1. The 8088-2 is not a clock-doubling processor. The "2" denotes the processor as "second-class citizen", being able to operate at up to 8 MHz, whereas first-class 8088 processors named "8088-1" can operate at up to 10MHz. Either way, the processor operates exactly at the frequency as generated by the board, i.e. 4.77MHz in an original PC or XT mainboard.
2. A board that runs at more than 4.77MHz is often called a Turbo XT board. Most Turbo XT boards have an option (the hotkey Ctrl-Alt-NumPlus/Ctrl-Alt-NumMinus is very common, as is a logic input, the "turbo switch") to toggle between "standard mode" at 4.77MHz and "turbo mode" at whatever turbo frequency the boards offers. Games relying on 4.77MHz can be played in standard mode at original speed.
3. Yes, the 8088-2 runs code exactly at the same speed as the 8088-1, or any other grade of the 8088.
4. The V20 is faster than a 8088 at the same clock speed. Most games should be perfectly playable even if they run a little bit fast on a V20 at 4.77MHz. It's definitely not "the real experience" though.
5. A 8086 executes calculations at exactly the same speed as the 8088, but it can not access memory in 16-bit chunks. Everytime the 8086 performs a 16-bit access, it gets a performance advantage over the 8088. The 8086 fetches instructions in 16-bit chunks, so it is faster getting instructions, which is a real bottleneck on the 8088. This advantage only works if the 16-bit access is not split into two 8-bit cycles by the mainboard, for example because the accessed memory is on the 8-bit ISA bus. Most 8086 PC compatible systems have at least the conventional RAM, and sometimes also the BIOS accessible with 16-bit cycles. If you want cycle-accurate PC/XT speed, 8086 systems are a no-go just like the V20. Just as with the V20, the speed improvement of the 8086 at 4.77 MHz will not make most games unplayable, though.
6. A 80286 at 6MHz runs most games slow enough. I remember playing digger on a 8MHz 80286 system, where I considered the game fun (not stressfully fast) as child. Of course, the "real timing" for digger is the 4.77MHz PC timing, which is most notable in the synchronisation between gameplay and sound effects. Again, if you want a system that is "exactly as fast" as an IBM PC, the 80286 will not work. Some games might be too fast on a 6MHz 80286 systems, but a lot of games are unplayable on a 4.77 MHz 8088 because that system is too slow. You get a wider range of games with Turbo XT that has an original 8088, not a V20, and has 4.77MHz deturbo (standard) clock speed. This will allow you to play old games exactly at the intended speed, but also enable you to play newer games with acceptable performance. On the other hand, a 10MHz Turbo-XT is still considerably slower than a 80286 system with a good 16-bit VGA in graphics intensive games (think full-frame animated games like 4D sports driving AKA stunts), but that's the point where you can't have both high performance and clock-for-clock PC equivalence in one system.
7. All brands of 8086 / 8088 / 80286 processors are licensed clones (this doesn't include the NEC V20, which is a NEC original design!) of the Intel processors, so their performance is exactly identical.
8. If you care about 4.77MHz-only games, many will work with 256KB, nearly all will work with 512KB. Games like Commander Keen or Wolf3D might need the whole 640KB, but will not be fun at 4.77MHz, though.

mkarcher wrote on 2021-08-22, 14:59:

