Image Map Image Map
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Tiny Turbo 286 running in a 5150

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Fairfield, Ohio
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris_nh View Post
    The Orchid Tiny Turbo 286 ... found inside a 5150 and running! Wow

    It has an Intel 8088 chip and what I believe is the 286 chip in the upper right of the board. Connects to the CPU socket on the 5150 motherboard.

    5150 BIOS revision is 10/27/82
    256k on the motherboard, 384k on a Quadram board. All ram is 200ns ... but still, this computer is pretty zippy for a PC!
    Infospotter reports 80286 processor installed


    Attachment 51700Attachment 51701Attachment 51702Attachment 51703

    This is similar in concept to the Intel Inboard 386 and the Quadram 386XT boards. I didn't even know this little board existed until today. Does anyone know of any other 286 upgrade boards like this?

    I knew of the Tiny Turbo back in the day; wished I could have afforded it at the time. But as Chuck (G) says, they were of limited use as an upgrade. One of the reasons I eventually sold my first Compaq Portable. Lovely machine, but you're stuck with Compaq hardware for the most part. A generic XT clone, on the other hand, gave you access to all sorts of compatible hardware options. At one point I even had a 12Mz 286 baby AT motherboard in an XT clone case.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    1,913

    Default

    I sold this same card about 6 or 7 years ago on ebay for about $300.00. I was using it in my 5160 for a few years. I got pretty lucky and found an XT to 386 upgrade board since. These things are pretty ridiculous, but the orchid tiny turbo does have high speed cache so it does help. I found the toggle switch to switch between the 8088 and 286 cpu rather unstable and crashed the computer most of the time, but no bigee

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    30,243
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Casey View Post
    If memory serves (excuse the pun) the Intel Inboard 386 had its own ram, yes?
    Yes, but that let it out of the "tiny" category. It was, absent a few peripherals, basically a whole system on a board--and cost a pretty penny more than a "tiny" variety.

  4. #14

    Default

    Attached is a small DOS program that claims to be able to tell if your CPU is an 8086, 8088, 80186, 80188, 80286, or even what it calls an "80288" (?):

    CPUID.ZIP

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    30,243
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    I've seen that chestnut--but it's not exactly thorough. For example, can it tell an 8088 from an 80C88? (there are differences in the ISA).

  6. #16

    Default

    I was always kind of curious why an 80288 never existed. Every other CPU seemed to have a cut down version except the 286. Even the 80186 got an 80188.
    "Will the Highways on the internets become more few?"

    V'Ger XT

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,145
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward View Post
    I was always kind of curious why an 80288 never existed. Every other CPU seemed to have a cut down version except the 286. Even the 80186 got an 80188.
    Sales volume. Intel was selling every 286 they could make while the 8086 and 80186 were relative market failures. The 386SX was a strange case. Intel tested the 16-bit interface version of the 386 since the first engineering samples but it took years before Intel had any surplus 386 capacity to make SX chips with.

  8. #18

    Default

    It might've been different if protected-mode operating systems and software became a lot more popular a lot more quickly, then there would've been demand for an 80288. But as things were, with plain real-mode DOS still ruling the PC market for years to come, the 8088 and 8086 were still perfectly sufficient for low-cost PCs all the way until the early 1990s.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward View Post
    I was always kind of curious why an 80288 never existed. Every other CPU seemed to have a cut down version except the 286. Even the 80186 got an 80188.
    There was, at least performance wise - it was called the 386SX.
    "Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
    In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." -The Minstrel

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •