schultzd@kira.uucp (David Schultz) (07/31/90)
Now that the Atari <--> Amiga bashing has changed to IBM <--> Atari bashing, does anyone know of an Intel 80x86 based system that is NOT in an IBM or ibm clone? (Of course, Compaq was using an 8088 in the early days, not an 8086). -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ARMAGGEDON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ schultzd@egr.msu.edu | Dave Schultz, Michigan State University schultzd@cpsin.cps.msu.edu | Dept. of Computer Science ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Relax! It's only the end of the world." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
romero@arisia.Xerox.COM (Antonio Romero) (07/31/90)
In article <1990Jul30.230210.11548@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> schultzd@kira.uucp (David Schultz) writes: >Now that the Atari <--> Amiga bashing has changed to IBM <--> Atari >bashing, does anyone know of an Intel 80x86 based system that is NOT >in an IBM or ibm clone? (Of course, Compaq was using an 8088 in the >early days, not an 8086). Offhand, the (soon, if not already, discontinued) Sun 386i comes to mind. SunOS ran on it, and DOS in a window (or as many windows as you wanted), if I remember rightly. Early on in the Clone Wars, there were a lot of machines which ran MS-DOS, but which weren't exact IBM clones (most of them were in fact better in one way or another-- more memory, lower price, better graphics...). I doubt that's what you're looking for, though. -Antonio Romero romero@arisia.xerox.com
davel@vision.UUCP (Dave Lockwood) (08/01/90)
In article <1990Jul30.230210.11548@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> schultzd@kira.uucp (David Schultz) writes: >Now that the Atari <--> Amiga bashing has changed to IBM <--> Atari >bashing, does anyone know of an Intel 80x86 based system that is NOT >in an IBM or ibm clone? (Of course, Compaq was using an 8088 in the >early days, not an 8086). My previous employers - Systime Computers - had a range of machines: the 300, the 500 and the 2000 which where all based on the 8086. They were all multi- user machines running Systime's own operating system MPS. I still have a 300 in my garage - 1Mb of memory, 10Mb of disk and four serial ports. About a couple of hundred of this range out there still in service. Without exception, these systems were completely non-PC architecture and bore no more than the relationship created from the fact that the CPU was an 8086. -- -------------------- I'm totally incommunicado, except for --------------------- Dave Lockwood ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!vision!davel davel@vision.uucp Technical Consultant ...!uunet!bulus3!bungia!vware!davel davel@vware.MN.ORG VisionWare Ltd, G4CLI@GB7YHF.194.GBR.EU dave@g4cli.ampr.org 57 Cardigan Lane, D.LOCKWOOD@ICLX davel@vision.co.uk Leeds, LS4 2LE, +44-532-788858 +44-831-494088 United Kingdom +44-532-304676 "Hey, You!" ----------------------- VISIONWARE DOS/UNIX INTEGRATION ------------------------
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) (08/01/90)
From article <11271@arisia.Xerox.COM>, by romero@arisia.Xerox.COM (Antonio Romero): > In article <1990Jul30.230210.11548@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> schultzd@kira.uucp (David Schultz) writes: >>Now that the Atari <--> Amiga bashing has changed to IBM <--> Atari >>bashing, does anyone know of an Intel 80x86 based system that is NOT >>in an IBM or ibm clone? (Of course, Compaq was using an 8088 in the >>early days, not an 8086). > I'm writing this followup on a Sequent Symmetry that's using, I think, six 80386's. It distributes its *nix processes across these processors and you can even compile programs to incorporate some degree of parallelism. This is just for information. I'm not saying the same thing couldn't be done, or couldn't be done better, on other processors. Graham -- Graham Thomas, SPRU, Mantell Building, U of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RF, UK JANET: grahamt@uk.ac.sussex.syma BITNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@UKACRL INTERNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: grahamt%syma.sussex@ukc.uucp PHONE: +44 273 686758 FAX: [..] 685865