VOGONS

Common searches


Reply 100 of 151, by doshea

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Grzyb wrote on 2023-04-23, 22:39:
NOW, A CHALLENGE! Find me a price list - from back in the era - offering a 286 PC with more than 1 MB of RAM. […]
Show full quote

NOW, A CHALLENGE!
Find me a price list - from back in the era - offering a 286 PC with more than 1 MB of RAM.

Because I seriously doubt if such machines were ever sold stock...
just picked a random magazine, and found the first listing with a 286:
dell286.jpg
(BYTE, March 1991, page 2)

I went through about four PC Magazines from 1989-1992 and found so many listings that didn't even say how much RAM was included, only the 286, 386 or 486 CPU type and speed and the hard drive size!

PC Magazine August 1989 page "PC18" (advertising insert) includes this in a price list (manually transcribed):

NOVELL NETWORKING Complete Network System 286/20MHz (2MB) File Server, 10MHz 512K Workstations, Arcnet PC Terminals, Loaded Netw […]
Show full quote

NOVELL NETWORKING
Complete Network System
286/20MHz (2MB) File Server, 10MHz
512K Workstations, Arcnet PC Terminals,
Loaded Netware Ready to Turn On!

4 User (40MB) .... $5995
6 User (80MB) ..... 8995
8 USER (80MB) .... 10,500
ACCESS 10MHz 512K Workstns. .. 695

There are some prices for Netware after that, so I'm confused about what exactly the price includes. Anyway I thought it was interesting that more than 1MB of RAM seems to only be standard for a server!

I suppose most price lists had prices for RAM upgrades though, so it might not have been too uncommon to just pick a base system with 1MB of RAM and then some upgrades to go with it. After all it wouldn't have been very hard for the builder to put extra RAM in, and machines were still usable for various things with only 1MB, so it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to just list 1MB in the base model, I think.

Reply 101 of 151, by Grzyb

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
doshea wrote on 2023-05-12, 12:14:

Anyway I thought it was interesting that more than 1MB of RAM seems to only be standard for a server!

Exactly!
And it seems that 2 MB of RAM was enough for Netware/286.
But the OS/2 needed even more!
Well, 2 MB might be enough for the text-only OS/2 1.0, but the practical minimum for OS/2 1.1..1.3 (with Presentation Manager) was 4 MB.

Seriously, 286 machines ready to run OS/2 were extremely rare.
Even today, building such a setup may be a challenge!

Early 286 boards are DIP only, usually 1 MB is the max for onboard memory...
in theory, with 16-bit ISA it's no problem to install 16 MB using a card...
in practice, such cards never got popular, and nowadays it's hard to find ANY memory cards, leave alone cards larger than 2 MB.

Later 286 boards have SIP sockets, and up to 4 MB of onboard memory...
but the problem is, SIPs aren't really common today, and it seems that majority are 256 KB.

Finally, there are 286 boards with SIMM sockets, up to 4 MB of onboard memory, and there are even legends about boards supporting 16 MB...
SIMMs are plentiful, so it's by far the most promising option for building a machine for OS/2 1.x, but even here one can encounter problems - 286 boards can be picky about memory modules, and many require reconfiguration of jumpers/DIP switches when expanding RAM.

Nie tylko, jak widzicie, w tym trudność, że nie zdołacie wejść na moją górę, lecz i w tym, że ja do was cały zejść nie mogę, gdyż schodząc, gubię po drodze to, co miałem donieść.

Reply 102 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Hi there! Found something interesting. Here's an 1986 episode of The Computer Chronicles showing a PC with 2MB of Expanded Memory (2 096 640 Bytes; see time code 13:15).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyHm8u_AR30&t=800

Edit: Screenshot atrached.

Attachments

  • ems2.jpg
    Filename
    ems2.jpg
    File size
    61.37 KiB
    Views
    942 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 103 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Grzyb wrote on 2023-05-12, 13:11:

Later 286 boards have SIP sockets, and up to 4 MB of onboard memory...
but the problem is, SIPs aren't really common today, and it seems that majority are 256 KB.

These 256KB SIPPs are inferior stuff, high latencies up to 120ns. Those old stinkers. Yikes! 😣 I've discarded a few of them in the past.

