roth@pdntg1.paradyne.com (Mike Rothman) (03/30/91)
Did RS ever come out with any 486 machines? If so, what prices, etc Isn't it sad that RS (at least from previous experience) likes to incompatibalize (nice word) its systems with others. Case in point, PC-based Hard-drives! Oh well, just sounding off....
haroldt@paralandra.yorku.ca (Harold Tomlinson) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.162359.2428@pdn.paradyne.com> roth@pdntg1.paradyne.com (Mike Rothman) writes:
(FLAME ON)
< Did RS ever come out with any 486 machines? If so, what prices, etc
< Isn't it sad that RS (at least from previous experience) likes to incompatibalize (nice word) its systems with others. Case in point, PC-based Hard-drives!
< Oh well, just sounding off....
Why is it that 90% of the people who 'sound off' don't know what they are
talking about. Take a look at over 75% of the software out there. Most
commercial products have labels that say "IBM, Tandy, and 100% compatibles".
Take note also that IBM has produced non-"ibm compatible" computers. Take
the IBM PC-Junior for example, most PC software will NOT run on the PC-jr.
Now IBM has come out with the PS/2 line (and the PS/1, what a joke),
which are backed by the glamour of the OS/2 capabilities of the model 50
and up machines. Anything below the Model 30Z (ie, 30, 25, 20, and PS/1)
won't run OS/2 and are therefor NOT compatible any more than my Tandy 1000.
On the other hand there is the Tandy 5000MC, (The MC "does not stand for
Micro-Channel" according to Radio Shack.) the only non-IBM Micro-Channel
computer currently on the market. It is not only software and hardware
compatible to the PS/2-80, it out-runs it and looks just like it inside ;)
right down to the cpu being on a separate board of the same size in the
same place.
(Flame off)
Okay, I feel better now. I worked for RS and get really sick of people
knocking stuff they don't even know. For example, the best batteries on
the market are Eveready Energizers, which are Radio Shack batteries under
a different label. The headphones are by Koss, one of the best. The
speakers have always been built by the top manufacturers. As to the computers
and cellular phones, the initial units were aimed at the military (now you
know why your Tandy 1000 is built like a tank).
The reason Tandy got a bad name in computers is because they built
expensive but powerful machines. Lets face it, Tandy had the Model 16
long before I'd heard of the 80286. 16bit processing was not done by Joe-
User at that time. Also, TRS-Dos was written by MicroSoft before they
wrote MS-Dos, so who is compatible to who?
As to the hard drive, what do you mean? Are you complaining about the
IDE drives? If so, what do you think of SCSI? If not, then I am confused.
Do you realize that Tandy has Never built a disk drive? Floppy disk drives
are usually made by Sony. Hard drives are by Tandon, Miniscribe, or Seagate.
The drive controller is a Seagate (I forget the number). There is no
such thing as a "Tandy" hard drive. I found the Tandon's to be excellent,
the Miniscribes to be quite good, and the Seagates to be as unreliable as
the same drives in the IBMs. (I've seen them literally fall apart.)
If you want to add a hard drive I can look up the controller number for you.
I've never bought the drive from Tandy, I can get them cheaper from part shops.
Another interesting note is the number of Tandy's I've looked into
(electronically) that told me they were IBM's (Check the Roms, they should
say Tandy but some say IBM.)
Every big computer company experiments with their incompatibles. For
example, I made the mistake of buying an IBM Inkjet printer. It's not
IBM compatible. It cannot be controlled by any IBM software that expects
an IBM printer. (Perhaps it can now, this was a few years ago.) Not even
WordPerfect Supported it until release 5.1.
My favorite Tandys are the Grid1400 (yes, Grid computers is owned by Tandy),
the IBM PS/2 Model 80 (aka Tandy 5000MC), and the Casio Boss-nnnn (I forget
Casio's number, but Tandy calls it the PC6).
Personally, I'd like to see Tandy come out with a true Unix machine, like
a DecStation or -better yet- a Next.
One last piece of trivia, The 5000MC was unveiled a few hours BEFORE
IBM unveiled their equivalent. :) And for thousands less.... :) :)
Disclaimer: I've worked for IBM and for RadioShack (Intertan Canada) but I
survived. That entitles me to something, but I'm not sure what.
