ugbell@sunybcs.uucp (William Bell) (05/26/89)
I am in the process of buying a 80286 IBM compatible system. I have been involved in MicroComputers for about 10 years but just recently took a class for the 8085 microprocessor used with an SDK-85. I just recently sold my ATARI 520ST which has the MC68000 micro- processor, 32-bit internal, 16 bit external, 8MHZ clock frequency. Prior to this I was involved with the 8 bit Atari, etc. The 8085uPC is 8 bit. What I am confused about is: 1. Am I wrong when I say that Intel designed the 8085, 8088, 80286, 80386 lines? 2. Does IBM only use Intel's uPCs? And if so, what uPC is in the IBM PCjr, IBM XT, IBM AT, and IBM PS/2? (I think this is all of them). 3. Why does every clone manufacturer coin the phrase "IBM Compatible?" Should they be saying "Intel uPC compactible?" 4. I thought IBM did there own R&D. If so what uPc did they develop? 5. Why is the ATARI 520ST with the 68000 said to be easily "portable" to IBM systems. They are running different uPc right? 6. I thought that 8088 was 8 bit, 80286 is 16 bit, 80386 is 32 bit, and there is some talk of a 80486 coming out, am I right? 7. The ultimate question: I have used the IBM AT (I have no idea of the hardware, uPc, etc) and I am told the Compac 80286 based system is totally better (in design, etc.) why does compac say they are "IBM compatible" is they are better? 8. Lastly, does IBM have a computer running the 80386/ and or 80486? And why do people say that the IBM PS/2 line is so bad?
fleming@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Dennis Paul Fleming) (05/27/89)
In article <6102@cs.Buffalo.EDU> ugbell@sunybcs.UUCP (William Bell) writes: > > I am in the process of buying a 80286 IBM compatible system. This is probably the wrong newsgroup for this but I can answer a few of the questions >1. Am I wrong when I say that Intel designed the 8085, 8088, 80286, 80386 > lines? They did. >2. Does IBM only use Intel's uPCs? And if so, what uPC is in the IBM PCjr, > IBM XT, IBM AT, and IBM PS/2? (I think this is all of them). XT = 8088 AT = 80286 PS/2 have both 80286 and 80386 models >3. Why does every clone manufacturer coin the phrase "IBM Compatible?" > Should they be saying "Intel uPC compactible?" The compatable part comes from the whole machine, not the processor. Taht includes bios (basic i/o system), bus (definitely not intel's Multibus), and should run compatable software. Just as the Macintosh and the Sun 3 series both use 68000, you will agree that they are not compatable. >4. I thought IBM did there own R&D. If so what uPc did they develop? The IBM RT PC microprocessor was developed by IBM. That machine is the purpose of this news group. >5. Why is the ATARI 520ST with the 68000 said to be easily "portable" to > IBM systems. They are running different uPc right? I'm not sure why the code from the atari should be easily portable. >6. I thought that 8088 was 8 bit, 80286 is 16 bit, 80386 is 32 bit, and > there is some talk of a 80486 coming out, am I right? 8080 is 8 bit 8086 is 16 bit 8088 is 16 bit with an 8 bit data bus 80286 incorporates alot of on board memory management. 80386 is 32 bit with a lot more memory management and power >7. The ultimate question: I have used the IBM AT (I have no idea of the > hardware, uPc, etc) and I am told the Compac 80286 based system > is totally better (in design, etc.) why does compac say they are > "IBM compatible" is they are better? IBM doesn't always do the best work. Compatables are often faster and have more features. As long as they can do at least all of the things that an IBM can, they are compatable. >8. Lastly, does IBM have a computer running the 80386/ and or 80486? > And why do people say that the IBM PS/2 line is so bad? Their higher PS/2 models use the 386 (Cant remember the numbers) The complaints about PS/2 are varied and sometimes personal. My problem is that the operating system is written for a 286. The 386 is so much more powerful, but it's used mostly as a fast 286. I hope this helps some. In the future you should direct your questions to ibm.pc Dennis Fleming
drake@ibmarc.uucp (Sam Drake/99999999) (06/01/89)
This doesn't really have much to do with the RT, but here goes anyway.... In article <6102@cs.Buffalo.EDU> ugbell@sunybcs.UUCP (William Bell) writes: >1. Am I wrong when I say that Intel designed the 8085, 8088, 80286, 80386 > lines? Intel did design those chips. >2. Does IBM only use Intel's uPCs? And if so, what uPC is in the IBM PCjr, > IBM XT, IBM AT, and IBM PS/2? (I think this is all of them). IBM has lots of different computers...mainframes are proprietary, minis are proprietary, the RT is proprietary. The PC line and the PS/2 line use Intel architecture chips. >3. Why does every clone manufacturer coin the phrase "IBM Compatible?" > Should they be saying "Intel uPC compactible?" There's more to being "IBM Compatible" than using an Intel microprocessor. Just the microprocessor itself says very little about how to program a system. What I/O ports are assigned to the disk drive, and how do you use them? How do you do I/O to the screen? What is the memory map of the operating system? These questions are all completely separate from the microprocessor instruction set, but are intimately tied to being compatible with a particular computer system. So a system which uses an Intel micro but which has a completely different method of programming the keyboard, for example, might not qualify as IBM Compatible. >4. I thought IBM did there own R&D. If so what uPc did they develop? As mentioned above, IBM has designed lots of computer architectures and lots of chips. They are all used internally in IBM products, to my knowledge IBM doesn't sell chips to other companies. IBM is probably the largest designer and manufacturer of chips in the world. >5. Why is the ATARI 520ST with the 68000 said to be easily "portable" to > IBM systems. They are running different uPc right? I don't know. >6. I thought that 8088 was 8 bit, 80286 is 16 bit, 80386 is 32 bit, and > there is some talk of a 80486 coming out, am I right? That's right. The 80486, from a programming point of view, is about the same as the 80386...it's not 64-bit, if that was the implied question. >7. The ultimate question: I have used the IBM AT (I have no idea of the > hardware, uPc, etc) and I am told the Compac 80286 based system > is totally better (in design, etc.) why does compac say they are > "IBM compatible" is they are better? A good question, I can't comment. The IBM PC/AT uses the 80286. >8. Lastly, does IBM have a computer running the 80386/ and or 80486? > And why do people say that the IBM PS/2 line is so bad? The PS/2 Models 70 and 80 use the 80386, as does the new portable announced a few weeks ago (sorry, I don't remember the number). To my knowledge there are no 80486 machines on the market by any vendor. I cannot explain the opinions of others, I'm afraid. I am not an official spokesman, and am often confused, so nothing I say is anyone's opinion. Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center