PDA

View Full Version : Youngest 8086/8088 PC?



vitoal18t
June 11th, 2012, 02:01 PM
For years, I was aware that original PC shipped in 1981 (8088) and that PC XT came around 1983.

I recently, found out that IBM's 3rd generation IBM PS/2 shipped around 1987 and that Model 25 and Model 30 both had 8086 processors offering. I believe that it has been always common to have PC for 3-4 years, so looks like 8088/8086 PCs made it well into the 1990s.

I only started using PCs in 1996, so everything before that is a "mystery" to me, only what I've been able to read from books.

So my questions is, what is the last 8086/8088 IBM PC or clone released? I'd love to hear some stories of people using 8086 machines (in office environment) in early 90s, ignoring the fact that people still use 8086/8088 PCs today in some "oddball" factory set-ups.

I guess I am just excited to find out that 8086, 286 and 386 machines were sold brand new at the same time. I guess when PS/2 Model 30 (8086) came out, both 286 and 386 PCs were already in production.

Thank you!

SpidersWeb
June 11th, 2012, 02:09 PM
My 5160 is from 1987 - was the enhanced model with half height drives (and probably 101 key keyboard which I don't have anymore). My 5150 is from Aug 1986 but has a 1983 motherboard in it now.

I used XT clones up until about 1994 at the school I was at but they were probably made around 1988.
People often could not afford 286 or 386 offerings (here anyway). Battery powered 8088 laptops made it past 1990 from what I remember.

marcoguy
June 11th, 2012, 02:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that a lot of 8088 PCs were trashed in the '90s because Windows 3.1 required a 286 and up.

Stone
June 11th, 2012, 02:23 PM
I'm pretty sure that a lot of 8088 PCs were trashed in the '90s because Windows 3.1 required a 286 and up.While the trashing of 8088s in the 90s may be true it wasn't because of WinBlows 3.1. A large percentage of those 286 and 386 machines you mentioned were running DOS apps and not Windows. Windows 3.1 was not all that widespread in the early '90s. And, lots of machines that did have it didn't really use it for much. They were still running the DOS apps. Remember, you still had to run DOS in order to run 3.1. So, back then, even Windows was just another DOS app. :-)

barythrin
June 11th, 2012, 02:47 PM
Interesting concept. I would think the last clones would be some 3rd world clones from Taiwan or some such design. Amstrad had one at least in 1991, not sure who else but I would think perhaps mobile computing which was always behind in speed might reveal some later dates.

Interesting snippet from techrepublic (http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/classic-tech/intels-8086-passes-the-big-3-0/142):
"If the 8086 had one drawback, it was the price. The first version of the 8086 sold for $360. In 2008 dollars, that translates to over $1,200 — four times the cost of an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700. It was so expensive that when IBM went looking for a 16-bit CPU to power its new PC, it went for the lower-cost 8088, which was introduced a year after the 8086 but used a more inexpensive 8-bit data bus."

Another interesting comment per wikipedia "NASA used original 8086 CPUs on equipment for ground-based maintenance of the Space Shuttle Discovery until the end of the space shuttle program in 2011. This decision was made to prevent software regression that might result from upgrading or from switching to imperfect clones." (the link however is only to an article from 2002 saying how NASA had to go buy them on ebay since Intel no longer supplied the chips).

Trying to come up with something here, but the Z80 sorta blows the timeline out of the water although probably isn't a valid comparison. The HP-200lx had a 80186 and was 1994.

Chuck(G)
June 11th, 2012, 03:22 PM
Where? I suspect that the Warsaw Pact (Soviet Union + satellites) kept popping out 8088 and 8086 PCs far longer than the West.

Anonymous Freak
June 11th, 2012, 03:29 PM
Well, Intel continued to manufacture 186, 286, and 386 chips for embedded applications up until 2007! http://www.reghardware.com/2006/05/18/intel_cans_386_486_960_cpus

And Innovasic still offers 186-drop-in-compatible CPUs! http://www.innovasic.com/Products/ia186eb-ia188eb as well as Zilog Z80-compatible!

But "PC", I'd have to agree that the HP 200LX is most likely the newest to be based on a direct 8086-equivalent.

sergey
June 11th, 2012, 04:21 PM
I guess 8086/8088 based personal computers were made till mid-90's. Soviet ES184x (ES1840, ES1841, ES1842) computers were made at least during the first half of 90's. I believe I also saw a lot of Taiwanese Turbo XTs at that time. They were very cheap, and good enough for many application-specific uses (payroll applications, cash register, schools etc).

