stailey@iris613.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ken Stailey) (04/22/89)
How much faster is PC Ditto II than version I.
Does anyone know the SI rating?
Is it still like liquid lead?
*========================================================================*
{ what opinions?!? what disclaimer !?!?! ken@all.over.the.place }
*========================================================================*zl04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Zachary Shanes Levow) (04/23/89)
I believe that it is to be switchable between 4.77, and 8 Mhz - Zach
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (04/28/89)
Ken Stailey asks about the speed of pc-ditto II... From the Press Release material about the new emulator, pc-ditto II has a Norton SI rating of 3.0 .. that is, three times FASTER than an IBM XT. From comments made by Avant-Garde, it still emulates the XT, and not the AT, for compatibility reasons... I'm in line for one..! BobR
fjmora@CS.WM.EDU (Fredric Mora) (05/02/89)
In message dated 22 Apr 89 16:46:55 GMT, Ken Stailey writes: > How much faster is PC Ditto II than version I. Does anyone know the SI rating? The CPU-equivalent speed is said by Avant-Garde (THIS IS THE RIGHT SPELLING!!) to be around 5 MHz compared to a 8086. This gives an SI rating of more than 1.0. No info about disk speed, although it is supposedly much faster than version 1. Regards, Frederic Mora GEnie: The College of William and Mary F.MORA Dept. of Computer Science INTERNET: Williamsburg, VA. 23185 fjmora@cs.wm.edu USA ************************************************************************** * * * "Was uns nicht toetet, macht uns staerker." * * Friedrich Nietzsche * * What does not kill us makes us stronger * * * ************************************************************************** - Come, come, little line eater, I won't harm you (evil grin)... - Come, come, little line eater, I won't harm you (evil grin)... - Come, come, little line eater, I won't harm you (evil grin)...
cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) (05/03/89)
In article <8905021217.AA08520@nh.cs.wm.edu> fjmora@CS.WM.EDU (Fredric Mora) writes: >In message dated 22 Apr 89 16:46:55 GMT, Ken Stailey writes: >> How much faster is PC Ditto II than version I. Does anyone know the SI rating? >The CPU-equivalent speed is said by Avant-Garde (THIS IS >THE RIGHT SPELLING!!) to be around 5 MHz compared to a 8086. >This gives an SI rating of more than 1.0. No info about disk speed, >although it is supposedly much faster than version 1. This is not what I heard. At the Anaheim Atari fair, Avant-Garde was displaying PC Ditto II, the hardware supported (NO processor, by the way, just hardware) IBM emulator. It has a Norton rating of 3.0, and an equivalent speed of 10Mhz. According to the person at the fair, PC Ditto II is in the "AT" class. And they "should" be shipping within the next two months. Drive speed? I don't know. It should be the same--there is no difference between the ST and MSDOS disk format (or won't be any difference after everyone has TOS 1.4). ALSO: It can boot from the hard disk--in fact, BOTH the ST AND PC Ditto can boot from the hard disk--you get a choice. And PC Ditto can use the hard disk without reformatting, as it's already MSDOS compatible. This is all I know or remember about it. ----------- Tim Mensch Internet: tmensch@ucsd.edu
cs163aeo@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Professor I.R. Gumby) (05/05/89)
In article <98@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU>, cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) writes: > In article <8905021217.AA08520@nh.cs.wm.edu> fjmora@CS.WM.EDU (Fredric Mora) writes: > >In message dated 22 Apr 89 16:46:55 GMT, Ken Stailey writes: > >> How much faster is PC Ditto II than version I. Does anyone know the SI rating? > >The CPU-equivalent speed is said by Avant-Garde (THIS IS > >THE RIGHT SPELLING!!) to be around 5 MHz compared to a 8086. > >This gives an SI rating of more than 1.0. No info about disk speed, > >although it is supposedly much faster than version 1. > > This is not what I heard. > > At the Anaheim Atari fair, Avant-Garde was displaying PC Ditto II, > the hardware supported (NO processor, by the way, just hardware) IBM > emulator. > > It has a Norton rating of 3.0, and an equivalent speed of 10Mhz. > > According to the person at the fair, PC Ditto II is in the "AT" > class. Define AT class machine. Will PC Ditto II be able to execute 286 instructions? Can I put it in protect mode? Can I run *gasp* OS/2 with it? How BIOS compatable is it? An AT class machine is something that not only is up to par with the AT on speed, but also has the AT compatability. The NEC V20/30 processors can execute 286 instructions, but they don't support 286 protect mode. Does that make a box with a V30 (which is significantly faster than a stock 8086, average SI is about 2.7) an AT class machine? Not by a long shot. One of the things that I find about these emulators is the misinterpretation of what they can do. My assumptions of an AT class machine are the following: 1. 80286 compatable CPU (right down to protect mode which directly implies extended memory support). 