[…]
Show full quote

1. The 8088-2 is not a clock-doubling processor. The "2" denotes the processor as "second-class citizen", being able to operate at up to 8 MHz, whereas first-class 8088 processors named "8088-1" can operate at up to 10MHz. Either way, the processor operates exactly at the frequency as generated by the board, i.e. 4.77MHz in an original PC or XT mainboard.
2. A board that runs at more than 4.77MHz is often called a Turbo XT board. Most Turbo XT boards have an option (the hotkey Ctrl-Alt-NumPlus/Ctrl-Alt-NumMinus is very common, as is a logic input, the "turbo switch") to toggle between "standard mode" at 4.77MHz and "turbo mode" at whatever turbo frequency the boards offers. Games relying on 4.77MHz can be played in standard mode at original speed.
3. Yes, the 8088-2 runs code exactly at the same speed as the 8088-1, or any other grade of the 8088.
4. The V20 is faster than a 8088 at the same clock speed. Most games should be perfectly playable even if they run a little bit fast on a V20 at 4.77MHz. It's definitely not "the real experience" though.
5. A 8086 executes calculations at exactly the same speed as the 8088, but it can not access memory in 16-bit chunks. Everytime the 8086 performs a 16-bit access, it gets a performance advantage over the 8088. The 8086 fetches instructions in 16-bit chunks, so it is faster getting instructions, which is a real bottleneck on the 8088. This advantage only works if the 16-bit access is not split into two 8-bit cycles by the mainboard, for example because the accessed memory is on the 8-bit ISA bus. Most 8086 PC compatible systems have at least the conventional RAM, and sometimes also the BIOS accessible with 16-bit cycles. If you want cycle-accurate PC/XT speed, 8086 systems are a no-go just like the V20. Just as with the V20, the speed improvement of the 8086 at 4.77 MHz will not make most games unplayable, though.
6. A 80286 at 6MHz runs most games slow enough. I remember playing digger on a 8MHz 80286 system, where I considered the game fun (not stressfully fast) as child. Of course, the "real timing" for digger is the 4.77MHz PC timing, which is most notable in the synchronisation between gameplay and sound effects. Again, if you want a system that is "exactly as fast" as an IBM PC, the 80286 will not work. Some games might be too fast on a 6MHz 80286 systems, but a lot of games are unplayable on a 4.77 MHz 8088 because that system is too slow. You get a wider range of games with Turbo XT that has an original 8088, not a V20, and has 4.77MHz deturbo (standard) clock speed. This will allow you to play old games exactly at the intended speed, but also enable you to play newer games with acceptable performance. On the other hand, a 10MHz Turbo-XT is still considerably slower than a 80286 system with a good 16-bit VGA in graphics intensive games (think full-frame animated games like 4D sports driving AKA stunts), but that's the point where you can't have both high performance and clock-for-clock PC equivalence in one system.
7. All brands of 8086 / 8088 / 80286 processors are licensed clones (this doesn't include the NEC V20, which is a NEC original design!) of the Intel processors, so their performance is exactly identical.
8. If you care about 4.77MHz-only games, many will work with 256KB, nearly all will work with 512KB. Games like Commander Keen or Wolf3D might need the whole 640KB, but will not be fun at 4.77MHz, though.

Wow! Thanks so much. Its really appreciated a lot !
Now i understand everything. I'm really happy about your answers. I appreciate it so much that you took so much time to wrote all of this. For me its very important. Now i'm ready. I will buy a 8088 turbo xt system that can do 4.77mhz too. I wont check anymore nec cpu and 8086, they are not what i want, i understand it now, thanks so much again.

mkarcher wrote on 2021-08-22, 14:59:

[…]
Show full quote

1. The 8088-2 is not a clock-doubling processor. The "2" denotes the processor as "second-class citizen", being able to operate at up to 8 MHz, whereas first-class 8088 processors named "8088-1" can operate at up to 10MHz. Either way, the processor operates exactly at the frequency as generated by the board, i.e. 4.77MHz in an original PC or XT mainboard.
2. A board that runs at more than 4.77MHz is often called a Turbo XT board. Most Turbo XT boards have an option (the hotkey Ctrl-Alt-NumPlus/Ctrl-Alt-NumMinus is very common, as is a logic input, the "turbo switch") to toggle between "standard mode" at 4.77MHz and "turbo mode" at whatever turbo frequency the boards offers. Games relying on 4.77MHz can be played in standard mode at original speed.
3. Yes, the 8088-2 runs code exactly at the same speed as the 8088-1, or any other grade of the 8088.
4. The V20 is faster than a 8088 at the same clock speed. Most games should be perfectly playable even if they run a little bit fast on a V20 at 4.77MHz. It's definitely not "the real experience" though.
5. A 8086 executes calculations at exactly the same speed as the 8088, but it can not access memory in 16-bit chunks. Everytime the 8086 performs a 16-bit access, it gets a performance advantage over the 8088. The 8086 fetches instructions in 16-bit chunks, so it is faster getting instructions, which is a real bottleneck on the 8088. This advantage only works if the 16-bit access is not split into two 8-bit cycles by the mainboard, for example because the accessed memory is on the 8-bit ISA bus. Most 8086 PC compatible systems have at least the conventional RAM, and sometimes also the BIOS accessible with 16-bit cycles. If you want cycle-accurate PC/XT speed, 8086 systems are a no-go just like the V20. Just as with the V20, the speed improvement of the 8086 at 4.77 MHz will not make most games unplayable, though.
6. A 80286 at 6MHz runs most games slow enough. I remember playing digger on a 8MHz 80286 system, where I considered the game fun (not stressfully fast) as child. Of course, the "real timing" for digger is the 4.77MHz PC timing, which is most notable in the synchronisation between gameplay and sound effects. Again, if you want a system that is "exactly as fast" as an IBM PC, the 80286 will not work. Some games might be too fast on a 6MHz 80286 systems, but a lot of games are unplayable on a 4.77 MHz 8088 because that system is too slow. You get a wider range of games with Turbo XT that has an original 8088, not a V20, and has 4.77MHz deturbo (standard) clock speed. This will allow you to play old games exactly at the intended speed, but also enable you to play newer games with acceptable performance. On the other hand, a 10MHz Turbo-XT is still considerably slower than a 80286 system with a good 16-bit VGA in graphics intensive games (think full-frame animated games like 4D sports driving AKA stunts), but that's the point where you can't have both high performance and clock-for-clock PC equivalence in one system.
7. All brands of 8086 / 8088 / 80286 processors are licensed clones (this doesn't include the NEC V20, which is a NEC original design!) of the Intel processors, so their performance is exactly identical.
8. If you care about 4.77MHz-only games, many will work with 256KB, nearly all will work with 512KB. Games like Commander Keen or Wolf3D might need the whole 640KB, but will not be fun at 4.77MHz, though.