CMOS variants of 8086/8088 - 80C88 and 80C86 along with 82Cxx support chips are still being made by Intersil, but they are mostly used for older industrial and embedded applications:
http://www.intersil.com/content/intersil/en/products/space-and-harsh-environment/harsh-environment/microprocessors-and-peripherals/80C88.html
http://www.intersil.com/content/intersil/en/products/space-and-harsh-environment/harsh-environment/microprocessors-and-peripherals/80C86.html

BTW, ES1842 used a modification of 8086 called KR1810VM86M (note M suffix, 100% 8086 clone is KR1810VM86). While it supported all 8086 instructions, it generated exception on non-existing instructions (8086/8088 would just skip undefined instruction treating them as 1 or 2 byte NOPs). This allowed software-based emulation of 80286 CPU.

Chuck(G)
June 11th, 2012, 04:30 PM
BTW, ES1842 used a modification of 8086 called KR1810VM86M (note M suffix, 100% 8086 clone is KR1810VM86). While it supported all 8086 instructions, it generated exception on non-existing instructions (8086/8088 would just skip undefined instruction treating them as 1 or 2 byte NOPs). This allowed software-based emulation of 80286 CPU.

Sergey, in the case of Intel-licensed 808x chips, that's not strictly true. Results differed by instruction and the PLA decoding. Some undefined codes simply resulted in the execution of the "closest" instruction. I think I posted about this about a year ago.

billdeg
June 11th, 2012, 05:43 PM
I think there were s-100 systems with 8085/8086 processors being made or sold in China in the 90's. Anyone know Chinese vintage computing history? The ACE Computer Enterprise exported them to China perhaps.

sergey
June 11th, 2012, 10:41 PM
Sergey, in the case of Intel-licensed 808x chips, that's not strictly true. Results differed by instruction and the PLA decoding. Some undefined codes simply resulted in the execution of the "closest" instruction. I think I posted about this about a year ago.

Chuck, that actually is very interesting to me. I was trying to write some code to detect different varieties of 8088-compatible chips (I mean pin-compatible, 80C88, V20). And so far I didn't find any difference between 8088 and Intel 80C88. But there is a difference between Harris/Intersil 80C88 and 8088. Also it is interesting to know if there are any differences between Intel 8088 (C) '81 and Intel 8088 (C) '83. There is a detectable bug in the original 8088 with (C) 1978 marking.
Perhaps behavior of undefined instructions will be different in some of these chips.

vitoal18t
June 12th, 2012, 07:04 AM
Hello Everyone,

Thank you all for the information.

Personally, I still used 8086 CPU in 2004, We had to wire wrap a basic computer for our computer architecture class, when I was doing my undergrad. The class was already considered to be outdated at the time as it was getting more difficult to find 8086 and other support chips.

However, as far as Desktop PC is concerned, I think 8086/8088 machines were seeing decline in 1989 and by 1992 no one was probably buying 8086 machines as most new "Apps", like Win 3.1, Wolf 3D required 286 or higher, so financially it probably didn't make sense to invest into 8086 machine in 1992.

I have an interesting book "Beyond 640K" from 1989 and it still talks about 8086/286/386 coexisting.
I like how it talks about memory being $500 per 1MB and that it would be $8 million dollars to fill entire 4GB for 386 machine :).

Overall, it is amazing to see almost 10 years of service out of 8086, but I guess 6502 was the same way as well as other chips.

tipc
June 12th, 2012, 07:23 AM
Computer Products United, while may not have offered an 8086/88, not sure, had an American made 80186 mobo/computer. Was offered as late as 1990. I want one. I want one now. It was kind of expensive. When I lived in Florida I called them and asked if they'd sell me a mobo, and it was in excess of 400$.

angel_grig
June 12th, 2012, 07:40 AM
Maybe HP 200lx can enter this category as it was introduced in 1994..but it has an 80186 processor

marcoguy
June 12th, 2012, 08:13 AM
Why are there barely any PCs with a 186 CPU? (at least I haven't heard of any)

Chuck(G)
June 12th, 2012, 08:45 AM
Why are there barely any PCs with a 186 CPU? (at least I haven't heard of any)

While the 80186 has on-board peripherals, they aren't compatible (at least not early 1980s varieties) with the standard PC stuff. As an example, consider the Tandy 2000 or the Mindset (there were others)--they each take their own version of MS-DOS.

