F0O@psuvm.psu.edu (12/02/90)
I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and
others going to stop making the 8088? The 286 is much better then the 8088
and for all the more a 286 is in price, I would have thought the 8088 would
be dead by now.
I also hope that when Intel designs the 686 chip, it will be backward
compatible to the 286, not the 8088(the 586 will be backward compatible to
the 8088). I'm not sure how easy this would be to do, since the 286
instruction set is a superset of the 8088, but I do think the 286 should be
the base for the 686 and up.
The 8088 has to be put to pasture sometime...
[Tim]ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (12/02/90)
From article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>, by F0O@psuvm.psu.edu: > > I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and > others going to stop making the 8088? The 286 is much better then the 8088 > and for all the more a 286 is in price, I would have thought the 8088 would > be dead by now. Isn't the 8088 dead already? I mean, no one with much knowledge of PC will buy an 8088 system since the motherboard of 286 is now less than $100 (8088 motherboard is about $35, what is $65 difference considering the performance). Most all addon's like display and drives are the same for both (except the hard drive controller) price-wise. Why? Do you want to pass a law that says selling a 8088 system to an unaware buyer is illegal (though practically, it should be)? I still have 3 8088 systems in my office and working well as terminals and file transfer, etc. Please don't say its dead other than it should no longer be sold over the counter...
) (12/03/90)
In article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>, F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and > others going to stop making the 8088? The 286 is much better then the 8088 > and for all the more a 286 is in price, I would have thought the 8088 would > be dead by now. > I also hope that when Intel designs the 686 chip, it will be backward > compatible to the 286, not the 8088(the 586 will be backward compatible to > the 8088). I'm not sure how easy this would be to do, since the 286 > instruction set is a superset of the 8088, but I do think the 286 should be > the base for the 686 and up. > The 8088 has to be put to pasture sometime... > > [Tim] For someone who would want to buy a real cheap computer and does not care for speed. An acquaintance bought ten 8088s for networking purposes which would be all linked to a single 80386. -- +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Santanu Sircar BITNET: ssircar@umaecs.bitnet | | University of Massachusetts/Amherst INTERNET: ssircar@ecs.umass.edu | +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (12/03/90)
ONG ENG TENG (ong@d.cs.okstate.edu) writes: >> I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and >> others going to stop making the 8088? > >Isn't the 8088 dead already? I mean, no one with much knowledge of PC will >buy an 8088 system since the motherboard of 286 is now less than $100 (8088 >motherboard is about $35, what is $65 difference considering the performance). Actually, 8088's are still running strong. Look at how many Tandy is still selling in its laptops! I agree heartily with the original poster. One reason that technology in the PC isn't marching forward as quickly as it could is that everything has to be so backward compatible. Look at the stupid 5.25 floppy drive! That should have gone out a long time ago, but software houses still keep churning out their floppies on these 5.25 floppies because that's what most people have, and the reason most people have 5.25 drives is that software usually comes on 5.25 inch disks. Catch-22. Take the case of the monitor. We now want our monitors to be both backward and forward compatible (from monochrome to 1280x1024). So the poor monitor has to have analog and digital capabilities with vertical and horizontal frequency ranges running from one end of the spectrum to the other. This is one reason they are so expensive: they have to do everything. I *love* it when a software company puts out something that *requires* a 386 and a hard drive. This tells me that it will take full advantage of the 386, be less expensive, be faster (fewer files to work with), and be more compatible. This is especially true of games that require EGA or VGA and a hard drive--they're almost always light years ahead of the other games. What cracks me up is when someone claims that people don't need or want greater computing power. I think Dvorak commented on *that* in a recent PC Magazine. S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Dec2.151600.12415@d.cs.okstate.edu> ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: >From article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu>, by F0O@psuvm.psu.edu: >> >> I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and >> others going to stop making the 8088? The 286 is much better then the 8088 : > >Isn't the 8088 dead already? I mean, no one with much knowledge of PC will >buy an 8088 system since the motherboard of 286 is now less than $100 (8088 : Aren't we missing the point here? It is not the 8088 (or 8086) processor in itself that counts, but the trivial fact that practically millions of MsDos applications are based on 8088 instructions set whatever 80x86 processor is under the hood. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (12/03/90)
In article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and >others going to stop making the 8088? When it stops being useful. Granted, if you want to run MS-DOS programs, you're better off with a 386SX or better to run the latest pile of DOSoid applications, but there's a lot more places people use computers than in a desktop box. There are still a lot of 8085s and Z80s made and used, probably more than there are 8088s, because they are entirely adequate as embedded controllers, device controllers, and the like. So long as there is equipment that can be controlled by a 5MHz 8088, Intel will make 8088s to control it. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {ima|spdcc|world}!iecc!johnl "Typically supercomputers use a single microprocessor." -Boston Globe