Edit: I have a last question. In term of games and speed sensitive, do i need a 286 computer, if i already have a 8088, a 386 sx 16 and a 386 dx33 ?
any advantage for any games or software with a 286 ? Thanks

(Previous message: Wow! Thanks so much. Its really appreciated a lot ! Now i understand everything. I'm really happy about your answers. I appreciate it so much that you took so much time to wrote all of this. For me its very important. Now i'm ready. I will buy a 8088 turbo xt system that can do 4.77mhz too. I wont check anymore nec cpu and 8086, they are not what i want, i understand it now, thanks so much again.)

The 386sx 16 is a dud on terms of a 386, but it gives you basically some 16MHz 286 power with the 386 instruction set. It does everything the 286 does, and can even switch into protected mode and back without half. The 286 has difficulty with that. So yeah, it covers the 286 need it you ask me 😀

It even should run games like test drive 3 fine I guess, but also should run (crawl) Windows 95.

renejr902 wrote on 2021-08-22, 21:06:

Edit: I have a last question. In term of games and speed sensitive, do i need a 286 computer, if i already have a 8088, a 386 sx 16 and a 386 dx33 ?
any advantage for any games or software with a 286 ? Thanks

As you are aware of, there are a lot of very old programs, mostly games, that rely on 4.77 MHz clock speed. There never was a standard system speed after the PC/XT, but every compatible had some indeterminate faster speed than the PC/XT. Even the IBM AT exists in 6MHz and 8MHz versions. So except for programs designed for 4.77MHz only, there are only very few programs that are matched to one specific system speed. Of course, some programs can't handle a computer that is way faster than they expect (think of 486/33 instead of a 286/8), but you don't need every step available.

If your 386sx-16 has a deturbo mode that runs it at half clock speed (i.e. 386sx-8), which was a very common scheme at that time, there is no reason at all to have a separate 286 system if all you care about is speed in DOS applications / games.

If you care about general system diversity, I would recommend having a 286-12 or 286-16 system instead of the 386sx-16 system. The performance is about the same, but if you do low-level system programming, the 286 provides some unique challenges you don't need to handle on 386 systems (mainly regarding the switch from protected mode to real mode, and the 16-bit LOADALL instruction that can be used to work around that for certain operations like XMS memory copies). The programming model of the 386sx-16 and 386dx-33 is exactly the same, so you don't have any differences in how you would write software for those machines.

On the other hand, the 386sx-16 is, as already mentioned in this thread, the slowest machine Windows 95 can be started on - if you have at least 4MB of RAM. If you want to have the "slowest Win95 computer of the world" and make your own experience what operations are just bearable and what operations are really painful on a machine that slow, the 386sx-16 is worth having, of course. The 386dx-33 should provide some basic usability of Windows 95. Both systems profit a lot of 8MB RAM if you intend to actually use WIn'95.

mkarcher wrote on 2021-08-22, 22:13:

As you are aware of, there are a lot of very old programs, mostly games, that rely on 4.77 MHz clock speed. There never was a st […]
Show full quote

renejr902 wrote on 2021-08-22, 21:06:

Edit: I have a last question. In term of games and speed sensitive, do i need a 286 computer, if i already have a 8088, a 386 sx 16 and a 386 dx33 ?
any advantage for any games or software with a 286 ? Thanks

As you are aware of, there are a lot of very old programs, mostly games, that rely on 4.77 MHz clock speed. There never was a standard system speed after the PC/XT, but every compatible had some indeterminate faster speed than the PC/XT. Even the IBM AT exists in 6MHz and 8MHz versions. So except for programs designed for 4.77MHz only, there are only very few programs that are matched to one specific system speed. Of course, some programs can't handle a computer that is way faster than they expect (think of 486/33 instead of a 286/8), but you don't need every step available.