I don't work for the above companies, I work for the one in my
signature, but it's not their fault. :) The above was an unpaid
unpolitical (and probably unread) announcement at 04:27....
--
# Harold Tomlinson ## haroldt@paralandra.yorku.ca #
# Computing & Communications Services ## (416)736-5257-33802 #
# YORK UNIVERSITY, Ont, CANADA ## ########################### #root@beowulf.UUCP (pilot and all 'round good guy) (04/01/91)
From article <HAROLDT.91Mar30042508@paralandra.yorku.ca>, by haroldt@paralandra.yorku.ca (Harold Tomlinson): > > The reason Tandy got a bad name in computers is because they built > expensive but powerful machines. Lets face it, Tandy had the Model 16 > long before I'd heard of the 80286. 16bit processing was not done by Joe- > User at that time. Also, TRS-Dos was written by MicroSoft before they > wrote MS-Dos, so who is compatible to who? > The Model 16 Was introduced in the fall of 1982. Xenix 1.0 (Unix V7) was released in the Summer of 83. > Do you realize that Tandy has Never built a disk drive? Floppy disk drives > are usually made by Sony. Hard drives are by Tandon, Miniscribe, or Seagate. > The drive controller is a Seagate (I forget the number). There is no > such thing as a "Tandy" hard drive. I found the Tandon's to be excellent, Untrue. Tandy had, at least untill I left in 1985 their own Floppy drive manufacturing facility in Ft. Worth. It was/is known as Texas Peripherials Inc, or TPI. They produced many of the 8" floppies used in the Model II, and many of the 5 1/4" drives used in the Model 3 and 4. They were made under license from Tandon (5 1/4's) and Shugart (8"), but they were built in Ft. Worth. > > Personally, I'd like to see Tandy come out with a true Unix machine, like > a DecStation or -better yet- a Next. > They did. In 1983. It was Called the Model 16, it ran Microsoft's port of v7 Unix, and it was called Xenix. Later, it got a faster CPU (8Mhz vs 6Mhz), more memory (up to 4Mb vs max of 1Mb), and Microsoft's (actually it was SCO's first attempt....) port of the ill fated System III, precursor to SysV. That was 1985. As for my qualifications....I too used to work there. But I was in Ft. Worth in Technical Support and later @ Business Products Parts, buying disk drives, getting them fixed, and helping to support the customer as an engineer. This is certainly not meant to reflect the current views of Tandy Corp, or even their views @ the time. They probably don't corporately remember their 1985 views anyway.... Bob Bownes.
uhclem@trsvax.UUCP (04/02/91)
<> >expensive but powerful machines. Lets face it, Tandy had the Model 16 >long before I'd heard of the 80286. That is because the 68000 came out in quantity in 1979-1980, and the 286 became available in late 1983, two years after the Model 16 was designed. >Also, TRS-Dos was written by MicroSoft before they >wrote MS-Dos, so who is compatible to who? Sorry, but TRSDOS for the Model I was written by Randy Cook, Model II and Model III TRSDOS were done in-house at Tandy, and Model 4 TRSDOS was done by Logical Systems. TRSDOS-16 was done by Ryan McFarland. Only applications for TRSDOS systems, including Model I Level II BASIC, came from Microsoft. The ROM BASIC on the Model III and disk BASIC on the Model II were done by Tandy. It might interest you to know that Microsoft generated all 8080/8085/Z80 BASIC from the same source files with conditionals for features specific to one vendor or another. To that end, they tried not to use any Z80-only opcodes at all! Want to compare two 16-bit numbers? Microsoft BASIC calls a subroutine to do this, when a OR A, SBC HL,DE would do it in the same number of bytes as the CALL instruction and be many times faster. "Thank you, Uh Clem." Frank Durda IV @ <trsvax!uhclem> uhclem@trsvax.tandy.com ...decvax!microsoft!trsvax!uhclem ...hal6000!trsvax!uhclem
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (04/03/91)
In article <HAROLDT.91Mar30042508@paralandra.yorku.ca> haroldt@paralandra.yorku.ca (Harold Tomlinson) writes: >In article <1991Mar29.162359.2428@pdn.paradyne.com> roth@pdntg1.paradyne.com (Mike Rothman) writes: > Why is it that 90% of the people who 'sound off' don't know what they are >talking about. > On the other hand there is the Tandy 5000MC, (The MC "does not stand for >Micro-Channel" according to Radio Shack.) the only non-IBM Micro-Channel >computer currently on the market. Hm. I'd go along with the "90 % of the people who 'sound off' dont know what they are talking about." The 5000MC is >>**NOT**<< the ONLY non-IBM Micro-Channel machine on the market. I seem to remember at least 10 or so. One of the more interesting telling points of the MC architecture shows up in the ALR machines. Take a look at the specs for the '486 25MHz machine. The MC based machine is twice as fast in some areas as their EISA machine. They are almost identical except for the bus. Then you see that the MCA machine is doing 64 bit xfers as opposed to the 32 bit on the EISA. And I seem to remember that NCR and WYSE are also using MCA archictecture. > >(Flame off) > Okay, I feel better now. I worked for RS and get really sick of people >knocking stuff they don't even know. > The reason Tandy got a bad name in computers is because they built >expensive but powerful machines. Lets face it, Tandy had the Model 16 >long before I'd heard of the 80286. 