2. AT BIOS support (obviously, an XT 286 isn't an AT class machine), can I do the little trick of doing an extended memory block move with INT 15h, function 87h? If not it's not an AT class machine, a lot of software that fakes expanded memory uses that crucial interrupt. A caveat about emulators that everybody should be warned about is this, they are only emulators, the emulator can blow up at ANY time. And I'd be a bit weary about a machine with two different memory addressing architectures. Don't buy an Atari ST because it can run IBM PC software, buy it because of what the machine can do on its own without any help whatsoever from an emulator. That's why when I bought my first IBM clone a year ago over an Atari ST. The programming languages and utilities for an IBM are easier and less expensive than that for the ST, so rather than take a compatability risk with an ST and PC Ditto, I chose an IBM XT clone and later upgraded it to an AT clone. Now that Atari has the software I want (and now at the price I want with Borland entering the ST market) and eventually the networking hardware (if it's not out already, I am looking into buying one. JCA
cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) (05/05/89)
In article <102@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU> cs163aeo@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Professor I.R. Gumby) writes: >In article <98@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU>, cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) writes: >> >> According to the person at the fair, PC Ditto II is in the "AT" >> class. > >Define AT class machine. Will PC Ditto II be able to execute 286 >instructions? Can I put it in protect mode? Can I run *gasp* OS/2 >with it? How BIOS compatable is it? An AT class machine is >something that not only is up to par with the AT on speed, but also >has the AT compatability. The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 processor. It was only later that they upgraded to 8Mhz and still later the 286 processor. The PC Ditto II emulator is an 8086 emulator, not a 80286 emulator. If it were, it would be no problem to include things such as protect mode, etc. Most IBM software runs on all model IBMs. Software that takes advantage of the 286 (OS/2 etc) is USUALLY expensive (maybe not universally--that's NOT my point!), and most products are available in IBM PC XT/AT (non-286!) versions, even if they do support the extensions. If you want HEAVY business use out of a computer, a '286 clone would be a better investment-- the 12Mhz clone clocks in at a relative 16Mhz from the PC XT, whereas PC Ditto II clocks in at 10Mhz. HOWEVER, most people buying PC Ditto II (I would assume) want an ST but need to use IBM software. BESIDES: I didn't say this--the Avant-Garde representitive did. And I agree with his appraisal. >A caveat about emulators that everybody should be warned about is >this, they are only emulators, the emulator can blow up at ANY time. >And I'd be a bit weary about a machine with two different memory >addressing architectures. My experience with PC Ditto I is that it's about as solid as an IBM Clone, and more compatible than some. However, I haven't had extensive experience with it. What was that reference about Borland entering the ST market? Is this true? (About two years ago I knew someone who's friend was "beta testing" Turbo Pascal on the ST, but I haven't heard anything about it since then.) ------------ Tim Mensch Internet: tmensch@ucsd.edu
c08_d102@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Jared Brennan) (05/06/89)
In article <102@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU> cs163aeo@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Professor I.R. Gumby) writes: >In article <98@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU>, > cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) writes: >> At the Anaheim Atari fair, Avant-Garde was displaying PC Ditto II, >> the hardware supported (NO processor, by the way, just hardware) IBM >> emulator. >> According to the person at the fair, PC Ditto II is in the "AT" >> class. >Define AT class machine. Will PC Ditto II be able to execute 286 >instructions? Can I put it in protect mode? Can I run *gasp* OS/2 >with it? How BIOS compatable is it? An AT class machine is >something that not only is up to par with the AT on speed, but also >has the AT compatability. > [ much about AT-compatibility deleted ] > JCA Arrghrhrh. Not to flame too much (8-)), but from reading reports in Current Notes magazine, Avant-Garde is claiming XT-emulation at AT speed. With no co-processor. The SI rating of 3.0 and speed of 10MHz are as claimed in Current Notes. The upshot of this is that a) it won't run 286 instructions, b) it won't go into protect mode, c) it won't run OS/2, and d) it's XT BIOS compatable, but not AT BIOS compatable. Personally, I wouldn't worry about AT compatability and OS/2 compatability quite yet. I imagine that, by the time OS/2 has come of age (if ever), there will be PC-Ditto III, with 386 compatability 8-). -- Jared J. Brennan <ins_bjjb@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> or <c08_d102@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> BITNET: INS_BJJB@JHUNIX,JHUVMS ARPA: ins_bjjb%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_bjjb "What's up, Spock?" -- Jared J. Brennan <ins_bjjb@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> or <c08_d102@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> BITNET: INS_BJJB@JHUNIX,JHUVMS ARPA: ins_bjjb%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_bjjb "What's up, Spock?"