Until it was clear that the 5150 was going to win out on the PC wars, compatibility wasn't an issue. By about 1987, however, things were pretty clear.

The 80C186EC probably comes closest to compatibility with the PC--but it's a much later chip. The NEC V40 was also a contender, used in some Japanese systems.

barythrin
June 12th, 2012, 08:47 AM
Not really sure personally, I think the 286 came out with much faster speeds and so close to the 186, and the 8088 was much cheaper that the 80186 for whatever reason ended up mostly being used in appliances and not computers.

barythrin
June 12th, 2012, 08:49 AM
Chuck, have you ever thought of authoring any computer history books? Half my posts I want to say "here's my thought, but Chuck will probably have first hand knowledge of what went on". I know you've authored software, but any books yet?

Chuck(G)
June 12th, 2012, 09:24 AM
Years ago, I was approached by an editor from Osborne-McGraw Hill to see if I was interested (I was doing technical editing for some of John Dvrak's books at the time). So I knew what would be involved--and it looked like too much work for the money.

I'm more convinced of this now.

Chuck(G)
June 12th, 2012, 09:34 AM
Not really sure personally, I think the 286 came out with much faster speeds and so close to the 186, and the 8088 was much cheaper that the 80186 for whatever reason ended up mostly being used in appliances and not computers.

When we were putting out our own PC, it used an 80186 and an 80286 (this was about 1982-83 and Intel was sampling pre-production samples of both chips). If memory doesn't fail me and send me digging into my files, I believe that both the initial releases of the 186 and 286 ran at the same speed--6 MHz. I also seem to recall that we were running pre-production steppings of the 80286 at 4 MHz.

Observe that the 80186 is pretty much complete in and of itself--it has its own system controller, interrupt controller, chip-select logic, DMA and timers all on the same chip. Stick on a crystal and some RAM and you've got a system of sorts. The 80826 still requires all of the external peripherals as well as a clock generator (82284) and a bus controller (82288 )--and then there's the issue of 16-bit DMA over a 16MB memory space.

NobodyIsHere
June 12th, 2012, 01:10 PM
I think there were s-100 systems with 8085/8086 processors being made or sold in China in the 90's. Anyone know Chinese vintage computing history? The ACE Computer Enterprise exported them to China perhaps.

Hi Bill,
I never knew any S-100 manufacturers actually survived into the 1990's. I thought S-100 as a format was basically extinct by the late 1980's once the inexpensive Taiwanese PC/XT clones appeared. It does raise some interesting questions as to which S-100 manufacturer was the "last one standing" and if any survived in specialty markets for a longer time.

Even in "Computer Shopper", BYTE, and other period magazines, S-100 became rare after 1987. Almost a total wipe-out. To find that they were still being made in China is stunning!

Any more information on them? Thanks and have a nice day!

Andrew Lynch

vitoal18t
June 12th, 2012, 05:25 PM
I sure learned a lot in this tread! I had no idea that 80186 was used in PCs, I always thought it was just for embedded applications.

I guess what I really wanted to ask was what is "Youngest 8086/8087 100% IBM compatible PC"?

As far as I know now, it is probably IBM PS/2 models with 8086 CPUs. The only question is when the production ceased for those models? My gut feeling tells me it was in 1989, but I really have no idea.

Mad-Mike
June 12th, 2012, 06:11 PM
I'd say the last PC would likely be some sort of clone from a lesser known manufacturer around 1992ish. I recall finding an XT class Mobo with a 1991 BIOS date and a 1992 build date. It was half the length of a normal XT board, had some built in periphery, but was standard XT form factor board otherwise.

I've always seen it like this...
PC/XT Class (8088-186) - 1981-1992
AT Class (80286) - 1984-1993
386 Class - 1986-1997
486 Class - 1989-2004

I'm basing my 486 class observation on how long Windows 3.1x websites were still up pushing Calmira and/or updating the performance and "modernitity" so one could continue running Windows 3.1x on the hardware it was designed to run on. When I got online in 2001, there were a LOT of 486/Win31 centric websites about "battling the software bloat" and whatnot with an old 486 and Windows 3.1x on it.