16bit processing was not done by Joe- >User at that time. Also, TRS-Dos was written by MicroSoft before they >wrote MS-Dos, so who is compatible to who? Uh - sorry. But the Radio Shack model 16 as NOT Tandy corporations first 16 bit computer. That honor goes to what I thought was called the Tandy Model 10. But I can't find reference to that. However in the 1978 Tandy Computer catalog (page 12) I shows the computer with a Tnady Computers logo on it, and describes it as the "Naked MINI-4 System". Obviously re-labeled but it DID have Tandy's name on the front. In the description paragraph is the following information " Inside the NAKED MILLI card cages is the LSI 4/10, a complete, 16 bit printed circuit board that contains a high-speed processor iwht and 85 instruction set, 4K RAM and four Distributed I/O channels. .. THe floppy disk congtroller used in the system included automatic error detection and Direct Memory Access. .... The NAKED MINI-4 System can support a floppy disk system for 1/2 megabyte low-level storage - you get up to 10 megabytes withe hard disk access storage! Let our sales staff help you choose peripherals to fit your particular needs! ...." (In one place it is reffered to as the NAKED MILLI and another as the NAKED MINI - don't know if that was a typo or the NAKED MILLI was part of the NAKED MINI - anyone else know?) And on page 22, with a "call for price" opposite the 89-1205 catalog number is the "Tandy Floppy Disk Operating System". Part of the description id " a comprehensive collection of system routines and file management utilities for standard and mini disk systems. It was written for Z-80 systems with the non-technical hobbyist and consumer in mind. ... The advanced concept of completely dynamic disk space allocation is used within this system in order for file to be efficiently manipulated withoug regard to the actual amount of disk space used ..... TOPS system provides the sophisticated user ..... " Same page also was selling CPM Basic Disc Operating System, CPD DOS-A utilities (for use with IMSAI FDC systems) and "ICOM's New FDOS-IIR for Microcomputers" The latter has a line that says "you can virtually elminate the need for paper tape or cassete storage handling. Program storage and backup is now on low-cost, reusabe, compact and reliable diskettes". This catalog was published just a few months after the introduction of the Model I. And the picture of the Model I in this catalog shows a floppy disk drive that was NOT the ones shipped in production. When I went to get this, I found the "12 page" manual for TRSDOS 2.0 with a June 7, 1978 date on the cover. My disks had hand written labels. The first printed TRSDOS lables were shipped with TRSDOS 2.1 if memory serves. Tandy Computers was selling about 15 different brands and parts to build your own. They closed it out later that year when the Model I became a great success and the Model II was introduced about that time. >Do you realize that Tandy has Never built a disk drive? What about the Tandon / Tandy joint venture called Texas Peripherals. Made a lot of 5" disk drives that were a slightly modified Tandon drives. Does this put me in the remaing 10% ? :-) bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr2.171206.12184@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >> Why is it that 90% of the people who 'sound off' don't know what they are >>talking about. > >> The reason Tandy got a bad name in computers is because they built >>expensive but powerful machines. Lets face it, Tandy had the Model 16 >>long before I'd heard of the 80286. > >When I went to get this, I found the "12 page" manual for TRSDOS 2.0 with a >June 7, 1978 date on the cover. My disks had hand written labels. The >first printed TRSDOS lables were shipped with TRSDOS 2.1 if memory serves. People seem to forget things awfully fast as the former owner of a Model I TRS-80, and Model II TRS-80, Tandy 102, an LNW-80 mkII, an RCA VIP and currently holding on the a Rockwell AIM-65. I think I've seen alot of "obsolete" systems.... 1978 Was the infancy of small computers and Tandy was at the lead (remeber Apple didn't offer floating point until late 1979). A Model I is a slug compared to a SPARC, but they were useful machines for their day (and we should remember them as such). The days of handwritten disk labels has come and gone..... Tim Takahashi P.S. Remeber Tandy gave us mass market UNIX.