If your 386sx-16 has a deturbo mode that runs it at half clock speed (i.e. 386sx-8), which was a very common scheme at that time, there is no reason at all to have a separate 286 system if all you care about is speed in DOS applications / games.

If you care about general system diversity, I would recommend having a 286-12 or 286-16 system instead of the 386sx-16 system. The performance is about the same, but if you do low-level system programming, the 286 provides some unique challenges you don't need to handle on 386 systems (mainly regarding the switch from protected mode to real mode, and the 16-bit LOADALL instruction that can be used to work around that for certain operations like XMS memory copies). The programming model of the 386sx-16 and 386dx-33 is exactly the same, so you don't have any differences in how you would write software for those machines.

On the other hand, the 386sx-16 is, as already mentioned in this thread, the slowest machine Windows 95 can be started on - if you have at least 4MB of RAM. If you want to have the "slowest Win95 computer of the world" and make your own experience what operations are just bearable and what operations are really painful on a machine that slow, the 386sx-16 is worth having, of course. The 386dx-33 should provide some basic usability of Windows 95. Both systems profit a lot of 8MB RAM if you intend to actually use WIn'95.

Thanks again for answer. Yes i just found the deturbo jumper and my 386 sx 16 cut mhz in half at 8 mhz. I tried Landmark LM20 and it runs at 8.53mhz AT speed and sysinfo 6.0 give me 45 of score for cpu benchmark, exactly the same than a 286 8mhz at. So i'm all set. But does it run really and exactly like a 286 8mhz at for playing games ? No i dont do programming anymore, but several years ago yes. Yes i tried my 386 sx 16 with windows 95 its awful LoL! but it works. Just to be ridiculous i even installed directx 5.0 and 6.0 for fun and i cant get directdraw test to work with my trident 8900c and my oti 087. It was fun to try. The strangest thing i tried was playing tomb raider in glide with 3dfx with my 486 dx2 66 mhz with a pci voodoo 3 and it works great, more than 20 and 30 fps most of the time. Screamer 2 in 3dfx work good enough too, but better with my 486 dx4 at 100mhz. Unfortunately Moto Racer 1 was unplayable, only a few frames by second.

So i dont need a 286 really for any game, except for the collection some day. Thanks a lot.

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-08-22, 21:22:

The 386sx 16 is a dud on terms of a 386, but it gives you basically some 16MHz 286 power with the 386 instruction set. It does everything the 286 does, and can even switch into protected mode and back without half. The 286 has difficulty with that. So yeah, it covers the 286 need it you ask me 😀

It even should run games like test drive 3 fine I guess, but also should run (crawl) Windows 95.

Thanks for answer. i just got to work the deturbo at 8mhz and like a 286 8mhz at, read my last post. Test drive 1 work great, i will try test drive 3 later today.

renejr902 wrote on 2021-08-23, 09:47:

Thanks again for answer. Yes i just found the deturbo jumper and my 386 sx 16 cut mhz in half at 8 mhz. I tried Landmark LM20 and it runs at 8.53mhz AT speed and sysinfo 6.0 give me 45 of score for cpu benchmark, exactly the same than a 286 8mhz at. So i'm all set. But does it run really and exactly like a 286 8mhz at for playing games ?

No, it does not run exactly like a 286 8MHz in all games. The 386sx core is different from the 286 core. Also, contrary to popular belief, the bus interface and even the bus protocol of the 386sx is slightly different from the 286 protocol. This provides enough distinction to cause measurable performance differences. In some games, your system will be more like a 286 7.2 MHz, and in other games possibly like a 286 8.2 MHz. For common code, the 386sx is slightly slower than a 286 at the same clock, especially if you ask Harris (a company that continued selling fast 286 processors when Intel tried to convince everyone to buy 386 processors instead). But I seriously doubt you will find any game that works fine on a 286 8MHz, but doesn't work good enough on your 386sx in deturbo mode. So while it does not run exactly like a 286 8MHz, it runs close enough to a 286 8MHz. As I already said, for 4.77MHz 8088, there might be a need for "exactly that speed", but for all other speed grades, "close enough" is sufficient.

mkarcher wrote on 2021-08-23, 18:44:

renejr902 wrote on 2021-08-23, 09:47:

Thanks again for answer. Yes i just found the deturbo jumper and my 386 sx 16 cut mhz in half at 8 mhz. I tried Landmark LM20 and it runs at 8.53mhz AT speed and sysinfo 6.0 give me 45 of score for cpu benchmark, exactly the same than a 286 8mhz at. So i'm all set. But does it run really and exactly like a 286 8mhz at for playing games ?