draper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Dec2.194533.12250@uwasa.fi> ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) writes: > >Aren't we missing the point here? It is not the 8088 (or 8086) >processor in itself that counts, but the trivial fact that >practically millions of MsDos applications are based on 8088 >instructions set whatever 80x86 processor is under the hood. > >................................................................... >Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) >School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland >Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun That's exactly correct. My opinion is that for the most part, people don't care what chip their word processor runs on. For that reason, the 8088 will be around a *long* time. I predict at least 5 more years, even though fewer new systems will be made with that chip. Old equipment doesn't wear out really fast, and it will be used. I believe DOS will survive too, although in a very different form (certainly it will get rewritten by somebody for 386 4 Gb segments) and it won't be compatible with today's DOS. But this is what will finally kill the 8088; the next DOS, UNIX, or OS/2 that unleashes the power of the 386 at $100. It doesn't even have to be that good. DOS has plenty of problems, so does UNIX. That never stopped anyone from using it. Simply cheap and functional is the ticket. OS/2 won't do it if it stays at $2000 for the developer's kit. Ditto for some PC-*nix's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Draper In times like these it is helpful to buster.cps.msu.edu remember that there have always been times like these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) (12/03/90)
/ smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) / writes: > > ... stuff deleted .... > > I *love* it when a software company puts out something that > *requires* a 386 and a hard drive. This tells me that it will > take full advantage of the 386, be less expensive, be faster (fewer > Less expensive ? So far, most 386 programs are more expensive than their 8088 or 80286 counterpart. Software house simply wants to charge more for something that runs on a faster machine. Catch-22 :-) ?? Regards, . .. ... .- -> -->## Life is fast enough as it is ........ Peter Lim. ## .... DON'T PUSH IT !! >>>-------, ########################################### : E-mail: plim@hpsgwg.HP.COM Snail-mail: Hewlett Packard Singapore, : Tel: (065)-279-2289 (ICDS, ICS) | Telnet: 520-2289 1150 Depot Road, __\@/__ Singapore 0410. SPLAT ! #include <standard_disclaimer.hpp>
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (12/03/90)
In article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and >others going to stop making the 8088? The 286 is much better then the 8088 >and for all the more a 286 is in price, I would have thought the 8088 would >be dead by now. Except when there is a radical change in technology, chips are almost never discontinued, they just find new uses. Take the 6502 for instance. Once it was the CPU of choice for many small computer designers; now it's a coprocessor on the top of the line Mac's. > I also hope that when Intel designs the 686 chip, it will be backward >compatible to the 286, not the 8088(the 586 will be backward compatible to >the 8088). I'm not sure how easy this would be to do, since the 286 >instruction set is a superset of the 8088, but I do think the 286 should be >the base for the 686 and up. This comment really piqued my curiosity... Since the 286 instruction set is a superset of the 8088's, how do you propose that Intel make a chip whose instruction set is a superset of the former's without including the instructions of the latter's? Furthermore, what possible purpose could it serve to deliberately screw up backward compatibility in such a way? Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (12/03/90)
In article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and
others going to stop making the 8088?
Intel is a corporation. By nature, they seek to maximize their profit. So,
the question you're asking is, "When people stop buying 8088s?" And the
answer to *that* question is "when they cease to be useful." So, when
would an 8088 motherboard cease to be useful? When the price/performance
ratio decreases below that needed for a particular application. In other
words, it's very hard to answer your question, because there are as
many applications as there are people to think of them.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) FAX 315-268-7600
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson
I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.rspangle@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Froot Loop) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Dec3.024326.22956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >In article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> I also hope that when Intel designs the 686 chip, it will be backward >>compatible to the 286, not the 8088(the 586 will be backward compatible to >>the 8088). I'm not sure how easy this would be to do, since the 286 >>instruction set is a superset of the 8088, but I do think the 286 should be >>the base for the 686 and up. > This comment really piqued my curiosity... Since the 286 >instruction set is a superset of the 8088's, how do you propose that >Intel make a chip whose instruction set is a superset of the former's >without including the instructions of the latter's? Furthermore, what >possible purpose could it serve to deliberately screw up backward >compatibility in such a way? I think it would make much more sense to make the 686 backwards compatible only as far back as the 386. The 286 does not allow full multitasking, etc. Which leaves us with the question: Why make it 8088 incompatible? Well, I can come up with several reasons: 1) Chip simplicity: Simplicity is proportional to speed. 2) Modernization: Admittedly, any new chip which doesn't support programs written for the 8086 or 80286 will break a LOT of programs. But that will smooth out the overall software market for the PC's. Programs that are valuable enough that people still want to use them will be recompiled using 32-bit compilers, which will make them faster. Since initially the video and disk interfaces will be the same, it shouldn't be too much of a change. Eventually, since all programs will need to be 32-bit aware, cards will be able to start putting video memory at the 2GB boundary or something, and then you don't have to deal with paging. This will also stomp out the *^(*&^(^*^ 1024KB limit, and consequently MS-DOS/IBM-DOS. So we can get on to programs without memory problems (I have 6MB - whadda you mean "Insufficient Memory"?) and perhaps a better file system (OS/2 2.0? (If and when)) Basically, you'd force all programs to run in 386 protected mode. In the long run, I think it would probably reduce hassles, because multitasking environments would no longer have to worry about programs which expect only 20-bit addresses as opposed to programs which expect 32-bit addresses, etc. The 8086 et al would go the way of the Apple II, Commodore 64, and Atari 800. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Randy Spangler | Get your mind out of the gutter | | rspangle@jarthur.claremont.edu | you're blocking my periscope | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
F0O@psuvm.psu.edu (12/03/90)