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (04/05/91)
In article <13158@ur-cc.UUCP> ttak@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tim Takahashi) writes: >In article <1991Apr2.171206.12184@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >>When I went to get this, I found the "12 page" manual for TRSDOS 2.0 with a >>June 7, 1978 date on the cover. My disks had hand written labels. The >>first printed TRSDOS lables were shipped with TRSDOS 2.1 if memory serves. >People seem to forget things awfully fast as the former owner of a Model I >TRS-80, and Model II TRS-80, Tandy 102, an LNW-80 mkII, an RCA VIP and >currently holding on the a Rockwell AIM-65. I think I've seen alot of >"obsolete" systems.... 1978 Was the infancy of small computers and Tandy >was at the lead (remeber Apple didn't offer floating point until late 1979). >A Model I is a slug compared to a SPARC, but they were useful machines for >their day (and we should remember them as such). >The days of handwritten disk labels has come and gone..... Tim - you left out one of the names of that era - LOBO. They had an expansion interface for the Model I, that would support FOURTEEN 8" HARD drives. About the time they got it finished RS dropped the Model I, so they incorporated that desing into a Model I hardware semi-compatible. Probably one of the best Z80 based machines around. I got the 4th Model I delivered locally, and my Lobo was one of the first 10 or so machines built. Mine came out of the second weeks production. Week one produced two machines. The unit could support four 5" drives and four 8" drives simultaneously. Shipped with CPM 2.2 and LDOS 5.1 for a total of $929. Still have two of those (along with two model I's, a model 16 with a serial number in the 700 range, and a pair of 6000 HDs - one with an internal 70 meg). Those were FUN! days. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr2.171206.12184@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: > In article <HAROLDT.91Mar30042508@paralandra.yorku.ca> haroldt@paralandra.yorku.ca (Harold Tomlinson) writes: > >In article <1991Mar29.162359.2428@pdn.paradyne.com> roth@pdntg1.paradyne.com (Mike Rothman) writes: > > > On the other hand there is the Tandy 5000MC, (The MC "does not stand for > >Micro-Channel" according to Radio Shack.) the only non-IBM Micro-Channel > >computer currently on the market. > > The 5000MC is >>**NOT**<< the ONLY non-IBM Micro-Channel machine on the > market. I seem to remember at least 10 or so. One of the more > interesting telling points of the MC architecture shows up in the ALR > machines. Take a look at the specs for the '486 25MHz machine. The MC > based machine is twice as fast in some areas as their EISA machine. They > are almost identical except for the bus. Then you see that the MCA > machine is doing 64 bit xfers as opposed to the 32 bit on the EISA. > > And I seem to remember that NCR and WYSE are also using MCA archictecture. > Careful.... there are several Microchannel bus'es out there... Tandy had licensed the real thing, from what I remember... the clone manufacturers made something SIMILAR and almost compatable, but not the exact same thing... to my knowledge, the microchannel that Tandy and IBM use is DIFFERENT from the clone microchannel... I met a computer consultant who explained to me the difference, but that was awhile back, now. He may have been wrong, but I am pretty positive that what he tells me is correct... Dave Halko -- ___ ____ _____ |T ____ |+++|_____________________ |++++| |+++++| |H I |++++| |+++/ /( )\ \ |++++| |+++++| __ |I L N |++++| |++/ |-oo- | \______ |++++| |+++++| |++| |S E T -----(__)--| \__\/ _(__)_ \ ----------------------- | F E o ( oo |______________________| (oo) \ | __ |S T N | _/\_| | M O O - M O O Vice |__\/\ /| | /oo| - Bleaurgh! |P T |-| \\____ ------ )_ /| /\ |A B I -|_ \_|-_|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 _| * \/ * |C L O \ | |_________________________________/ |E A N | W| \ \_/ /----------------- \ \_/ / David J. Halko | N L / /\ \ \___/ \___/ Moravian College |W K Y / / \ \ School of the killer cowps Bethlehem, PA |A ~~~ ~~~ halkoD@moravian.edu |S
shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (04/14/91)
halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: >Careful.... there are several Microchannel bus'es out there... Tandy had >licensed the real thing, from what I remember... the clone manufacturers >made something SIMILAR and almost compatable, but not the exact same >thing... NCR representatives made a presentation before the Washington Area UNIX Users Group (WAUUG) last August where they pre-announced their 3000 Series. They reported that their Micro-Channel was licensed from IBM as part of a technology exchange. As part of that agreement, IBM licensed NCR's advanced SCSI technology. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (04/14/91)