Since pinout is same, real SIMMs are always being recommended, I think.
A few resistor pins and a soldering iron can turn inexpensive 1MB SIMMs into high-quality SIPPs (60 to 80ns).
A pin header can be used, too, alternatively.

Some people more clever than me had another alternative:
They installed new SIMM sockets into the existing SIPP sockets on the motherboard.
That way, SIMMs can be easily tested for compatibility, even. Cool. 😎👍

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 104 of 151, by Grzyb

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jo22 wrote on 2023-05-13, 09:10:

Hi there! Found something interesting. Here's an 1986 episode of The Computer Chronicles showing a PC with 2MB of Expanded Memory (2 096 640 Bytes; see time code 13:15).

No, they are talking about software emulation of EMS.

Nevertheless, there were 286 PCs with megabytes of RAM, but still unable to run OS/2 - because the RAM beyond 640 K was EMS, ie. useless for OS/2.
Some EMS cards can be reconfigured to provide Extended memory, some can't - and even those that can were probably mostly used in EMS mode.
I suspect that in the 286 era, the most common reason to expand RAM beyond 1 MB was real mode programs processing large data files (eg. spreadsheets), rather than any protected mode stuff.
And real mode software works better with EMS.

Nie tylko, jak widzicie, w tym trudność, że nie zdołacie wejść na moją górę, lecz i w tym, że ja do was cały zejść nie mogę, gdyż schodząc, gubię po drodze to, co miałem donieść.

Reply 105 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Hm. There was Concurrent-DOS 286 in ~1986 which utilized 286 Protected Mode.
Recommended minimum memory amount was 512KB.
But the requirements could quickly increase by each DOS program to multi-task..

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 106 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Grzyb wrote on 2023-05-13, 11:34:

Nevertheless, there were 286 PCs with megabytes of RAM, but still unable to run OS/2 - because the RAM beyond 640 K was EMS, ie. useless for OS/2.
Some EMS cards can be reconfigured to provide Extended memory, some can't - and even those that can were probably mostly used in EMS mode.

Hm, yes. I guess the 16-Bit models can support XMS or Extended Memory, likely, due to 24-Bit (16MB) address bus of 16-Bit ISA connector.
The 8-Bit EMS cards have some trouble doing that, by contrast. They can only address 20-Bit (1MB) directly.
So they would need an EMS to XMS driver. AST shipped with something like that, afaik.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-05-13, 11:34:

I suspect that in the 286 era, the most common reason to expand RAM beyond 1 MB was real mode programs processing large data files (eg. spreadsheets), rather than any protected mode stuff.

Well, the original use for Extended Memory was VDISK, that RAM disk driver.
It didn't use XMS, though, but int15, a BIOS service routine.

And that's exactly why use of Extended Memory was so delayed, maybe.
Prior XMS, a driver specification of the late 80s, the use of Extended Memory was very cumbersome (int15h was slow, too).
Especially on an OS like DOS, which entirely depended on the BIOS routines at the time.

Sure, there were DOS compatibles without BIOS dependency, like the Sanyo MBC-555,
which could have went other ways in implementating Extended Memory access, but..

Well, they were niche systems and required custom DOS releases each time (OEM versions).
So no portable solution in sight, either ways.

On such niche systems, int15h support wasn't available, even if they were 286 based.
Which in turn hindered Extended Memory support.

Alternatively, before XMS was invented, another breed of operating systems would have had been required to access Extended Memory properly.

Like an UNIX derivative. Or Multi-tasking DOS (European DOS 4 from mid 80s). Or Concurrent DOS-286.
Or OS/2, which tried to make better use of the advanced features of the IBM PC/AT and PS/2 series of PCs.

EMS.. The elegance of Expanded Memory was that it didn't interfere with physical memory of the time.
To PC, it was a part of an entirely separate, independent computer system.
Things like Context-Switching didn't cause trouble with EMS, thus.

In some ways, EMS had a similar status to MMX vs x87 FPU.
No matter how user applications hampered with the processor status, EMS (hardware EMS) would work.

Since the EMS window (the classic 64KB page frame with 4x 16KB pages, as of LIM 3.2) was in the adapter segment (the UMA were UMBs can be located),
it was out of scope of what multi-tasking systems or sophisticated DOS programs did manage.