usenet@TSfR.UUCP (usenet) (05/06/89)
In article <103@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU> cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Some call me...Tim) writes: >The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 >processor. It was only later that they upgraded to 8Mhz and still >later the 286 processor. Wrong. The IBM PC AT started out at a 6mhz 80286 - IBM only upped the clock to 8mhz when everybody else on the planet was running 8mhz/10mhz/12mhz on their '286 boxes. -david parsons -orc@pell.uucp
dsmythe@cup.portal.com (dave l smythe) (05/06/89)
Tim Mensch writes: >The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 >processor. It was only later that they upgraded to 8Mhz and still >later the 286 processor. > This is not true. I bought my first True-Blue AT in April of '85 and it was a 6Mhz '286. As for an 8086 in an AT: never had it, never will. I bought another (for a client) in May of '86 and they were up to 8Mhz by then. But the AT's weren't available much before we got one and the selling point at introduction was the '286. Dave Smythe dsmythe@cup.portal.com
cs163aeo@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Professor I.R. Gumby) (05/07/89)
In article <103@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU>, cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) writes: > The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 > processor. It was only later that they upgraded to 8Mhz and still > later the 286 processor. I hate to break this to you, but Intel only manufactures 8086/8088 chips in the following clock speeds; 4.77, 8, and 10. There was never a 6 MHz 8086 or 8088. The Intel 80286 chips are available in these clock speeds; 6, 8, 10, and 12 (from a company that does subcontracting work for Intel, but these are not really Intel chips). Harris makes 16 and 20 MHz 286's. > The PC Ditto II emulator is an 8086 emulator, not a 80286 emulator. > If it were, it would be no problem to include things such as protect > mode, etc. > > Most IBM software runs on all model IBMs. Software that takes > advantage of the 286 (OS/2 etc) is USUALLY expensive (maybe not > universally--that's NOT my point!), and most products are available > in IBM PC XT/AT (non-286!) versions, even if they do support the > extensions. I also hate to burst your bubble, but the very first IBM AT (true blue) was a 6 MHz 286 box that ran for about $20,000 each. When you boot up a 286 box, it is not in protect mode. In fact, all operating systems that use 286 protect mode have to put the instructions and/or BIOS call that puts the processor into protect mode have to do it in the boot program. I know this for a fact because I have worked with original true blue IBM AT's. What makes an AT box is the processor, BIOS, and assorted support chips (bus controllers, slots, DMA controllers, etc.) these differences can be seen and examined closely when you put an XT-286 and an AT back to back and look at them; if you don't believe me (and the other person who responded before me to what is an AT?) then I invite you to take it to comp.sys.ibm.pc. I don't mean this in an insulting for flaming sort of tone. I just want the record straight to what PC Ditto II can't do. With emulators I'm more concerned with what it can't do rather than can do. The more accurate statement for PC Ditto II's performance would be an XT class machine with AT class speed most likely, but the average SI of a typical AT box (which is running at 10 MHz) is about 10, but the SI on an XT box with a 10 MHz 8088 is about 2.1. So remember, 1 MHz on an XT class machine is NOT identical to 1 MHz on an AT class machine. It's just like comparing apples to oranges or more appropriately kilometers to miles. Most IBM benchmarking programs have the bench set relative to two machines, the original IBM XT and the original IBM AT. > BESIDES: I didn't say this--the Avant-Garde representitive did. > And I agree with his appraisal. You may agree and that is your right to do so, but please be sure that you are 100% sure that it's an AT class machine. My peeve is people being misinformed. I admit that I do it too sometimes, but please be careful about it. If this PC Ditto II was really an AT class emulation box, I would jump for joy and use it for cross compilation of my 286 protect mode Minix. I could use my real AT for testing, and the ST with PC Ditto II to build the kernel, but I know that it isn't going to work that way because I know from my experience with IBM XT and AT hardware plus the fact I have read up on PC Ditto II that it will not be an AT emulation box. > What was that reference about Borland entering the ST market? Is > this true? (About two years ago I knew someone who's friend was > "beta testing" Turbo Pascal on the ST, but I haven't heard anything > about it since then.) Turbo C ST is already being marketed in Europe (along with Turbo Pascal I believe). I saw an article on comp.os.minix requesting for information on building the ST Minix from TOS with Turbo C ST (just like we have been doing since Turbo C 1.0). If I can get in touch with some relatives of mine in Europe, I will see what I can do on having it mailed to me. I don't know how far Borland has gone with marketing it, but I do know it exists, but only currently in Europe. Borland could be afraid of the fact that the Atari 8-bit machines were plagued with piracy and are worried about that mentality transforming to the ST. I quite frankly don't blame them. Borland produces a good compiler. I have used Turbo C 1.5 for a year now. Very nice compiler, although it somewhat lags in optimization. If you have the experience, probably GNU C would be better to obtain and make run on your ST from TOS. But if you want the support of a major software company, then going with a company like Borland is a good way to go about having your compiler and support for it too. JCA
