PDA

View Full Version : Compaq Portable website



asteroid
May 6th, 2003, 10:50 AM
check out my site for these machines:

www.firstibmclone.fsnet.co.uk

Get set up disk downloads, hints on repair and message board.

Erik
May 28th, 2003, 08:23 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the Compaq was not the first IBM PC clone.

It was certainly one of the earliest, the most compatible and obviously the most successful, but the first was the Columbia Data Products MPC.

Either way, you've got a really nice site set up there! :)

Erik

CP/M User
May 29th, 2003, 02:25 AM
"Erik" wrote in message:

> Please don't take this the wrong way, but the Compaq was
> not the first IBM PC clone.

> It was certainly one of the earliest, the most compatible
> and obviously the most successful, but the first was the
> Columbia Data Products MPC.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I thought someone said
that the Columbia based machines weren't true IBM
compatables because they use a seperate version of
CP/M-86 than to the IBM version of CP/M-86.

> Either way, you've got a really nice site set up there! :)

Well anyway, we could have a long Discussion about this,
but it wouldn't change anything! ;-)

Cheers.

Erik
May 29th, 2003, 06:06 AM
I agree that the original Columbia machines weren't nearly as compatible as the Compaq, but they were designed to be PC clones and compete in the same space, for what that's worth.

Erik

CP/M User
May 29th, 2003, 02:48 PM
"Erik" wrote in message:

> I agree that the original Columbia machines weren't
> nearly as compatible as the Compaq, but they were
> designed to be PC clones and compete in the same
> space, for what that's worth.

So you're saying that they weren't compatable, but
competition.

For some odd reason I seem to seperate the early
IBMs & compatables from the other machines like
the Victor 9000 (or Sirus .... name escapes me),
DEC Rainbow, early Zenith machines.

Cheers.

Erik
May 29th, 2003, 02:54 PM
So you're saying that they weren't compatable, but
competition.

Well, no. . .

I'm saying that they intended to be compatible but just didn't do as good a job as the engineers at Compaq.

Victor, for instance, didn't bother with trying, they just used a similar architecture almost by happenstance.

The fact that you can read an IBM PC disk on a Columbia but not an early Victor 9000 is some proof that the two companies had different goals.

I wish I had my PC Magazines at hand rather then in storage, but if I recall, The Columbia was probably about 90-95% PC compatible while the compaq was 99.9%. The Victor would be under 50%. . .

Erik

Erik

CP/M User
May 29th, 2003, 03:13 PM
"Erik" wrote in message:

>> So you're saying that they weren't compatable, but
>> competition.

> Well, no. . .

> I'm saying that they intended to be compatible but just
> didn't do as good a job as the engineers at Compaq.

> Victor, for instance, didn't bother with trying, they just
> used a similar architecture almost by happenstance.

> The fact that you can read an IBM PC disk on a
> Columbia but not an early Victor 9000 is some proof
> that the two companies had different goals.

> I wish I had my PC Magazines at hand rather then in
> storage, but if I recall, The Columbia was probably
> about 90-95% PC compatible while the compaq was
> 99.9%. The Victor would be under 50%. . .

The hardware interrupts (the IBM compatable provide)
might be an issue on the Columbia, I think back when
the MS Flight Simulator came out, it was one way of
testing to see if your machine was IBM compatable.

I'm not sure, but the Victor might have came out
before the IBM Personal Computer as well. So it's
just a machine in it's own right I suppose you could
say! :-) But it ran MS-DOS, so perhaps they came
out the same time, I'm not sure.

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 4th, 2003, 03:58 PM
The Columbia beat the Compaq to market by several months. I've not found a program for the IBM PC that wouldn't run on the Columbia. It even ran FlightSim. The hardware may have been another story, tho. Not all cards designed for the IBM would run on the Columbia.

--T

CP/M User
June 5th, 2003, 12:57 AM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> The Columbia beat the Compaq to market
> by several months. I've not found a
> program for the IBM PC that wouldn't run
> on the Columbia. It even ran FlightSim.
> The hardware may have been another
> story, tho. Not all cards designed for the
> IBM would run on the Columbia.

Well that's interesting. Some of the programs
I've written in Turbo Pascal under CP/M-86
might prove to be problem cause they tend
to go to the hardware. If the Columbia uses a
CGA for it's display, then the program I've
posted into the 'Programming' Section should
run on it. Even if you don't have Turbo Pascal
3, it's perfectly legal to download from the
Borland Museum (you'll need to register there
though). I wouldn't recommend it, if it uses
mono.

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 5th, 2003, 05:43 PM
Hell, come to think of it, not all the boards designed for the ibm would run on an ibm.

--T

CP/M User
June 5th, 2003, 08:11 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> Hell, come to think of it, not all the boards
> designed for the ibm would run on an ibm.

Well, I would have thought it has something
to do with age. An ol' ISA card won't work
if you computer only has PCI slots. My
Pentium has a combination of both PCI &
ISA (don't know if it has a VLB or not). A
friend of mine brought this ol' serial card
for his Pentium 2 (at the time) because
he wanted a second serial card to
communicate with his Hand-Held computer
(plus be on the Internet at the same time).

Since he had a combination of Plug & Pray
cards, installing this Ol' Serial Card (which
uses Fixed Addresses) it didn't work.

Yet they call it an IBM compatable! ;-)

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 6th, 2003, 05:35 AM
Hmmmmmnnn...
Do we still call it ISA even though it is no longer the industry standard?
Motherboards with ISA are getting real hard to find these days.

--T

CP/M User
June 6th, 2003, 03:49 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> Hmmmmmnnn...
> Do we still call it ISA even though it is no longer
> the industry standard?
> Motherboards with ISA are getting real hard to
> find these days.

Generally, they changed Motherboard to Mainboard.
But ISA refers to the connector used on the
hardware. If that's taken away then what would they
call it. An early connector?!

Cheers.

Terry Yager
June 7th, 2003, 04:38 PM
I propose "ISA-OS". (For industry Standard Arcitecture-Old School.)

--T

CP/M User
June 7th, 2003, 06:59 PM
"Terry Yager" wrote in message:

> I propose "ISA-OS". (For industry Standard
> Arcitecture-Old School.)

'Um, I don't think we're talking about the same
thing here! If not, I'm lost.

Cheers.