kahn@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Gary I Kahn) (01/19/89)
I'm considering upgrading my XT clone, and one of the alternatives is adding an Inboard 386/PC board. If anyone out there is doing the same, I suggest calling Intel's information number (800-538-3373). I called because I have a VGA card, and I wanted to know whether VGA is supported. The publicity literature mentions EGA, but not VGA. They said that VGA is supported, but that the video ROM cannot be copied into fast memory (as is possible with EGA). The woman from Intel didn't stop there, however. In order to be sure that I end up a satisfied customer, she asked for more information about my system and checked the information against some compatibility listings. As it turned out, my particular clone had 1 unsubstantiated report of being unable to boot with the Inboard 386/PC. The information person suggested, therefore, that I buy only from a retailer who will allow me to return it if it doesn't work. Since I didn't even ask for that information, and didn't suspect a problem (since I've never had a hardware incompatibility come up with anything else), I felt that this service was above and beyond the call of duty. She clearly had my satisfaction as a customer in mind, higher in importance than immediate profit. In summary, if you're not positive that your system will work with their product(s), call them first for some straight information. Gary I. Kahn kahn@odu.edu
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (01/23/89)
In article <7244@xanth.cs.odu.edu>, kahn@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Gary I Kahn) writes:
[ story about how helpful Intel is in seeking customer satisfaction]
I agree. I have an Inboard 386 PC in my XT and it's been giving
sterling performance for 7 months. One day, I turn on the machine and
it won't boot. After a week wasted at Computerland (they said my system
board was bad) - I discovered that the machine booted if I replaced the
8088 chip. So I call Intel , worried that I did not have a receipt to
get their macho FIVE YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY. The tech guy calmed me down
and said it has happened that these boards cease to work and the fix is
to remove them and re-install them (fixing, I guess, a connection that'd
gone bad). I did this and discovered that this useful, inexpensive
board is the world's first self-repairing peripheral. My continued
impression of Intel is that it has outstanding ideas about service.
--
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963.phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (01/24/89)
In article <5714@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes: |I did this and discovered that this useful, inexpensive |board is the world's first self-repairing peripheral. You mean it has an unreliable connector, don't you? -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil "In Texas, they run the red light after it turns red." "In Taiwan, they run the red light before it turns green."
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (01/24/89)
A lot of people have said in this group that they have had very good luck with the Inboard 386 for the 8 bit XT bus. I have some unpleasant memories of the 16 AT bus version of the Inboard 386 from when I tried to get one to work in May of 1988. Be warned that Intel claims that it will only work in an AT model 339, Compaq 286 (whatever model, I forget) and the Tandy 286 (model 3000?). I tried the board in an ALR 286, Wells American 286, AST Premium 286, Epson Equity III (not III+) and Tandy. The Tandy was the only machine that the Inboad would work in as advertised. Of the other machines, the only one that would go through the POST with the Inboard installed was the Equity III set to run at 6 MHz. The Equity would boot most of the time with the Inboard but would crash inexplicably after 5 to 10 minutes. I strongly recommend that you not bother with the AT version of the Inboard unless you have the one of the approved three PCs or else can buy it with the understanding you may want to return the board. With the Inboard in the Tandy, performane was pretty good, but not really any bettter than the qualitative feel you'd get from a new highspeed AT clone system. Of course, there were the advantages of having the '386 chip that would let you run 386-to-the-max or Windows 386, etc. The software that comes with the Inboard includes an OEM version of 386-to-the-max. Other than that, the Inboard usues your original BIOS, which, of course, is not optimized for the 386. (Note 386max relocates your system and/or EGA BIOS to high RAM to improve speed by avoiding the added wait stats of ROM accesses. you can't run other protected mode programs at the same time as 386max, though, so Windows 386 can't coexist; one has to go.) In the DOS world, you might as well buy a whole clone turbo 286 system for the price the Inboard AT version costs. The performance would be about the same. Again, people that have the XT version of the Inboard report being very pleased. --Bill
mcmillan@schooner.cis.ohio-state.edu (Harold McMillan) (01/25/89)
In article <1478@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: >I strongly recommend that you not bother with the AT version of the >Inboard unless you have the one of the approved three PCs or else >can buy it with the understanding you may want to return the board. Makes sense; after all, if Intel says that the board will work with very few types of PC's, they probably have a good reason for saying it. The specified machines for the 8-bit bus version (Inboard 386/PC) are: IBM PC (all models), IBM PC XT (all models except IBM PC XT/286), Compaq Portable and Portable Plus, and Tandy 1200HD. The Inboard 386/PC is *not* compatible with 8086-based computers such as the Compaq Deskpro. The Intel BBS has messages posted from people who have gotten the Inboards to work with other machines. I have my Inboard 386/PC installed in an IBM PC. Installation was simple, the documentation is good, and the performance is outstanding. Highly recommended! -=- Hal McMillan | mcmillan@io.cis.ohio-state.edu | "Open the pod bay doors, HAL". CompuServe 72627,642 |
mdfreed@ziebmef.uucp (Mark Freedman) (01/27/89)
(Intel Inboard 386/PC in an IBM-PC)
I assume that you had to upgrade the power supply ????
I'm using a low-power hard drive (Tandon TM262) with the original 63.5
watt power supply, but I'd really hesitate to add any more power-hungry boards
(not even an internal modem).barry@dgbt.uucp (Barry Mclarnon) (02/01/89)
To change the topic a bit: Has anyone come across any aftermarket daughterboards that can be used to upgrade the Inboard 386/PC's memory? The Intel 1 Meg daughterboard lists for $795 and is about $600 from the mail order places - pretty steep, considering the Inboard itself can be had for as little as $700 or so. What I'd like to find is an empty board socketed for 1 or 2 Meg that I could populate in 256K increments as the need arises and funds permit. -- Barry McLarnon Communications Research Center Ottawa, ON Canada UUCP: ...utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!dgbt!barry INTERNET: barry@dgbt.crc.dnd.ca Compu$erve: 71470,3651 Packet radio: VE3JF @ VE3JF
promac@iisat.UUCP (Promac Systems) (07/05/89)
Has anyone got an experience with using an Intel InBoard 386/pc board, and if so how do you like it. Also are there any problems using UN*X with it? later Barry Comer promac@iisat.UUCP
nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem) (07/06/89)
I was told by the Intel that the 386/PC was not designed to run Xenix (286 and 386) because it does not support the 16 bit processor data-path. You should be able to run SCO 86 with no problems.
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (07/11/89)
As quoted from <14909@ut-emx.UUCP> by nghiem@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Alex Nghiem): +--------------- | I was told by the Intel that the 386/PC was not designed to run | Xenix (286 and 386) because it does not support the 16 bit processor | data-path. You should be able to run SCO 86 with no problems. +--------------- No problems except for the inability to use a flat address space and the 086's inability to trap even a stupid illegal instruction, much less memory access violations. (The latter turns a core dump into a wedged machine.) C'mon, I can get Windows/386 for this thing. Why not some form of *ix? (DON'T try to suggest OS/2, even if it's possible to run the creature on this board.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (07/14/89)
I believe the Windows/386 that runs on the board is a special / modified version. That's why it comes bundled with it. Your off the shelf Windows/386 won't run. So perhaps you have to wait until Intel converts some popular *ix for the board... Milan mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu PS: I don't know where I came across that info, so confirm if important. Don't blame me if Intel stock drops 3/8 on Monday.