Chuck(G)
June 12th, 2012, 07:25 PM
The 80C88/86 was used well into the 90s on laptops, primarily because it was rather frugal on power consumption. The Toshiba T1200 was manufactured through 1992. In the UK, the Psion MC600 wasn't (80C86) wasn't introduced until 1990--I don't know when production was halted.

The HP 200LX from 1993 has already been mentioned.

The Soviet Poisk made its debut in 1991.

vitoal18t
June 12th, 2012, 11:03 PM
The Soviet Poisk made its debut in 1991.

I wonder if any of these Soviet PC clones ever made it into U.S? Was it 100% compatible with IBM PC, or was is hardcoded to display only Cyrillic letters :)?
I wonder where the CPUs were manufactured.

pearce_jj
June 12th, 2012, 11:42 PM
Tandy 1400 laptops and I think a later model used V20's c.1991. The UK education special 'RM PC-186' was available as late as 1992 (and broadly IBM compatible by that stage).

The 186 itself was available until only a few years back, complete with an FPU able to run 387 code by then.

vwestlife
June 13th, 2012, 04:50 AM
I sure learned a lot in this tread! I had no idea that 80186 was used in PCs, I always thought it was just for embedded applications.

I guess what I really wanted to ask was what is "Youngest 8086/8087 100% IBM compatible PC"?

As far as I know now, it is probably IBM PS/2 models with 8086 CPUs. The only question is when the production ceased for those models? My gut feeling tells me it was in 1989, but I really have no idea.

The AMD 8086-based Tandy 1000RL desktop was sold from 1990 to 1992. Tandy also had the NEC V20-based 1100FD laptop that lasted until at least 1994.

billdeg
June 13th, 2012, 04:55 AM
I think we have beat this thread to death, but then it occurred to me that the Brother word processors of the early 90's were probably still 8086. I used to use mine as a PC, if you put a DOS disk in the disk drive the system would boot to DOS. Did anyone else do that trick? It was a surprise to me at the time. I used a different word processor in it just to be different. Not sure of the exact date of the Brother WP's that allowed for this trick, but there was no reason why they needed to change a WP from 8086 even into the 90's, until these as a class of "computer" became completely defunct.

AEIN
June 13th, 2012, 05:51 AM
Yes, the Tandy 1000 RL was definitely one of the last 8086s. It is also probably among the fastest (9.44 MHz) and lightest (10.2 pounds). It runs silently as well. Tandy put a lot of extra features into the 1000 RL like 16-color graphics, digital sound, joystick ports, etc. and it was relatively inexpensive for a PC, so I don't think customers minded that it was still an 8086.

vwestlife
June 13th, 2012, 07:35 AM
Yes, the Tandy 1000 RL was definitely one of the last 8086s. It is also probably among the fastest (9.44 MHz) and lightest (10.2 pounds). It runs silently as well. Tandy put a lot of extra features into the 1000 RL like 16-color graphics, digital sound, joystick ports, etc. and it was relatively inexpensive for a PC, so I don't think customers minded that it was still an 8086.

With MS-DOS and DeskMate in ROM, it also has to be one of the fastest-booting desktop PCs of all time: a cold boot takes less than 2 seconds from power-on to DOS prompt. Adding a hard drive actually slows it down, because it has to wait for the drive to spin up and initialize!

Dave Farquhar
June 13th, 2012, 09:27 AM
The AMD 8086-based Tandy 1000RL desktop was sold from 1990 to 1992. Tandy also had the NEC V20-based 1100FD laptop that lasted until at least 1994.

And I know a poor guy who bought one in 1992, and fairly late in 1992 at that. He bought it as a college freshman, hoping it would get him through college, not knowing it was obsolete before he bought it. He asked me his sophomore year what it would take to get Windows 3.1 running on it and I had to deliver the bad news to him.

My high school bought a lab full of PS/2 Model 25s and Model 30s in 1990 or 1991. They bought them to replace Olympia manual typewriters in their typing/keyboarding classes. They paid a fortune for them, and had no idea what they were buying was going to be outmoded so quickly.

At my first full-time job administering a network for a state university, we still had some IBM Model 30s kicking around in 1998. We were using them as glorified dumb terminals. We put network cards in them, loaded up a TCP/IP stack and a Telnet client, and I wrote a series of batch files to provide a menu so you could get onto the school's Unix cluster for e-mail, or onto Lexis-Nexis, the school library card catalog, and anything else useful that we could think of that worked via Telnet. And we loaded Wordperfect 5.1 and a few other popular DOS-based programs, because we could. We disposed of them in 1998 as part of our Y2k project. Y2K didn't matter for what these machines were doing, but we were under pressure to do something, anything, for Y2K, so basically anything that didn't have a 486 CPU in it got scrapped in the name of Y2K compliance, whether it was compliant or not. I'm sure sometime in 1999 they raised the bar to anything that didn't have a Pentium CPU in it.

We had a couple of professors who would be perfectly happy writing their books on an 8088 or 8086 with Wordperfect 5.1 even today if someone was willing to keep the hardware running reliably. They regarded computer skills like using the library--something you learned once, and weren't interested in learning Windows, learning MS Word or even the Windows version of Wordperfect, and they actually resented the 3-year upgrade cycle. Learning new technology was a distraction from their serious research.

sergey
June 13th, 2012, 09:58 AM
I wonder if any of these Soviet PC clones ever made it into U.S? Was it 100% compatible with IBM PC, or was is hardcoded to display only Cyrillic letters :)?
I wonder where the CPUs were manufactured.

A number of IBM PC compatible computers were made in Soviet Union and the rest of East Bloc. Early and more famous examples are ES184x series and Iskra 1030 were very IBM PC/XT compatible, at least from the software point of view. ES1840 is more like IBM PC - without HDD, was released in 1986, and ES1841 is more like XT, it came with 20MB-40MB MFM HDD and was released in 1987. Also Iskra 1030 / 1030M was released at about the same time (2nd half of 80's). All these computers featured KR1810VM86 processor (Intel 8086 clone) with 16-bit data bus, and so they were just a bit faster than the original IBM PC/XT design that used 8088 with 8-bit data bus.

It also was an attempt to create cheap school/home computers compatible with IBM PC. Poisk computer was one of the results. While it featured KR1810VM88 (Intel 8088 clone), it had limited IBM PC compatibility. For example video controller supported 640x200 graphics mode only, and CGA modes were emulated in software using hardware hooks (NMI?!). It also was very minimalistic - the system module included cassette interface only. Floppy and hard drive controllers were supplied as optional extension modules. Later they released more PC compatible models (Poisk 2?).

Several soviet plants manufactured KR1810VM88 and KR1810VM86 CPUs. Usually it is possible to determine the plant by the logo on the chip. One of the more famous plants is the Ukrainian "Kvazar" (its logo is a diode symbol in a circle). It looks like they are still making 8088/8086 compatible processors: http://www.kvazar.com/images/stories/production/ims1.pdf Other plants are Kvantor and Rodon. Czech company TESLA also made 8086 clones (MHB8086)

I doubt any of these computers were officially exported anywhere except of the East Bloc, and especially not to US :-). First of all because lack of the business reason and also due to licensing problems. Soviet ICs were not licensed clones of western analogs (and so they might be considered a counterfeit parts), and software was mostly copied from western designs.

Regarding Cyrillic letters - obviously Soviet computers had them. Two different encodings were popular in IBM compatible computers - KOI-8R and Alternative. KOI-8R is a "native" encoding, with Cyrillic letters starting from 0xC0 (lower case) and 0xE0 (upper case). Interestingly enough Cyrillic letters in KOI-8R are not sorted in ABC order, but instead the order matches Latin letters with similar name or population. This probably was made to simplify translation from/to KOI-7 (7-bit character set, with upper case Latin and Cyrillic letters only). The drawback of KOI-8R is that Cyrillic letters replaced a part of pseudo-graphic symbols, and programs that used these symbols looked ugly. This encoding was mostly used by soviet-made software supplied with the computers. Alternative encoding (MS DOS Code Page 866) preserved most of the pseudo-graphic symbols, it also had Cyrillic letters in ABC order. It was very popular and probably the most widely used encoding, especially for the users that used western software.
Iskra 1080 had both KOI-8R and Alternative character sets in the character generator ROM, and they were switched using a configuration register. ES1840 and ES1841 used RAM for characters 0x80 - 0xFF, and so it was possible to load any fonts there. ES1842 and later had EGA compatible graphics with software programmable character generator.

tipc
June 13th, 2012, 11:38 AM
While the 80186 has on-board peripherals, they aren't compatible (at least not early 1980s varieties) with the standard PC stuff. As an example, consider the Tandy 2000 or the Mindset (there were others)--they each take their own version of MS-DOS.