In article <1990Dec3.024326.22956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) says: > This comment really piqued my curiosity... Since the 286 >instruction set is a superset of the 8088's, how do you propose that >Intel make a chip whose instruction set is a superset of the former's >without including the instructions of the latter's? Furthermore, what >possible purpose could it serve to deliberately screw up backward >compatibility in such a way? Another question... Is it possible to make a chip that is backward compatible with the 286, but *will not* work on an 8088. By using protected mode, it would be possible, and this is one of the things I'm talking about. FORGET the 8088 series of computers/compatibles; I think all software/hardware developers should focus on the 286 and up. I realize this cuts out alot of the market, but from a technical standpoint, I think it would be a good thing. From a marketing standpoint... Another reason I'd like to see the 8088 go is one of marketing. As we get more computers with different series of chips, how much is the price on chips/computers being artificialy? kept high? For instance, if the 8088 compatibles were suddenly taken off the market, would the 286 and other computers come down in price? [Tim]
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/03/90)
In article <9917@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> rspangle@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Froot Loop) writes: > I think it would make much more sense to make the 686 backwards > compatible only as far back as the 386. The 286 does not allow full > multitasking, etc. Um, what do you mean by this? Back in the early '80s I was using a multiuser development system that used a single 1802 (4 bit ALU) to serve up to 3 programmers with as little as 12K of RAM. In what way does the 80286, with hundreds of times the performance, not support full multitasking? If you're talking about 64K segments being a bad idea, I agree. But to get rid of them you'll have to dump the 80286 as well. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
garyt@ios.Convergent.COM (Gary Tse) (12/04/90)
F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: | I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and |others going to stop making the 8088? The 286 is much better then the 8088 |and for all the more a 286 is in price, I would have thought the 8088 would |be dead by now. Look, the 4004 isn't dead yet. I'd imagine the 8088 will die some years after the 4004 dies. Besides, the 8088 should have a decent future as a cheap embedded controller. For peanuts you can buy an 8088 motherboard to base your design upon. -- Gary Tse, garyt@ios.Convergent.COM || ..!pyramid!ctnews!ios!garyt tse@soda.Berkeley.EDU || ..!ucbvax!soda!tse "What can you say about a society that says God is dead and Elvis is alive?" -- Irv Kupcinet
mir@opera.chorus.fr (Adam Mirowski) (12/04/90)
In article <1990Dec2.174041.4313@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: %% ONG ENG TENG (ong@d.cs.okstate.edu) writes: %% >> I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and %% >> others going to stop making the 8088? %% > %% >Isn't the 8088 dead already? I mean, no one with much knowledge of PC will %% >buy an 8088 system since the motherboard of 286 is now less than $100 (8088 %% >motherboard is about $35, what is $65 difference considering the performance). %% %% %% Actually, 8088's are still running strong. Look at how many Tandy %% is still selling in its laptops! %% %% I agree heartily with the original poster. One reason that technology %% in the PC isn't marching forward as quickly as it could is that %% everything has to be so backward compatible. Look at the stupid %% 5.25 floppy drive! That should have gone out a long time ago, but %% software houses still keep churning out their floppies on these %% 5.25 floppies because that's what most people have, and the reason %% most people have 5.25 drives is that software usually comes on 5.25 %% inch disks. Catch-22. %% %% Take the case of the monitor. We now want our monitors %% to be both backward and forward compatible (from monochrome to %% 1280x1024). So the poor monitor has to have analog and digital %% capabilities with vertical and horizontal frequency ranges running %% from one end of the spectrum to the other. This is one reason %% they are so expensive: they have to do everything. %% %% I *love* it when a software company puts out something that %% *requires* a 386 and a hard drive. This tells me that it will %% take full advantage of the 386, be less expensive, be faster (fewer %% files to work with), and be more compatible. This is especially %% true of games that require EGA or VGA and a hard drive--they're %% almost always light years ahead of the other games. %% %% What cracks me up is when someone claims that people don't need %% or want greater computing power. I think Dvorak commented on %% *that* in a recent PC Magazine. %% %% S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / %% <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ %% ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " %% edu> \ + / %% BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC I don't know if you have noticed, but 5.25 1.2 Mo diskettes are sold at half the 3.5 1.44 Mo price AND ARE TWICE AS FAST!!!! 8088s and 8086s are used in many embedded systems. BTW, a bit of modesty and tolerance is always useful in a human society :-) -- Adam Mirowski, mir@chorus.fr (FRANCE), tel. +33 (1) 30-64-82-00 or 74 Chorus systemes, 6, av.Gustave Eiffel, 78182 Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines CEDEX
draper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (12/04/90)
> > Another question... Is it possible to make a chip that is backward >compatible with the 286, but *will not* work on an 8088. By using protected >mode, it would be possible, and this is one of the things I'm talking about. >FORGET the 8088 series of computers/compatibles; I think all software/hardware >developers should focus on the 286 and up. I realize this cuts out alot of >the market, but from a technical standpoint, I think it would be a good thing. >From a marketing standpoint... No! No! *386* protected mode should be the one we should be worried about. We don't need a bunch of computers with 64Kb segments (like we have now). We need 4 gigabyte segments like in the 386, that way they might as well be flat model. 80286 can die - viva 80386! > Another reason I'd like to see the 8088 go is one of marketing. As we >get more computers with different series of chips, how much is the price on >chips/computers being artificialy? kept high? For instance, if the 8088 >compatibles were suddenly taken off the market, would the 286 and other >computers come down in price? > > [Tim] Probably not because the major cost of a computer is components. If you put an 80286 in an XT box with an XT hard disk controller, the price will be the same (roughly). Reduce the cost of the case, power supply, floppy disk, controllers, video cards, etc. and the price of the whole computer will drop. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Draper In times like these it is helpful to buster.cps.msu.edu remember that there have always been times like these. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