Real-Mode, 16-/32-Bit Protected, V86.. EMS pages stored in the RAM on the EMS hardware were not affected, even if the modes changed.
And if the EMS board in question was battery-backed, the RAM content could survive a re-boot, even. Ideal for a RAM disk.

Unfortunately, EMS 3.2 also had its limitations.
As far as I know, it didn't support direct code execution yet.
The feature wasn't introduced until AST's EEMS, which later found its way into LIM4 specification.

That being said, some DOS programs used overlay files. It maybe was possible to place overlays into EMS (in the EMS 3.2 days),
so that DOS programs could indirectly increase their working memory.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-05-13, 11:34:

And real mode software works better with EMS.

Well, yes, in general. Though some 32-Bit games like Lollilypop did use EMS (EMS4), too.
I've once had tested that one with an AST Rampage 286, even.
The bank-switching model likely was nice for scrolling/graphics (less CPU overhead).

https://www.mobygames.com/game/4808/lollypop/

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 107 of 151, by doshea

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I think if my first PC - a turbo XT-class machine - had had either a hard disk or EMS, I would have considered some kind of task switching of DOS programs to be an amazing upgrade. Something like SWAP (from the same developer as WinZip?), FastFlip (.zip file link), or the kind of thing the MS-DOS 5 Shell could do.

Knowledge Base article Q71870 says DOSSHELL only swaps to disk, and some other KB article I read said it will refuse to swap to a floppy. The other tools could also swap to EMS and/or XMS I think. I'm not sure if I ever used any of these beyond DOSSHELL, but I think I might have used something else too. I think there were also tools that would make it so that when you shelled out to DOS from one application, even if that application didn't have such support built in itself, it would swap that application out to disk so that there was more RAM available for DOS and anything else you wanted to launch from it.

I mention these because they're not as great as multi-tasking because your programs aren't all running at once and can't be seen simultaneously, and some of these solutions don't even offer copy/paste, but it's much nicer than having to exit one program and then start the other, so it was still a nice upgrade. If I recall correctly I think I saw some mention earlier in the thread that machines that couldn't run proper multitasking OSes were not much better than a Commodore 64, but I think there were things you could do to get more from them.

Also, on the topic of what EMS boards were good for, I'm pretty sure that the reason my broken 286 has an EMS board is that the company I got it from needed it for Lotus 1-2-3.

Reply 108 of 151, by Grzyb

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Jo22 wrote on 2023-05-13, 17:21:

So they would need an EMS to XMS driver. AST shipped with something like that, afaik.

What's the point of such a driver?
Real mode DOS software prefers EMS over XMS.
OS/2 can't use such a driver.
I don't know about Windows...

The elegance of Expanded Memory

Well, I can't see any elegance in EMS - it was an awful kludge.
Sure, necessary for CPUs with 1 MB of address space.
But the CPUs with 16 MB of space were asking for a normal protected-mode OS and protected-mode applications.
And by "normal" I mean "possible to run on an average machine of its time".

And if the EMS board in question was battery-backed, the RAM content could survive a re-boot, even. Ideal for a RAM disk.

Were there any?
I saw some battery-backed SRAM boards, but they were emulating disk drives, nothing to do with EMS.

Nie tylko, jak widzicie, w tym trudność, że nie zdołacie wejść na moją górę, lecz i w tym, że ja do was cały zejść nie mogę, gdyż schodząc, gubię po drodze to, co miałem donieść.

Reply 109 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Grzyb wrote on 2023-05-15, 04:41:
What's the point of such a driver? Real mode DOS software prefers EMS over XMS. OS/2 can't use such a driver. I don't know about […]
Show full quote
Jo22 wrote on 2023-05-13, 17:21:

So they would need an EMS to XMS driver. AST shipped with something like that, afaik.

What's the point of such a driver?
Real mode DOS software prefers EMS over XMS.
OS/2 can't use such a driver.
I don't know about Windows...

🤷

Good question.

I know the AST driver is called "REX.SYS", however..