In article <3763@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: >In article <1991Apr2.171206.12184@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >> In article <HAROLDT.91Mar30042508@paralandra.yorku.ca> haroldt@paralandra.yorku.ca (Harold Tomlinson) writes: >> >In article <1991Mar29.162359.2428@pdn.paradyne.com> roth@pdntg1.paradyne.com (Mike Rothman) writes: >> > On the other hand there is the Tandy 5000MC, (The MC "does not stand for >> >Micro-Channel" according to Radio Shack.) the only non-IBM Micro-Channel >> >computer currently on the market. >> The 5000MC is >>**NOT**<< the ONLY non-IBM Micro-Channel machine on the >> market. I seem to remember at least 10 or so. ... >Careful.... there are several Microchannel bus'es out there... Tandy had >licensed the real thing, from what I remember... the clone manufacturers >made something SIMILAR and almost compatable, but not the exact same >thing... to my knowledge, the microchannel that Tandy and IBM use is >DIFFERENT from the clone microchannel... I met a computer consultant >who explained to me the difference, but that was awhile back, now. He may >have been wrong, but I am pretty positive that what he tells me is correct... Well, I believe that either he may have been wrong, or you misunderstood what he was saying. And I won't accept the proof of "a computer consultant who explained to me the difference". My city and county occupational licenses classify me that way to. But we all know what a "consultant" is. We're people who can't seem to find a real job. :-) A Microchannel is a hardware bus specification. It is a licensed spec from IBM. There are no MCA clone mfrs. If it's MCA it's licensed and meets the specs. It is designed so that even with newer additions to the specs the older boards designed for older machines will still run the way they were designed in the newer machines. It's probably one of the more mis-understood busses in the industry. I don't know how many times I have heard something like "IBM designed because the got tired of being ripped of by ISA clone mfrs" If you want to find out what the MCA bus is all about in a fairly easy to understand way, pick up the book "The Microchannel Architecture Handbook" published by Brady. About 300 pages and $30.00. The other thing to remember about MCA vs ISA machines, is that MCA is a hardware bus standard and CPU independant, while the ISA is a bus designed around a bus that is expecting an iNTEL type of chip. The IBM 6000's are a RISC type machine, but they are still MCA bus based, and boy are they FAASSTTT! There have been additions to the MCA specs since the initial release of the IBM 80 and the Tandy 5000, most noticeably the burst mode and the streaming mode. Since these are basically block move type modes you don't have to give an address with each byte. Makes them faster. And in the streaming mode, since you don't have to pass the addresses all the time, you can use the 32 bit address lines in addition to the data lines (in a multiplexed mode) to give you an effective 64 bit wide data path. bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr14.164352.28893@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: > In article <3763@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: > > If you want to find out what the MCA bus is all about in a fairly easy to > understand way, pick up the book "The Microchannel Architecture Handbook" > published by Brady. About 300 pages and $30.00. > > The other thing to remember about MCA vs ISA machines, is that MCA is a > hardware bus standard and CPU independant, while the ISA is a bus designed > around a bus that is expecting an iNTEL type of chip. The IBM 6000's are > a RISC type machine, but they are still MCA bus based, and boy are they > FAASSTTT! > If you read the literature on the IBM 6000 series (I had read initial literature which was released about a year ago... not sure about their newer workstations, if they have any out now), you would see that the MCA bus which are in those workstations do not use the same MCA bus, but rather, a derivative of the same bus- although they still call it the MCA, there are differences. > There have been additions to the MCA specs since the initial release of > the IBM 80 and the Tandy 5000, most noticeably the burst mode > and the streaming mode. Since these are basically block move type modes > you don't have to give an address with each byte. Makes them faster. > And in the streaming