matth@progress.COM (Matthew J. Harper) (12/04/90)
One of the things that is being taken for granted in this discussion is the level of computer user that uses a mchine with the 8088 in it. There are is a large base of users who do nothing on the machine besides basic word processing and spreadsheet work. For those an 8088 is the ideal box. It may not have the pure power most us desire, but they really don't need it. Believe it or not, the price difference between an XT and AT type machine is still a big consideration. It may only be about $100 in the beginning, but then other items start to add up. Think about what happens you add in the options for a new car: radio, alloy rims... I myself am still running on an 8086 based machine. Sure, I cannot *wait* to upgrade, but other things keep taking a higher priority. What 'things'? Your basic items like car bills (repairs and regular maintenance), desire to own a house someday. You get the picture. Even if Intel does not support the 8086/88 series with the 80686 (which is at least three years off) the XT series will still live on. All the software that is currently meeting peoples needs will continue to do so. Just because a newer fancier version is available does not mean people are going to drop what they are using to upgrade. How many of us still use some out-dated program or utility because 1) we are used to it, 2) The new one does not do as nice the job the way we want (like some of Norton's 5.0 release)? I'll upgrade when I can. Until then, when I have something that takes longer than I would like it to, I'll do something like get a snack, or drool over the most recent trade magazine with the newest screamer in it. -- Matthew J. Harper UUCP: mit-eddie!progress!matth Progress Software Corp. Internet: matth@progress.com 5 Oak Park Disclaimer: My words & ideas, That's all. Bedford, MA 01730
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (12/04/90)
plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) writes: >> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) / writes: >> >> I *love* it when a software company puts out something that >> *requires* a 386 and a hard drive. This tells me that it will >> take full advantage of the 386, be less expensive, be faster (fewer >> >Less expensive ? So far, most 386 programs are more expensive than >their 8088 or 80286 counterpart. My point was that software becomes *more* expensive when the programmer is forced to right it for 8088, 286, 386, monochrome, CGA, EGA, VGA, etc., etc.... But you're probably right about the artificial high price. It probably *should* be cheaper, but since it's for a [crowd holds its breath] *386* [crowd ooohs and aahhs], maybe we're being taken for more than it's worth? On the other hand, whenever something new comes out it's always pretty pricey. Just wait a few months... S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.014539.13773@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: >My point was that software becomes *more* expensive when the >programmer is forced to right it for 8088, 286, 386, monochrome, >CGA, EGA, VGA, etc., etc.... Most commercial software is written in a high-level language. Since 8088 compilers already exist, it is then just a question of running the same program through different compilers to have versions that will run reasonably efficiently on a given architecture. Sure you have to tweek the program on each architecture, sure a "real" 386 version is more than a mere recompile, but it need not involve a complete rewrite. As to your point about the different graphics formats, most professional programmers have some kind of library of graphics primitives for each of the popular graphics formats, so it's not even a question of recompiling, just relinking. I think you're making too much of a big deal of this backward compatibility thing. You can have backward compatibility of your chips without compromising the efficiency of the design of the silicon, so why not? I can just see it now... "You can have this super-duper new chip in your machine but you'll have to throw away all your software." Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Iain Holness <HOLNESSI@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (12/05/90)
As others have said, as long as there is a need for a chip
that is presently being manufactured, it will continue to be
manufactured. Funny that you haven't mentioned the 80186 at
all. It too is being used for things other than that of being
a main processor in a computer.
This thread is another example of not seeing the forest
for the trees. Why kill the 8086 when it can be used to improve
efficiency in a device extraneous to the PC environment ? That
logic keeps such _outdated_ technology on the market, as in
other fields, the _outdated_ technology's time has only just
begun.
Iaincgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Crash Gordon) (12/05/90)
Tim sez: > I've been wondering since the 486 chips are out now, when is intel and >others going to stop making the 8088? The 286 is much better... The 8088 is still alive and kicking in a lot of designs. Vending machines, automated monitoring equipment, and numerous behind-the-scenes devices do very well with 8088s, thank you. It is true that the 8088-based PC is on the decline, but it will probably be around for a long time yet. >Author: [ONG ENG TENG] >Please don't say its dead other than it should no longer be sold... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And why shouldn't it? Sometimes you may need something, and price is the biggest consideration. A 286 motherboard may be only $65 more, but the overall machine price will probably be more than $65 higher. If (for instance) you need something to access a database and dial phone numbers for a telemarketing application, an 8088 with an MDA is the cheapest out. ----------------------------------------------------- Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us Disclaimer: Yeah, I said it. So what?
lsh@polari.UUCP (Lee Hauser) (12/05/90)
The 8088 will die when you can get a 386-33 or similarly speeded 486 system for
the price of an 8088 system. Technology tends to stick around as long as it
is useful and usable (which is why there are still a load of Commodore 64s and
128s out there). Though I use a 386SX at work (and enjoy it), I've never owned
a PC more powerful than a V-20 and never felt the need to do so. Spending $2000or more for a machine just to do word processing and telecom, with very minor
spreadsheet and database thrown in, is a waste of my money. Not everyone's
money, just mine. I appreciate having the choice of buying a lower-powered
machine at a price that I can afford. I spent $699 on my Tandy 1100FD; it was
all I had to spend! A $2000 machine might as well have been a $2,000,000 machine for me!
--
------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- ======= ------- =======
uw-beaver!sumax!polari!lsh -- lsh@polari
Lee Hauser
If I pay for access, I don't have to disclaim ANYTHING!rbr@bonnie.ATT.COM (4197,ATTT) (12/05/90)
The 8088 / 8086 will die when Intel and others no longer have a market. But who cares, isn't MessyDOS the real culprit that determines this stupid architecture. Is it not M*DOS that puts the BIOS and video RAM at the "top" of memory? Apple made the same blunder by putting the video RAM and system at "top" of the original Apple II memory. Then RAM got real cheap and everyone had 64K and video in the middle of the user's memory. A better question would be, "When can we get rid of M*DOS". Why not put the BIOS & system stuff in low RAM and give the user all they can afford above that level. Why not a "virtual memory" OS ? Bob Rager
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) (12/06/90)
In article <2842@polari.UUCP> lsh@polari.UUCP (Lee Hauser) writes: >The 8088 will die when you can get a 386-33 or similarly speeded 486 system for >the price of an 8088 system. I am not sure I can agree. If this were to happen, then the 8088 will simply move onto other uses. Today, the 8088 is too expensive to put to those uses. Later, 8088 prices will drop sufficiently that they will become affordable. Conway Yee, N2JWQ yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu (preferred) 231 S. Melville St. cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above) Philadelphia, Pa 19139 yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov (rarely checked) (215) 386-1312
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (12/06/90)
In article <1047@ios.Convergent.COM> garyt@ios.Convergent.COM (Gary Tse) writes: > Look, the 4004 isn't dead yet. Really? You mean there's a purpose for the MCS-4 manual on my bookshelf? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (12/06/90)
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) writes: >In article <2842@polari.UUCP> lsh@polari.UUCP (Lee Hauser) writes: >>The 8088 will die when you can get a 386-33 or similarly speeded 486 system for >>the price of an 8088 system. >I am not sure I can agree. If this were to happen, then the 8088 will simply >move onto other uses. Today, the 8088 is too expensive to put to those >uses. Later, 8088 prices will drop sufficiently that they will become >affordable. Exactly what uses for an 8088 did you have in mind that are impractical due to the price? I can buy 8-Mhz 8088's for $8 each. Even a Nintendo uses more sophisticated technology. Besides, by the time a 386 system comes down to the current price of an 8088 systen ( around $450), I doubt ANYBODY would have a use for it. Our refridgerator uses a 186 for control (one of those fancy kind). The reason that's so cheap, is because the chip was so flawed for any PC system. ============================================================================== "Round and round the while() loop goes; Whether it stops," Turing says, "nobody knows."
scott@skypod.uucp (Scott Campbell) (12/06/90)
In article <9917@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> rspangle@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Froot Loop) writes: >In article <1990Dec3.024326.22956@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >>In article <90335.202651F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >>> I also hope that when Intel designs the 686 chip, it will be backward >>>compatible to the 286, not the 8088(the 586 will be backward compatible to >>>the 8088). I'm not sure how easy this would be to do, since the 286 >>>instruction set is a superset of the 8088, but I do think the 286 should be >>>the base for the 686 and up. > > I think it would make much more sense to make the 686 backwards >compatible only as far back as the 386. The 286 does not allow full >multitasking, etc. If the 686 was FULLY compatible with the 386 it would be able to emulate the 8086 (how different is the 8086 from the 8088) in Virtual '86 mode, right? Any old 8/16 bit programs you have would be able to work in a DOS window in whatever software you are using... Anyways, just because the 8088 is too slow for serious processing, its fine if all you are going to do is run a terminal session and maybe some personal utilities (notepads, datebooks, etc.) Hook this up to a multiuser system where you would do any serious processing. An old XT can be cheaper than a terminal, especially if it is still lying around from before you got faster machines. Another thing to think of in killing off the low end intel chips is that other people are allowed to make them. Not so with the 386. Whether you consider being limited to one supplier as a Good Thing or a Bad Thing could be a consideration. scott a -- Scott J.M. Campbell scott@skypod.uucp Skypod Communications Inc. (416) 961-3847 57 Charles St. West, #1310 nyama!skypod!scott@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto, Ontario {scocan|becker|problem|torag|nyama}!skypod!scott
jimf@idayton.field.intel.com (Jim Fister) (12/06/90)
>> Look, the 4004 isn't dead yet. >Really? You mean there's a purpose for the MCS-4 manual on my bookshelf? >Peter da Silva. `-_-' >+1 713 274 5180. 'U` >peter@ferranti.com Sure. Can't you see yourself in front of a fireplace in the middle of winter with your trusty MCS-4 manual? Hey, a book like that could keep that fire going for at least an extra hour! JimF
tcs@mailer.jhuapl.edu (12/07/90)
In article <853@pdxgate.UUCP>, berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) says: > >cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) writes: > >>In article <2842@polari.UUCP> lsh@polari.UUCP (Lee Hauser) writes: >>>The 8088 will die when you can get a 386-33 or similarly speeded 486 system for >>>the price of an 8088 system. > >>I am not sure I can agree. If this were to happen, then the 8088 will simply >>move onto other uses. Today, the 8088 is too expensive to put to those >>uses. Later, 8088 prices will drop sufficiently that they will become >>affordable. > > Exactly what uses for an 8088 did you have in mind that are impractical >due to the price? I can buy 8-Mhz 8088's for $8 each. Even a Nintendo uses >more sophisticated technology. > Besides, by the time a 386 system comes down to the current price of an >8088 systen ( around $450), I doubt ANYBODY would have a use for it. Our >refridgerator uses a 186 for control (one of those fancy kind). The reason >that's so cheap, is because the chip was so flawed for any PC system. > >============================================================================== > > "Round and round the while() loop goes; > Whether it stops," Turing says, "nobody knows." What chip was flawed? The 8088? I don't think you mean the 186, it was the base chip for all those 3Com 3Servers for quite a while. I think that the 286 came out so quickly on the heels of the 186 is the reason that it wasn't used much. (IMHO) Carl Schelin tcs@mailer.jhuapl.edu
wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) (12/07/90)
In article <853@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes: >cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) writes: > Exactly what uses for an 8088 did you have in mind that are impractical >due to the price? I can buy 8-Mhz 8088's for $8 each. Even a Nintendo uses >more sophisticated technology. > Besides, by the time a 386 system comes down to the current price of an >8088 systen ( around $450), I doubt ANYBODY would have a use for it. Our >refridgerator uses a 186 for control (one of those fancy kind). The reason >that's so cheap, is because the chip was so flawed for any PC system. > I beg to differ on both points. First, the Nintendo uses a straight 8-bit CPU. The graphics chip in particular is a derivative of the TI 9918, an 8-bit chip that first appeared in the TI 99/4A. As for the 186, it was never intended to be a PC replacement. It was designed and has always been used as an embedded system. If there's a flawed anything, it's the PC system itself. The I/O on the 186 is simple and powerful, something the PC ain't. A pure 8088 will pass away in due time, but just like the Z80, it will continue on in value-added chips that combine many other features such as serial channels, DMA, timers, and bit-addressable I/O, just to name a few. The current incarnation of the 186 is the C186EB, a fully static chip that can have it's clock stopped and thus is power consumption drops to microamps. Even when running it's extremely power stingy. For systems that don't require a fully static memory system, DRAMs can be easily added to the C186EB, because it has on-chip DRAM support. NEC as a broad array of 8086 derivative chips, as does Siemans. And if you're paying $8 for 8088's all day long, then you're paying way to much. I can get 16 MHz 80286's in quantity for $5.