"E.3 Extended Memory Emulator - REX.SYS
REX interfaces with the REMM program to make Rampage 286 expanded memory act like extended memory.
This allows you to use AST's fASTdisk, SuperDrive, and SuperSpool (also IBM DOS 3.x VDISK.SYS utility with the "/E" option) to
create RAM disks or a print spooler in Rampage 286 expanded memory which emulates extended memory.
[..]
REX intercepts calls on read-only memory basic input/output system (ROM BIOS) functions designed for extended memory
use, and interfaces them to the REMM software so that they can use Rampage 286 expanded memory As with applications
that use the REMM software, program code portions of the SuperPak programs must reside in the 640 KB of PC-AT memory.
However, data associated with SuperPak utilities can use Rampage 286 expanded memory."

Edit: This reads more like int15h support rather than XMS support, I admit.
So they take Extended Memory literal here.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-05-15, 04:41:
Well, I can't see any elegance in EMS - it was an awful kludge. Sure, necessary for CPUs with 1 MB of address space. But the CPU […]
Show full quote

The elegance of Expanded Memory

Well, I can't see any elegance in EMS - it was an awful kludge.
Sure, necessary for CPUs with 1 MB of address space.
But the CPUs with 16 MB of space were asking for a normal protected-mode OS and protected-mode applications.
And by "normal" I mean "possible to run on an average machine of its time".

One of the advantages of bank-switching is that the memory pages don't need to be copied, but can be mapped.
Once all data is stored on the EMS board, it can be faded-in and faded-out and modified at will.

This makes storing/retrieving level items of a game easier or faster, I suppose.
If scrolling/parallax-scrolling is involved, graphic elements (sprites, tiles) can be quickly loaded/unloaded.
Well, at least I think so. I'm no game designer. Though the use of mappers was common on the NES, for example.

Grzyb wrote on 2023-05-15, 04:41:

And if the EMS board in question was battery-backed, the RAM content could survive a re-boot, even. Ideal for a RAM disk.

Were there any?
I saw some battery-backed SRAM boards, but they were emulating disk drives, nothing to do with EMS.

No idea, to be honest. 🤷

Edit: Apple's Macintosh Portable used SRAM, too. Roughly 2MB, I think. 😀
It was backed by an 9v battery and allowed the portable to freeze memory, so it can be put into sleep mode.
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook/ … ortable_bl.html
Edit: Pseudo-SRAM, it seems..

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 110 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Quick update. Just watched an 286 upgrade video at YT and noticed an interesting comment (attached). 🙂
It's about an user who had an 286 PC w/ 4MB in the 90s.
It was a slow model, apparently (slow memory count up), with an ISA memory board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2tcxePgd1g

Screenshot attached, since YT doesn't allow marking the text for a quote.

Attachments

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 111 of 151, by the3dfxdude

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I was running a 286 in the early 90s. In fact I had several boards. Some had SIPP sockets. The problem for someone like me at the time was finding memory for it. I even had an Intel Above Board, but didn't have any memory on it. I wanted to get some more memory to run Windows. But never got around to it as people tossing their 386s happened nearly the next day. It wasn't practical to go spend money on a 286 by that point, with what really was not much benefit... unless I guess you want to run OS/2 which is supposedly a bit faster, but that cost money too. And then the 386, which could populate easier, and ran faster, just worked, and for my purpose, cost me next to nothing to acquire. So me like many, never bothered to upgrade the ram until the stars aligned. But yeah it would have been cool to do that multitasking... well, better than dosshell.

So yeah, most people with 286 still at that point were 1MB machines. Even the turbo XT I had before it was 1MB. So a 286 really was to run some office software faster, as the older games I had were too fast on a 286 at full speed. It could almost run Windows... but it sucked with 1MB.

Reply 112 of 151, by the3dfxdude

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Here is someone saying that Windows 3.x's kernel was faster on a 286 than OS/2...
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2023 … rust/#c_4658370

The 286 processor supported 24-bit addressing in protected mode, but since it was incompatible with the real mode (8086), few operating systems supported it (OS/2 had a horrible kludge that reset the processor to switch from protected to real mode programs). Through experimentation, Microsoft found a 286 could address 64 segments in real mode (22-bit addressing) - Windows 3 was able to address 4Mb of memory without the very-slow switch from protected mode, beating OS/2.

Reply 113 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-05-16, 21:47:

So yeah, most people with 286 still at that point were 1MB machines. Even the turbo XT I had before it was 1MB. So a 286 really was to run some office software faster, as the older games I had were too fast on a 286 at full speed. It could almost run Windows... but it sucked with 1MB.

Hi there! Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense.
I suppose that a few years earlier, in the 80s, when 8088 motherboards were still common,
users felt the urge to have a faster system.

An 8088 PC was dog slow, even with a Turbo mainboard.
That made the 80286 very attractive at the time. 8086 upgrades didn't really exist, it seems.

So users essentially ripped apart their existing XT PC and recycled as much as they could, including DIL/DIP RAM, drives and slow MFM hard disks..

Hm. Maybe it's also a country specific phenomenon:
In my place, users were a bit conservative. Their was a hesitation to replace something that works.

That's why 80286 PCs had a longer shelf life than in other places, I suppose.
I've seen ads for 286 PCs in 1992-1994, still.
There was simply no reason (no urge) to buy a 486 to most serious users (gamers and power users excluded).

For example, the 40 MHz AM386 was available in 1992, allowing for cheap, quick and reliable motherboards.
And not to say cute motherboards in a small form factor. ^^
They were a real success at the time (more about that later).

Now, how does this relate to 80286 PCs?
Well, the 80286 and 80386 use similar chipsets. They're not necessarily interchangeable, but the basic design is similar. The amount of external circuitry needed is roughly same.

Many 80386 chipsets evolved from 80286 chipsets.
The 80286 was not so far behind in terms of performance and support chips, also.
The small external cache made the 80386 seem faster, though.
The 80286 was also available as low-power version at the time, as 80L286.
Both 80286 and 386SX/DX had used 30pin SIMMs, for example, with similar access time (60 to 80 or 100ns).

To users in my country, the 80286 was not a bad choice, thus, I guess.
In 1992, both ran Windows 3.1 nicely and with full software support.
Both SVGA (if driver was Standard-Mode compatible) and audio/MCI were available in Standard-Mode.
Even Video for Windows ran on it at the time (VFW 1.0).

So there was no reason not to upgrade an 286 PC to run Windows properly.
RAM, and a better HDD, excluded, maybe. Having a computer mouse was also recommended.
A recent 80286 motherboard was no different to an 80386 motherboard, all in all.
The memory was invested well on either system.

In an 80286 system even more so, maybe, due to lack of virtual memory in Windows 3.1 Standard-Mode.
- On the other hand, Standard-Mode required less resources, also.
That's why Windows 3 started in Standard-Mode automatically, if a 386 had 2MB or less memory installed (unless forced with WIN /3). Touché.

PC repair books of the day covered 286 PCs, too. As if they were no different to 386/486 ones.

That's why my 286 PC ended up with 4MB, by the way. 1MB SIMMs with low latency were simply universally common.
On modern 286/386/486 systems of the time.
Before 486 PCs with DX2 or DX4 CPUs, VLB slots and 72pin SIMMs took off in ~1994.

By 1993, the situation started to change for 286 PCs, I think. More and more 32-Bit software appeared on market.
Which meant that a lot of 80286 PCs were either retrofitted with a 386 Baby-AT mainboard, or sold off cheaply.
Maybe exported to eastern Europe or Russia, maybe.

Here's a picture of a very modern 386 motherboard with high level of integration.

motherboard-cyrix-6258034729d2c553098533.jpg
Filename
motherboard-cyrix-6258034729d2c553098533.jpg
File size
367.24 KiB
Views
769 views
File comment
"image by ykot"
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Source: https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/pcchips-m326-pga

It was often used as an easy upgrade for users of earlier systems.
It was one of the few occasions in which miniaturization was not affecting quality or functionality, I think.
Those little fellows were really solid, in terms of stability and build quality.

Edit: Some modern 80286 motherboards shipped with on-board VGA and ob-board floppy/IDE ports, even.
They could be spotted in 12 MHz or faster PCs of the time.
The 80286 had a life span of about 10 years in PC/AT compatibles (1984-1994).
That's why there are so much contradicting expectations, maybe.
Many people think of those old full-size boards with DIL/DIP RAM and 8 MHz ceramic CPU (LCC or PGA form factor).

But an early 90s 286 PC was a far cry from an ancient IBM PC/AT Model 5170 running at 6/8 MHz.
The BIOS and HDDs used had evolved significantly over the years.
The original NMOS fabrication process had switched to variations of CMOS process.

Last but not least, like its predecessor, the 80286 CPU was manufactured under license by several manufacturers, as well as being cloned a few times.
The situation was comparable to that of the Motorola 68000 CPU, maybe.

That amount of diversity was only topped by the 486 CPU, maybe.
The clone market for the 80486 CPUs was very profitable, I admit.

Edit: Here's a picture of a modern 80286 motherboard with integrated serial/parallel ports and ib-board VGA.
By the 1990s, this was a rather 'normal' 80286 motherboard, I think.
It's not a standard form factor model, though, of course. It's rather made for one of these proprietary, yet interesting PC systems of the time.

Dell Sys210 MB.JPG
Filename
Dell Sys210 MB.JPG
File size
1.87 MiB
Views
750 views
File license
Public domain

Source: Re: 286 USIT Athena PC

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 114 of 151, by the3dfxdude

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The very last 286 boards probably were no different than a 386. It's easy to find examples of this looking in the hardware database or seeing a video of someone's build. The 286 12 mhz boards I had collected were used, likely came from when some company decided to upgrade their systems. In terms of manufacturing, I think the BIOS dates would have been around '89-91. By that point in '93, my question is why. Why would one deck out a 286 and run Win3.x slow, when it would likely have been very easy to score a 386 for very cheap by around then. All you had to do is know someone that was upgrading to 486 or pentium, and likely you could get a 386. In fact, I think the system I ended up scoring was a 386 40Mhz too, and ran Win3.1 on it first, then Win95 on it. They were quite common, as for a time, they were cost competitive with the 486 and quite speedy until the DX2s came down in price which we could move on. So as the market started to pick up speed, if you were patient, in just months time, you could get a better computer close to nothing (or spending the same budget you wanted to spend). Also just like I upgraded to a 386, it wasn't long until I found a 486 board, stuck in one of those fancy clock multiplier cyrix chips, and sported even 16 mb of ram. This was before Win98! The process repeated through the end of the decade.

Per your Dell 286 board example, the reason I would not have bothered with one of those would be because they would have had a higher initial cost of entry and special case to use. Everyone I knew were using standard AT cases and clones! Much cheaper. But yeah, even though it would have been nice to have one of those simm based boards, that however was easier found in a 386 clone, because there were many more of those, in 93. I do think the 286 did have a quirky life though, and makes for interesting reflection back on what could have happened.

Reply 115 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Makes sense. I suppose there are good pros/cons for either decision. 🤷‍♂️

Personally, I got my 286 PC as second-hand at the time.
My father and me restored it back to good health using spare parts and parts we bought.
The final result was same as that of a humble 386SX/DX PC of the time.

The VGA (SVGA really, an ATI VGA Wonder) was on-board, like on that Dell mainboard. It had a BIOS dated 1988.

By contrast, my father had a 386DX-40 PC and a 486 laptop. The 486 laptop was the fastest x86 system in the house.
It had 4MB of RAM, too and ran Windows 3.1x silk smooth.

The 386DX-40 had 16MB of RAM (30pin SIMMs) in ~1994, shortly before Windows 95 was released officially.
Not sure when he had installed these 16MB exactly, originally, though. 🤷‍♂️

Here's another Youtube video I came accross, thanks to the Youtube algorithm. 🙂👏

286 VS 386 at 16MHz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zynAfNbnzCc

As can be seen, the difference isn't that huge in this speed class.
Perhaps because that 386 perhaps has no cache? Not sure. 🤷‍♂️

Edited.

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 116 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Here's another 286 build with 4MB of RAM, CD-ROM, sound card and Roland MT-32.
It comes close to what I had used in the early-mid 90s.

By contrast, I had gotten a cheap Mustek handy scanner, too, however. And an old HP LaserJet.
I didn't own a MT-32, sadly, though. 😢

If it was me, I would call this thing "period correct", since soundcard+CD-ROM upgrade kits were commonly seen in the early to mid 90s (aka "multimedia kits") .

CD-ROM technology was simply ubiquitous at the time. It was the future.
Shareware CDs with BMPs, TIFFs and GIFs were a thing, in a platform-spanning fashion.

The PC specs didn't matter so much, really.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the remaining XT owners had used parallel port CD-ROM drives for a while. 😉

Commodore PC35-III Restoration & repair with parts from my childhood in the 80s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpAY2PTS5oU

What's interesting, though, the user has a full-size ISA memory board.
That's something I didn't own at the time. I have had used bog standard FPM SIMMs at 70ns.

Edit: The PC 35-III had mouse interface and VGA on-board, too. It ran at 12 MHz.

Memory was 1MB minimum, apparently.
But on this site, it had 640KB + 2MB RAM (RAM board) installed:

https://www.commodore-info.com/computer/item/ … 35iii/de/mobile

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 117 of 151, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
the3dfxdude wrote on 2023-05-17, 01:25:

Here is someone saying that Windows 3.x's kernel was faster on a 286 than OS/2...
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2023 … rust/#c_4658370

The 286 processor supported 24-bit addressing in protected mode, but since it was incompatible with the real mode (8086), few operating systems supported it (OS/2 had a horrible kludge that reset the processor to switch from protected to real mode programs). Through experimentation, Microsoft found a 286 could address 64 segments in real mode (22-bit addressing) - Windows 3 was able to address 4Mb of memory without the very-slow switch from protected mode, beating OS/2.

Interesting, thanks for the information! 😃👍

Hm. It's a bit weird, but it kind of makes sense.

64 times 64KB results in 4096 KB, which is in reach by using an 22-Bit address.
It's also the common limit most normal 80286 chipsets can handle in terms of RAM.

I wonder where these numbers do exactly come from, though. 🤔
I mean, why did the user think of 22-Bit addressing in first place?
Normally, people rather say that the 80286 can address 16MB or 24-Bit.

Windows 3.1x can address up to 256MB in Standard-Mode, AFAIK.
The 286 kernal uses segmentation, with segments of 64KB size each (same as in Real-Mode).
- The 386 kernal, with VXD support enabled, works with 4KB pages, by contrast. It converts between 64KB and 4KB chunks transparently (behind the curtain).

Windows 3.1x in Standard-Mode can use up to 256MB physical memory,
provided that a newer version of Himem.sys is used.
The classic Himem.sys that ships with MS-DOS 6.x or Windows 3.1x can handle up to 64MB, because it conforms to an older XMS version.

(Speaking under correction)

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 118 of 151, by doshea

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Jo22 wrote on 2023-05-17, 04:51:

An 8088 PC was dog slow, even with a Turbo mainboard.
That made the 80286 very attractive at the time. 8086 upgrades didn't really exist, it seems.

So users essentially ripped apart their existing XT PC and recycled as much as they could, including DIL/DIP RAM, drives and slow MFM hard disks..

This advertisement I found for an AST Xformer/286 in Info World 7 Dec 1987 p55 suggests you might be able to just replace the mainboard but keep the rest of your XT. I don't really know enough about XTs, so I'm not sure: would this only work with genuine IBM hardware due to form factor or something?

Reply 119 of 151, by the3dfxdude

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
doshea wrote on 2023-05-18, 00:28:
Jo22 wrote on 2023-05-17, 04:51:

An 8088 PC was dog slow, even with a Turbo mainboard.
That made the 80286 very attractive at the time. 8086 upgrades didn't really exist, it seems.

So users essentially ripped apart their existing XT PC and recycled as much as they could, including DIL/DIP RAM, drives and slow MFM hard disks..

This advertisement I found for an AST Xformer/286 in Info World 7 Dec 1987 p55 suggests you might be able to just replace the mainboard but keep the rest of your XT. I don't really know enough about XTs, so I'm not sure: would this only work with genuine IBM hardware due to form factor or something?

Yes. That is what we did. Essentially the form factor of the IBM PC was cloned, and boards compatible in dimensions to that were made. The IBM AT gave us what became called full AT form factor motherboard, and the IBM XT gave us the baby AT motherboard. My XT (a clone to begin with), became a 286, 386, and for a short time, 486. So the major cost to get a computer was only initially, when had to add the case, keyboard and monitor. Moving through each generation was quick and inexpensive because you are just swapping in a board. The most radical changes really came more towards the later 486 when the multimedia started to appear, and higher performance buses became common. But you could swap out things one by one if you wanted too. They also started to integrate more things into the motherboard by default, so the upgrade during very late 486 or pentium became easier and more so as time went on to not have to keep bringing along old expansion cards.