But the T2K in particular used very little of the '186s onboard peripherals, if any. Stare at a 2000s mobo sometime. You'll find all of the support chips that are on a 5150s mobo. The biggest reason for many IBM-incompatible's incompatibilities was the usage of say an NEC 7220 graphics chip (I can never get there prefixes right, either pd or upd), or something else entirely. And the graphics memory was in an altogether different location, not to mention the internal architecture, registers and whatnot, being totally different.

The T2K in particular was very much so BIOS and MS-DOS system call compatible. If a program was "well behaved", in the same way that all but the earliest Macintosh s/w was, that is using manufacturer provided interfaces to the hardware, it would run. A few things did run on a Tandy 2000, but not much. Most firms started tapping into the hardware directly, w/assembly language generally, and since that s/w was totally tailored for the 5150/5160 architecture, the pseudo-compatibles were left behind.

If you were to plug certain high performance graphics cards in your 5150/5160, you'd often have the same problems. Vendors like Autodesk would address this w/a patch generally, because architects, engineers and other designers couldn't get by w/CGA graphics. Most people are unaware that there were a bunch of different graphics cards for the peecee, many far superior to anything IBM offered (until the EGA/PGC). But were rarely register or memory compatible w/their lineup.

There are little funky nuances that exist that make the 80186/80188 differ from the 8088/8086, but I don't think nothing that couldn't be solved patches.

The early Ampro Little Board/PC had a 80186 (later ones, like mine, have the NEC V40), and that was for the most part totally compatible w/IBM s/w. Many manufacturers used to use it as a fast 80186, and made use of the onboard peripherals to different extents. There were oodles and oodles of 186/188s used in industrial microcontrollers. I'd like to research them *all*, but I don't even know where to start. On Vets Highway in Bohemia, Long Island, NY, I stopped in to a place for some job related reason when I was about 19 I guess. A guy had an 81086 uController right on his desk. Many many small companies did this.

One of my favorities is the Radio Electronics Magazine RE Robot Brain board (designed and built by Vesta Technology, who still is around). It used an 80188. I have the artwork, rom images, and a chum on this very board who BUILT the whole robot. I'm always so bogged down w/other stuff, I haven't had time to etch my own boards (and I have a new fandangled method of reliably doing this at home). Anyone that wants to get in on this, or building other RE computers, give me a hollar.

tipc
June 13th, 2012, 11:42 AM
When we were putting out our own PC, it used an 80186 and an 80286

Sounds like an IBM PC/AT w/a Professional Graphics controller. Main computer - 80286 based. Graphics card(s) - 8088 based. There were a few PGC clones, one made by Vermont Microsystems, has an onboard 80188. That puppy is slim let me tell you. It only has 2 cards wrung together, as opposed to IBM's 3!

I'm kidding Chuck, as I'm sure you can guess. I don't know what the purpose was of the 80186 in your system. Doubtful it was for graphics.

tipc
June 13th, 2012, 11:46 AM
I think we have beat this thread to death, but then it occurred to me that the Brother word processors of the early 90's were probably still 8086. I used to use mine as a PC, if you put a DOS disk in the disk drive the system would boot to DOS. Did anyone else do that trick? It was a surprise to me at the time. I used a different word processor in it just to be different. Not sure of the exact date of the Brother WP's that allowed for this trick, but there was no reason why they needed to change a WP from 8086 even into the 90's, until these as a class of "computer" became completely defunct.

Sure. Any wp was a step up from a typewriter!

Bill, were the Brother wp's you used lcd or crt?

Chuck(G)
June 13th, 2012, 01:57 PM
Sure. Any wp was a step up from a typewriter!

Bill, were the Brother wp's you used lcd or crt?

I'm not Bill, but the answer is "yes". Brother made WPs for what seems like forever. A variety of CPUs as well as mutually incompatible floppy formats.

Chuck(G)
June 13th, 2012, 09:57 PM
I'm kidding Chuck, as I'm sure you can guess. I don't know what the purpose was of the 80186 in your system. Doubtful it was for graphics.