jlb@aipna.ed.ac.uk (John Beaven) (12/07/90)
May I just point out that the Amstrad PCW 8256 family, which is a CP/M machine with a Z80, 256 or 512 k of ram and 1 or 2 floppies, bundled with a printer and a rather nice word processing program (for a first machine), is still selling strong (for about UK #250), at least in Europe (dunno about the US). Which makes me think the 8088 has still some life. John
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (12/07/90)
"I believe DOS will survive too, although in a very different form (certainly it will get rewritten by somebody for 386 4 Gb segments) and it won't be compatible with today's DOS. " ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And so, like OS/2, it won't sell. The longer DOS lasts in its current form, the more applications people will purchase for it (the more money they will have invested in software versus "the box".) So those same people are going to look at their piles of applications and consider this new and wonderful DOS and say "so what". If DOS is to migrate to some new and improved form, it had better consider its current user base. Otherwise, it will hit the same wall as OS/2 and any other operating system competing for the DOS user base. Just my opinion, as a "techie" who already has big bucks tied up in worthwhile applications I don't want to see go away with some "hot solution to all my needs". -- ======================================================================== Gary L. Barrett My employer may or may not agree with my opinions. And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions. ========================================================================
dcarr@mentor.gandalf.ca (Dave Carr) (12/07/90)
In article <853@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes: >cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) writes: > >refridgerator uses a 186 for control (one of those fancy kind). The reason >that's so cheap, is because the chip was so flawed for any PC system. > Talk about people unclear on the concept. The 80186(8) were intended for the EMBEDDED market. We use the 80186 extensively in our comm products. To design in a 680x0 + DMA + Chip Select logic + Timer/Counters + Clock controller + ... would add about $20+ dollars to each application. Let see, 800 muxes a month * 20 dollars = $16,000 profit (minus if 680x0). The only vendor I know that tried one in a PC was Tandy ! For the job it was designed for, I stand behind the 80186 any day ! I haven't seen any workstation vendor jumping on the 68302, but again, this is also a machine intended for IMBEDDED control.
kea@kasoft.UUCP (Ken Anderson) (12/08/90)
Someone mentioned using 8088s in embedded systems earlier in this thread. Is there a newsgroup that deals with this sort of thing? Or embedded systems in general? Thanks in advance for any pointers. ken. -- Ken Anderson, kea@kasoft.UUCP, 416-274-6244 (fax:416-891-2715) ---
kdq@demott.com (Kevin D. Quitt) (12/08/90)
In article <3622@aipna.ed.ac.uk> jlb@aipna.ed.ac.uk (John Beaven) writes: >May I just point out that the Amstrad PCW 8256 family, which is a CP/M >machine with a Z80, 256 or 512 k of ram and 1 or 2 floppies, bundled >with a printer and a rather nice word processing program (for a first >machine), is still selling strong (for about UK #250), at least in >Europe (dunno about the US). > >Which makes me think the 8088 has still some life. Does the fact that 6502's (about about 25 cents each) are still being sold by the millions give you a clue about the 8088 dying soon? -- _ Kevin D. Quitt demott!kdq kdq@demott.com DeMott Electronics Co. 14707 Keswick St. Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 VOICE (818) 988-4975 FAX (818) 997-1190 MODEM (818) 997-4496 PEP last
kevin@latcs1.oz.au (Kevin James Bertram) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec7.145839.2703@mentor.gandalf.ca>, dcarr@mentor.gandalf.ca (Dave Carr) writes: > > The only vendor I know that tried one in a PC was Tandy ! For the job it was designed for, > I stand behind the 80186 any day ! > Yes, just to digress, Earth computers (now terran) produced an 80186 pc which used a serial console rather than CGA etc. Had it for 5 years and has been working like a charm. I've found no obvious faults with the 186.