danw@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM (Daniel E. Wilson) (05/08/89)
In article <537@TSfR.UUCP>, usenet@TSfR.UUCP (usenet) writes: > In article <103@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU> cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Some call me...Tim) writes: > >The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 > >processor. It was only later that they upgraded to 8Mhz and still > >later the 286 processor. > > Wrong. The IBM PC AT started out at a 6mhz 80286 - IBM only upped the > clock to 8mhz when everybody else on the planet was running 8mhz/10mhz/12mhz > on their '286 boxes. This may be a shock to you but the PC AT was around long before the 80286 was created. The AT started out with the 8086 and then went to the 80186 for a greater clock speed. Only in recent years has the 80286 been used in the clones. Dan Wilson
cs163aeo@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Professor I.R. Gumby) (05/08/89)
In article <3944@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM>, danw@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM (Daniel E. Wilson) writes: > In article <537@TSfR.UUCP>, usenet@TSfR.UUCP (usenet) writes: > > In article <103@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU> cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Some call me...Tim) writes: > > >The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 > > >processor. It was only later that they upgraded to 8Mhz and still > > >later the 286 processor. > > > > Wrong. The IBM PC AT started out at a 6mhz 80286 - IBM only upped the > > clock to 8mhz when everybody else on the planet was running 8mhz/10mhz/12mhz > > on their '286 boxes. > > This may be a shock to you but the PC AT was around long before the > 80286 was created. The AT started out with the 8086 and then went to > the 80186 for a greater clock speed. Only in recent years has the 80286 > been used in the clones. > > Dan Wilson Then we're back to the same question...what the heck is an AT? Alright, what did this 8086 box have in it? The ONLY difference between an 8086 and an 8088 is the size of the data bus, the instruction sets are identical. Doesn't make one bit of sense that IBM would all of a sudden switch processors and architectures on a particular model of machine. The marketing power of the AT is the fact that did have the new (at the time) 80286 chip in it. If the AT did have the 8086, then would you mind explaining to me why there's a such a thing as an XT-286 (basically an IBM XT box with an 80286 chip)? If memory serves me correctly, the reason this box exists was because the 286 was available BEFORE the AT was completed by big blue IBM. And I have yet to see an IBM AT board (true blue) with anything less than a 6 MHz 80286 in it, and I have no recollection of anything other than the original PC having an 8086 and I remember the days the original Apple Lisa was released with a $10,000 price tag. If it turns out that the original AT did have an 8086 in it, it was never marketed (which is a possibility, but highly improbable considering the XT-286 exists). JCA
dlm@druwy.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) (05/09/89)
in article <103@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU>, cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) says: > The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 > processor. It was only later that they upgraded to 8Mhz and still > later the 286 processor. The IBM PC AT has always had an 80286. That was the whole point of releasing the new machine, the new CPU was faster (few clock cycles per instruction and a faster clock) and addressed more memory (16 meg vs 1 meg). IBM didn't sell an 8086 machine till the PS2s (the low end units are 8086s). Dan Moore AT&T Bell Labs Denver dlm@druwy.ATT.COM
ktly@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU (05/09/89)
In article <3944@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> danw@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM (Daniel E. Wilson) writes: >In article <537@TSfR.UUCP>, usenet@TSfR.UUCP (usenet) writes: >> In article <103@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU> cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Some call me...Tim) writes: >> >The initial release of the IBM PC AT contained a 6Mhz 8086 >> Wrong. The IBM PC AT started out at a 6mhz 80286 - IBM only upped the >> clock to 8mhz when everybody else on the planet was running 8mhz/10mhz/12mhz >> on their '286 boxes. > This may be a shock to you but the PC AT was around long before the >80286 was created. The AT started out with the 8086 [...] Sorry if this is turning into a yes/no/yes/no argument, but "Usenet" is right. The IBM ATs (and almost all of their clones) have been 80286-based from day 1. The PC and PC/XT series used 8088 processors exclusively. The PS/2 models 25 and 30 (not 30/286) are the only IBM personal computers (systems? :-) that used the 8086. The 80186 was used in the Tandy 2000 and a number of PC/XT clones and semi-compatibles, but NEVER in an AT. There have been a number of less successful IBM products that have used other processors (10 pts. for the person who can name the model that used two modified 68000s). Hope this helps straighten things out a bit... -Jonathan P.S. If it doesn't run 286 code, it can't run EXCEL, I guess. Oh, well...