We offered the system two ways--with an empty 80286 socket as an MS-DOS system and with the 80286 as a Xenix system. In both cases, the 80186 handled the I/O. No graphics, however--this was a terminal (VT220-type) system only--no memory-mapped graphics. Purely for business (accounting mostly, but also word processing).

pearce_jj
June 14th, 2012, 12:00 AM
A number of IBM PC compatible computers were made in Soviet Union and the rest of East Bloc....

Sergey, the info on the Soviet stuff I haven't seen here much before - please keep it coming!

tipc
June 15th, 2012, 11:41 AM
I know Bill Degnan personally Chuck. Otherwise that in the rare case that he has an evil clone/twin on the west coast, I know the difference between you two.

My question was if the Brother wp he used had an lcd or crt display. I passed up a nice one w/a tiny green monitor in a thrift store a while back, for 5$. Just wondering if it was the same.

Chuck(G)
June 15th, 2012, 12:50 PM
I know Bill Degnan personally Chuck. Otherwise that in the rare case that he has an evil clone/twin on the west coast, I know the difference between you two.

My question was if the Brother wp he used had an lcd or crt display. I passed up a nice one w/a tiny green monitor in a thrift store a while back, for 5$. Just wondering if it was the same.

Understood now that you were talking about a specific Brother Wupro. Those with separate CRT monitors are useful if for no other reason that the monitor works fine with a PC monochrome adapter.

tipc
June 15th, 2012, 04:26 PM
actually the one I had the opportunity to own didn't have a separate monitor. But just the same I figured I could make use of it. Didn't know anything about being able to boot a dos disk (if that particular one had the capability).

Marrr
July 5th, 2012, 12:45 PM
Around here, I'm 100% sure I saw brand new desktops with V20 (Juko board, NEL BIOS) in late 1991.
Probably even in 1992.
Later than that - some palmtops like Husky Hunter 16.

animekenji
July 9th, 2012, 07:52 AM
I'm pretty sure that a lot of 8088 PCs were trashed in the '90s because Windows 3.1 required a 286 and up.

This. I can't see 8088/8086 systems surviving long after support for them was dropped in Windows. The change from 16 to 32-bit with the introduction of the 386 was probably the real death knell for the 8088/8086/80286 because you knew then that it wouldn't be long before all software went 32-bit and those early processors would be left in the dust.

barythrin
July 9th, 2012, 08:34 AM
Could be but 16-bit software has still been supported through all these days. (Except 64-bit Windows for whatever reason). Microsoft gets flak for that but I've never really understood why. Essentially I think that's what has historically made their operating system popular (well ok bundling it with PCs is what made it popular) but your alternative would be to repurchase the same programs each time a new operating system was written which I doubt anyone would willingly want.

I do agree though, hardware requirements and the mass produced programs would weed out a lot of vintage gear other than using it for simpler tasks like embedded devices and microcontroller stuff.

sergey
July 9th, 2012, 11:41 AM
This. I can't see 8088/8086 systems surviving long after support for them was dropped in Windows. The change from 16 to 32-bit with the introduction of the 386 was probably the real death knell for the 8088/8086/80286 because you knew then that it wouldn't be long before all software went 32-bit and those early processors would be left in the dust.

Intel 80386 was introduced in 1985 (6 years after 8088, and just 4 years after IBM PC), but it took industry years to make 386-based systems and software (Compaq Deskpro 386 was the first one, released a year after 386, IBM PS/2 systems were released two years later). On software front, Windows 95 was the first popular OS that required 32-bit (Linux, OS/2 2.0, and Windows NT 3.1 were released earlier in 1991, 1992, and 1993 respectively, but hardly were popular OSes at that time). While Windows 3.1 could take advantage of 386 virtual 8086 mode (running multiple DOS sessions directly from Windows) and some other features, it run nicely on 286 as well.

So for an average Joe the user, the 32-bit only became relevant somewhere in the mid 90's with advance of games using DOS extenders and Windows 95. Before that 386/486 were just 'faster' 286's :-)

Even in late 90's and early 2000's I've seen many legacy applications running on MS-DOS (that could potentially work on 8088 ). Few examples: accounting/payroll applications, Motorola radio programming application, etc.

So, to answer your question - no, the 386 was not a real death knell for 8088/286, not until Pentium times :-)