jaapv@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (Jaap Verhage) (12/12/90)
In article <1990Dec7.145839.2703@mentor.gandalf.ca> dcarr@mentor.gandalf.ca (Dave Carr) writes: (speaking of the 80186) >The only vendor I know that tried one in a PC was Tandy ! Philips was another, in Holland at least. They called it the Yes! PC. The poor thing didn't live long, due to 8088-incompatibility of the 80186, it was rumoured. -- Regards, Jaap. Jaap Verhage, Academic Computer Centre, State University at Utrecht, Holland. jaapv@cc.ruu.nl +<-*|*->+ I claim *every*thing and speak for myself
steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) (12/13/90)
In article <1990Dec5.152318.7316@cbnewsl.att.com> rbr@bonnie.ATT.COM (Bob Rager) writes: >But who cares, isn't MessyDOS the real culprit that determines this >stupid architecture. Is it not M*DOS that puts the BIOS and video RAM >at the "top" of memory? Umm... no, it is not MS-DOS that arranges the hardware in a computer. IBM did it, when they designed the PC, and they had seemingly good reasons at the time. When they first made the IBM PC, 16k was standard and 64k was a lot of memory. 640k seemed enormous. You can't blame them for this. You can safely flame IBM for the design of the BIOS, though. The BIOS functions were too slow, so everyone wrote straight to the hardware. Thus if you want to run MS-DOS programs you need an exact copy of the PC hardware, or a good emulation thereof. In some strange, alternate universe where IBM's BIOS was written better and everyone used it, all you need to run DOS programs is a faithful emulation of the BIOS and the CPU. -- Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (12/13/90)
In article <90337.093702F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > Another question... Is it possible to make a chip that is backward >compatible with the 286, but *will not* work on an 8088. Take a look at the 80376 (I think). It's only a 32-bit machine, with no protected mode. No 8086 compatibility. -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (12/13/90)
In article <9917@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> rspangle@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Froot Loop) writes: > I think it would make much more sense to make the 686 backwards >compatible only as far back as the 386. The 286 does not allow full >multitasking, etc. Uhm... since when? You are aware that lots of people are running '286-based *nices (such as SCO XENIX for the AT). Multiuser, multitasking. The whole shebang. >2) Modernization: Admittedly, any new chip which doesn't support > programs written for the 8086 or 80286 will break a LOT of programs. Intel has one major market: DOS. '386 based machines are as cheap as they are because of the demand for DOS. Most people running a '386 are actually running DOS. A major factor for people to get a '386-based *nix instead of a RISC-based *nix (some of the MIPS machines are cheap, for example) is that they get to run DOS programs. If you take away that compatibility, then people will probably not buy it. Look at how much demand there is for the 80376, or even the i860 (which is somewhat popular, although I don't know why). Neither of those can run DOS programs, and neither of those is exactly taking over the market. Try thinking before you want to dictate Intel's policy. -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
garyt@ios.Convergent.COM (Gary Tse) (12/13/90)
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) writes: |The longer DOS lasts in its current |form, the more applications people will purchase for it (the more |money they will have invested in software versus "the box".) | |So those same people are going to look at their piles of applications |and consider this new and wonderful DOS and say "so what". Gee, does anyone here still remember CP/M or Apple DOS? -- Gary Tse, garyt@ios.Convergent.COM || ..!pyramid!ctnews!ios!garyt tse@soda.Berkeley.EDU || ..!ucbvax!soda!tse "What can you say about a society that says God is dead and Elvis is alive?" -- Irv Kupcinet
josephc@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Joseph I. Chiu) (12/13/90)
garyt@ios.Convergent.COM (Gary Tse) writes: >gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) writes: >|The longer DOS lasts in its current >|form, the more applications people will purchase for it (the more >|money they will have invested in software versus "the box".) >| >|So those same people are going to look at their piles of applications >|and consider this new and wonderful DOS and say "so what". >Gee, does anyone here still remember CP/M or Apple DOS? Funny, I played with my Apple II just a few days ago (I don't live with my folks anymore, and I have an IBM at school), and I'm teaching my sister wordprocessing with Wordstar on CP/M (Applicard CP/M card - a product that had a lot more potential than it was used for - a 6 MHz coprocessor that ran concurrently with the Apple because it had its own 64k memory) -- josephc@coil.caltech.edu ...Just another lost soul in the universe -- -- josephc@coil.caltech.edu ...Just another lost soul in the universe
rbr@bonnie.ATT.COM (4197,ATTT) (12/13/90)
In article <59765@microsoft.UUCP> steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >In article <1990Dec5.152318.7316@cbnewsl.att.com> rbr@bonnie.ATT.COM (Bob Rager) writes: >>But who cares, isn't MessyDOS the real culprit that determines this >>stupid architecture. Is it not M*DOS that puts the BIOS and video RAM >>at the "top" of memory? > >Umm... no, it is not MS-DOS that arranges the hardware in a computer. IBM >did it, when they designed the PC, and they had seemingly good reasons at >the time. When they first made the IBM PC, 16k was standard and 64k was a >lot of memory. 640k seemed enormous. You can't blame them for this. I can remember mainframes when 128K was a BIG machine. As an X mainframe guru for the now desolved Western Electric and an IBM watcher of many years, I most heartily agree. I appreciate IBM's position, when you are the first you have a great chance of making the wrong coice. Then we all have to live with it forever. The PC came out when several machines had 128K (Commodore 128, TRS-80 IV), as I remember the original PC had 128K and a cassette port. I don't know who might be at fault but it would have been so easy to put the system stuff between 0 and nK and provide a pointer to the base of user memory. That way we could have a linear memory space all the way up to 3+ GB. Then it would only be a matter of money. BTW, I have heard that the IBM chose the group designing a PC using the 8088 because they thought it would be the PC most likely to fail in the marketplace as they were afraid that PC's would eat into their Mainframe sales ($$$$$$). > >You can safely flame IBM for the design of the BIOS, though. The BIOS >functions were too slow, so everyone wrote straight to the hardware. Thus >if you want to run MS-DOS programs you need an exact copy of the PC >hardware, or a good emulation thereof. In some strange, alternate universe >where IBM's BIOS was written better and everyone used it, all you need to >run DOS programs is a faithful emulation of the BIOS and the CPU. If you would dis-assemble the BIOS you would find that you would have a hard time making it more compact. The efficiency problem arises when you try to write completely generalized routines. The CYA code becomes several times the size of the do it code. The trick might be to execute BIOS from super fast RAM. >-- >Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== ::::: >uunet!microsoft!steveha steveha@microsoft.uucp ` \\==| Lets not have a flame war over this. Bob Rager
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (12/14/90)
>Gee, does anyone here still remember CP/M or Apple DOS?
