supported (IIRC). Rumours have it that this version is quite unstable, at least the MS release.

Version 5.x introduced extended/enhanced memory mannaging. It also added the EDIT and QBASIC** tools, and a help function. It's much more stable than Version 4.x, but basically much the same. 2.88MB floppies were supported, but nobody used therse and I guess they weren't the most relayable disks around.

Version 6.x added some tools for optimization of the hard disk (did anybody use therse?). Besides this, I don't really know what differs it from version 5.x, exept for that version 5.x is more stable.

*Compaq OEM-versions of MS DOS 3.31 not included.
**Actually a cut-down version of the retrail product under the same name.

per
April 8th, 2010, 03:00 PM
I, having a copy of almost every DOS ever as well as the complete 3.3 leaked source to read through, happen to know that PC-DOS and MS-DOS are 100% identical in every regard - it's literally a compile-time switch to just change branding, so PC-DOS 1.0 is equivalent to MS-DOS 1.0 in every regard but the name and copyright - whether MS released a 1.0 or not.

Perhaps you could show us that IMSAI btw? :D

PC-DOS 1.x were made to run on the PC, MS-DOS 1.x are in fact designed to be run on S-100 based machines using a 8086-CPU card (+support cards) from a company called "Seattle computer products".

Marrr
April 8th, 2010, 03:09 PM
I, having a copy of almost every DOS ever as well as the complete 3.3 leaked source to read through, happen to know that PC-DOS and MS-DOS are 100% identical in every regard - it's literally a compile-time switch to just change branding
No, they aren't.
PC DOS has basic.com and basica.com (require ROM Basic), MS-DOS has gwbasic.exe (self-sufficient).
There are various OEM versions of MS-DOS with greater differences, to support special hardware.
Also, at some point (6.x?) IBM began to develop their DOS on their own, so differences grew further.

modem7
April 8th, 2010, 03:42 PM
No, its the IBM DOS 1.0 manual + original diskette that goes in the thousands.... :-)
In 2007, IBM DOS 1.00 in immaculate condition sold on eBay for close to $600 (I know the person who bought it).
Since then, I remember seeing at least 2 US-only auctions on eBay for lesser quality items, and I think one was for disk only.
I'm sure the manual+disk one sold at around the $400 mark.

For those thinking that version 1.10 is a more affordable option, for both manual and disk, IBM DOS 1.1 is usually over $100.
I don't record all sales, but I did record that on 16MAR08, ebay item 190204271001 sold for $154.50
In February, one sold for only $51 (item 300390358300).

Raven
April 8th, 2010, 03:59 PM
In 2007, IBM DOS 1.00 in immaculate condition sold on eBay for close to $600 (I know the person who bought it).
Since then, I remember seeing at least 2 US-only auctions on eBay for lesser quality items, and I think one was for disk only.
I'm sure the manual+disk one sold at around the $400 mark.

For those thinking that version 1.10 is a more affordable option, for both manual and disk, IBM DOS 1.1 is usually over $100.
I don't record all sales, but I did record that on 16MAR08, ebay item 190204271001 sold for $154.50
In February, one sold for only $51 (item 300390358300).

Well if you're not obsessed with having the physical copy (sure we'd all like to but it's not always affordable or possible) you can always get a digital one.

Ken Vaughn
April 9th, 2010, 06:37 AM
I think most of the users here have DSKIMAGE so the binary image you created would work fine to create the bootable disk.

Do you have the IBM DOS 1.0 manual ?

OK - here is the binary image file -- 160KB, 40 tracks, single sided disk, 8 sectors per track
http://home.comcast.net/~kvaughn65C/DOS10B.DSK

Sadly, no -- I don't have the IBM DOS 1.0 Manual any more. About 15 years ago I ran out of bookshelf room and dumped a lot of manuals that I felt I would never use. I kept a manual from a later version of DOS and felt that since it covered everything in the early manuals that it would be good enough. I never considered that old PC documentation would be valuable someday. Sort of like the guy who threw away issue #1 of Byte magazine, or the first issue of Playboy! It's hard to think 20 years ahead.

I kept all my original 5.25" floppies in their vendor printed sleeves, however. The disk and sleeve are original and in good shape.

Ken Vaughn
April 9th, 2010, 06:52 AM
Perhaps you could show us that IMSAI btw? :D

No problem -- here is a link to the original thread on the S-100 forum. The IMSAI is sort of a second generation which replaced the front panel toggle switches with a software monitor and a tiny CRT. It was first released in 1977.

http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?19017-Photos-of-my-IMSAI-PCS-80-30&daysprune=365

barythrin
April 9th, 2010, 08:37 AM
What would be interesting (this is something I never think of at the right time) is to look for deleted files :-) Not a problem with CD's but back in the floppy era you'd be surprised how many diagnostic and vendor disks were imaged with not for release data which was deleted but then imaged.

per
April 9th, 2010, 09:51 AM
What would be interesting (this is something I never think of at the right time) is to look for deleted files :-) Not a problem with CD's but back in the floppy era you'd be surprised how many diagnostic and vendor disks were imaged with not for release data which was deleted but then imaged.

After having looked at quite a lot of IBM disk images, it seems to me like they used clean disks when making the master disk used in production. But certanly, very many other companies did not.