Prev: When does Windows go into Standby mode?
Next: Keyboard does not start after Windows XP starts up
From: Greg Russell on 2 Apr 2010 00:18
In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps(a)4ax.com,
Ken Blake, MVP <kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:

>>> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>
>> No, it was an 8086.
>
> Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.

I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
rushed into the purchase so soon.


From: Terry R. on 2 Apr 2010 00:50
On 4/1/2010 9:18 PM On a whim, Greg Russell pounded out on the keyboard

> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps(a)4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP<kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>
>>>> The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>> No, it was an 8086.
>> Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.
>
> I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
> it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
> rushed into the purchase so soon.
>
>

You shouldn't have been sorry. The 8086 used a 16 bit data bus and the
8088 used an 8 bit. The early PS/2 were based on the 8086 and ran
faster. The 8088 was Intel's first "dumbing down" of a processor and
they kept that up for along time.

I purchased a TI PC because it ran at 5 MHz as opposed to IBM's 4.77,
and it had 768K of memory and 16 plane graphics as opposed to the 640K
and 8 plane of the IBM PC.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
From: Bob I on 2 Apr 2010 08:33


Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:%23M0oM4P0KHA.3676(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
> Bob I <birelan(a)yahoo.com> typed:
>
>
>>The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>
>
> No, it was an 8086.
>
>

Then you'll have to tell IBM that they are wrong.
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html

From: Tim Slattery on 2 Apr 2010 09:07
Bob I <birelan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>Then you'll have to tell IBM that they are wrong.
>http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/pc25/pc25_birth.html

Hmm... that article quotes Dave Bradley as saying "...We started to
build a prototype to take - by the end of the year - to a then
little-known company called Microsoft." That completely skips the
story of IBMers going to Digital Research first, but missing
connections with Gary Kildall, and then as a second choice going to
Seattle to see Microsoft.

It also says that it had a color monitor with 16 colors! My
recollection - which may well be incomplete - is that we didn't get 16
colors until EGA graphics debuted, years later. Hmm...looking at it
again, it says the monitor had "16 foreground and background colors",
but that "Its graphics were in four colors". I don't remember having
any color until the Hercules cards sometime in the mid-80s.

--
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T(a)bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
From: Bob I on 2 Apr 2010 09:13


Greg Russell wrote:

> In news:8obar5h4gqbu5i764k11d2qrmajlu46tps(a)4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP <kblake(a)this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>
>
>>>>The Intel 8088 CPU, used in the original IBM PC, ...
>>>
>>>No, it was an 8086.
>>
>>Sorry, but that's not correct. It was an 8088.
>
>
> I've still got an original IBM PC, and it states right on the processor that
> it's an 8086. The 8088 was produced soon after, and I was sorry that I had
> rushed into the purchase so soon.
>
>

You got is backward. The "8086" is the better CPU with a 16 bit
processor with an 16 bit external databus while the "8088" 16 bit
processor with only an 8 bit external databus. Also the instruction
queue for the 86 is 6 bytes while the 88 is only 4.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: When does Windows go into Standby mode?
Next: Keyboard does not start after Windows XP starts up