Are you really considering CP/M and Apple DOS in the same league as
MSDOS, sales-wise that is? Consider the number of "PCs" currently in
the worldwide user base. Consider the number of worthwhile,
business-oriented applications currently running on those micros.
I believe the sheer "popularity" of DOS-based applications (and the
monetary investment in those applications) will keep it going for
some time to come, unless there are adequate DOS "emulators" on the "new
and improved" OS environments.
Oh, yes, I DO remember CP/M. I have a CP/M emulator on my 386 PC. It
lets me run a good number of my old applications.
--
========================================================================
Gary L. Barrett
My employer may or may not agree with my opinions.
And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions.
========================================================================userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell) (12/14/90)
In article <59765@microsoft.UUCP>, steveha@microsoft.UUCP (Steve Hastings) writes: >In article <1990Dec5.152318.7316@cbnewsl.att.com> rbr@bonnie.ATT.COM (Bob Rager) writes: >>But who cares, isn't MessyDOS the real culprit that determines this >>stupid architecture. Is it not M*DOS that puts the BIOS and video RAM >>at the "top" of memory? > >Umm... no, it is not MS-DOS that arranges the hardware in a computer. IBM >did it, when they designed the PC, and they had seemingly good reasons at >the time. When they first made the IBM PC, 16k was standard and 64k was a >lot of memory. 640k seemed enormous. You can't blame them for this. > . [some odds and ends deleted] . Actually, the problem can be put in the hands of Intel, because the 8088 and 8086 (and I assume all of the 80x86 family) all start out after powerup by executing the instruction at address FFFF:0000, so this makes it necessary that any computer using the chip have ROM at the upper part of the address space. This first instruction can be simply a jump to any other part of the address space, but it is logical (in a way) that you put all the ROM up there, so that is where IBM put the BIOS. . Steve's comment that the inadequacy of DOS contributes to things is also true: if you could do everything just by calling DOS, then DOS could move the video buffers, Intel could move the startup location, etc., and we would never know. But we all write programs to access video, the DOS and BIOS data areas, etc., so the hardware and software is tied into this. Unless we all go to a new operating system :-) Dave Halliwell
davidk@pro-graphics.cts.com (David Klippel) (12/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM
The 8088 will not die. Not in the near future at least with its continuing
drop in price. This processor even though for us seems slow and limited is
still very good for entry level grade school use, communication links and
individuals not wanting to go head over heal into PC's. As for OS/2 when the
2.0 version, expected sometime in 1991, is released all those great DOS packages
that you invested in will multitask just like an OS/2 package. So I would say
it's not completely dead and useless. It is just not the greatest thing going.
But then what is not everbody like *NIX or DOS or Windows or... It is a
matter of preference.
ProLine: davidk@pro-graphics
UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!davidk
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!davidk@nosc.mil
Internet: davidk@pro-graphics.cts.com wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) (12/15/90)
In article <9185@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >Take a look at the 80376 (I think). It's only a 32-bit machine, with no >protected mode. No 8086 compatibility. Nope. The 80376 _RUNS_ in protected mode only. You can put it in flat, or Mot mode, and avoid segment limits. But it will not run in real 8088 mode and it does not support the paging of the 386/486. It's 32-bit internally, but externally looks at the world with a 16-bit bus and a 24-bit address range. It was introduced about a month before the 80386SX in 1988. Intel now has a free utility to help convert 80186 assembly code to 80386 assembly for the 80376, and to support the 80186's built-in peripherals, the conversion software will attempt to map the 80186's peripheral functionality to a second chip, the 82370, a super-function chip with 8 channels of DMA, 8259 support, timers, dram refresh support, etc. As for 8086 compatibility, keep in mind you can run those 8086 instructions in protected mode as long as you mind how you finger the segment/selector registers.
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (12/20/90)
>> Another question... Is it possible to make a chip that is backward >>compatible with the 286, but *will not* work on an 8088. > >Take a look at the 80376 (I think). It's only a 32-bit machine, with no >protected mode. No 8086 compatibility. But the '286 has protected mode and 8086 compatibility, so the 80376 (or whatever) doesn't seem to be backward compatible with the '286....
wbeebe@bilver.uucp (Bill Beebe) (12/20/90)
In article <4908@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > > >> Another question... Is it possible to make a chip that is backward > >>compatible with the 286, but *will not* work on an 8088. > > > >Take a look at the 80376 (I think). It's only a 32-bit machine, with no > >protected mode. No 8086 compatibility. > >But the '286 has protected mode and 8086 compatibility, so the 80376 (or >whatever) doesn't seem to be backward compatible with the '286.... But it _is_ backward compatible with the 80286 in protected, segmented mode.