mode, since you don't have to pass the addresses all > the time, you can use the 32 bit address lines in addition to the data > lines (in a multiplexed mode) to give you an effective 64 bit wide data > path. Now, is this the PC based MCA bus or the 6000 based MCA bus??? Most likely this is the 6000 MCA bus, since I doubt IBM had changed their PC line of bus's after releasing the original MCA since they are trying to gain widespread acceptance of their new "standard"... - Dave -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Long Live OS9! David J. Halko Did you use OS9 Today??? halkoD@moravian.edu Have you purchased a multi- 144 Seventh Street If you haven't used OS9, media machine from IMS yet? Port Reading, NJ 07064 You're missin out on life ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (04/21/91)
In article <3986@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: >In article <1991Apr14.164352.28893@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >> In article <3763@batman.moravian.EDU> halkoD@batman.moravian.EDU (David Halko) writes: >> If you want to find out what the MCA bus is all about in a fairly easy to >> understand way, pick up the book "The Microchannel Architecture Handbook" >> published by Brady. About 300 pages and $30.00. >If you read the literature on the IBM 6000 series (I had read initial >literature which was released about a year ago... not sure about their >newer workstations, if they have any out now), you would see that the >MCA bus which are in those workstations do not use the same MCA bus, but >rather, a derivative of the same bus- although they still call it the >MCA, there are differences. .... >Now, is this the PC based MCA bus or the 6000 based MCA bus??? Most likely >this is the 6000 MCA bus, since I doubt IBM had changed their PC line of >bus's after releasing the original MCA since they are trying to gain >widespread acceptance of their new "standard"... Suggest you read the book on the MCA architecture. It is a bus spec and is processor independant. The full MCA spec has yet to be implemented in any machine (that I am aware of). The 6000's use a derivative of the bus specs, as do all the other machines. Even the model 95's have a more extensive implementation of the bus than the orginal 70's and 80's, and the Tandy 5000. (refering to you comment on doubting that IBM has changed the busses). The whole design of the bus is structured around this concept. The system will "match" the cards. A card engineered for the original implementation on the 80's (for example) will work in a higher class of machine. All the features of the upper machine will not be implemented but the original will still work. Same goes for speeds. They will match each other. We don't/won't have the problem of bus speed matching that is inherent in the ISA architecture. Conversely, a board designed to the specs, and implementing features not in the orignal machines will still run in the original but without any of it's added features. Yes the bus implementations are different among the 80's the 95's and 6000's but they adhere to the specs. If any of the boards require drivers you may be hindered by not having drivers for the available OS. The '386 implementation support DOS, OS/2, Xenix, Unix, and AIX, and possibly some more that I have overlooked. If you have, for example, a multiport board from a secondary source you will have to have software drivers to handle the boards, but the hardware should just drop right in. Further discussions should probably take place under comp.arch. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
jal@acc.flint.umich.edu (John Lauro) (04/21/91)
In article <1991Apr14.164352.28893@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes: >The other thing to remember about MCA vs ISA machines, is that MCA is a >hardware bus standard and CPU independant, while the ISA is a bus designed >around a bus that is expecting an iNTEL type of chip. Many Apollo machines have ISA slots. (Both 68030 machines, and RISC based CPUs. Naturally it isn't the only type of bus in the machines, but shows ISA does'nt require an iNTEL type of chip.)
nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse) (04/22/91)
In article <1991Apr21.030656.1881@engin.umich.edu>, jal@acc.flint.umich.edu (John Lauro) writes: > Many Apollo machines have ISA slots. (Both 68030 machines, and > RISC based CPUs. Naturally it isn't the only type of bus in the > machines, but shows ISA does'nt require an iNTEL type of chip.) If memory serves, the Apollos had a 286 I/O processor, and that's why they had an ISA bus, the Motorolla chip had it's own bus and didn't talk directly to the periphery on the ISA bus.