No, it does not run exactly like a 286 8MHz in all games. The 386sx core is different from the 286 core. Also, contrary to popular belief, the bus interface and even the bus protocol of the 386sx is slightly different from the 286 protocol. This provides enough distinction to cause measurable performance differences. In some games, your system will be more like a 286 7.2 MHz, and in other games possibly like a 286 8.2 MHz. For common code, the 386sx is slightly slower than a 286 at the same clock, especially if you ask Harris (a company that continued selling fast 286 processors when Intel tried to convince everyone to buy 386 processors instead). But I seriously doubt you will find any game that works fine on a 286 8MHz, but doesn't work good enough on your 386sx in deturbo mode. So while it does not run exactly like a 286 8MHz, it runs close enough to a 286 8MHz. As I already said, for 4.77MHz 8088, there might be a need for "exactly that speed", but for all other speed grades, "close enough" is sufficient.

Thanks for that answer.

I will probably buy one of these 2 8088. I hesitate right now. You can give me your opinion if you want. I know one has only 256kb ( im not sure except keen serie and wolf3d, which 8088 and 286 game that wont run on it) ( but i think i can add a ram card later) but its a original ibm 5160 motherboard, i think the second desktop computer pc compatible in history, the other is a fujitsu cpu 8088-2 with 640k and turbo and deturbo.

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/255087297860?hash=ite … MYAAOSwrXhhE1DD

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/332775727655?epid=160 … wQAAOSwM85bfWU5

I would like this one below, because its the original ibm 5150 like one i had in my childhood, i think its the first pc ibm compatible 8088 in history ( you can tell me if im wrong) but its not tested:

https://www.ebay.ca/itm/114863212616?hash=ite … kwAAOSwlTFg01mk

My favorite XT class systems are the Tandy 1000 series

Now days though most XTs are quite expensive so whatever machine you can find that is reasonably priced go for it.

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-08-22, 21:22:

The 386sx 16 is a dud on terms of a 386, but it gives you basically some 16MHz 286 power with the 386 instruction set. It does everything the 286 does, and can even switch into protected mode and back without half. The 286 has difficulty with that. So yeah, it covers the 286 need it you ask me 😀

To be fair, though, in DOS there's no need anymore to switch back and forth between real/protected mode. 🙂

"The above method was obviously not usable on 286 systems. However, HIMEM.SYS version 2.06 added a new code path which
avoided the BIOS thanks to the well-undocumented LOADALL instruction. LOADALL can be used to load the entire
internal CPU state, including hidden registers. HIMEM.SYS modified the hidden segment base registers to point
to the source or target memory location above 1MB. The processor was never switched out of real mode.
The block move was done with interrupts enabled, although if an interrupt actually occurred, the selector bases
had to be reprogrammed and the move restarted. The LOADALL method was then the only 286 code path,
because V86 mode was not applicable (in other words, the CPU was always in real mode when executing HIMEM.SYS
and LOADALL could be used)."

Source: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/himem-sys-unreal- … de-and-loadall/

Edit:

8. I think yes, but i ask the question, is 640kb ram really needed as a minimum to runs all 8088 games, and i want to run commander keen serie and wolf3d on it, even if its slow. I think with 512kb i cant runs these games, is it right ? So what do you think as a minimum of ram that is correct, 640kb vs 512kb vs 256kb ?

Back then, many different memory configurations existed.
It depends on what version of DOS and how many drivers you use, I think.
Some people at vcfed forum made a list that documents how much memory each DOS version does take up.

Personally, I'm using MS-DOS 6.2x on my XT class PC.
https://youtu.be/8nMB8XvwUJo

By the way, despite popular belief, 640KB never was the maximum amount of RAM that XT users had installed.
People back then were less religious than todays vintage PC enthusiasts.

704KB (HGC) , 736KB (CGA) or 900KB (CTTY) weren't unheard of.
In fact, the original IBM PCs 5150/5160 were easy to modify for 7xx KB of RAM:

"I have found out that IBM PC 5150 continues BIOS memory test to 704 kilobytes with undocumented SW2 DIP switch settings ON ON OFF ON OFF and DOS automatically uses all of that as conventional memory. This is an alternative way to utilize 64 kilobytes of RAM at segment A0000".

source

That being said, I don't mean to start a religious fight here over the 640KB barrier.
Because, no doubt some people will claim I want to revise history etc.
Instead, I'll simply add documents/tools (PD) from the 1980s. 😁

Jo22 wrote on 2021-08-24, 18:43:

To be fair, though, in DOS there's no need anymore to switch back and forth between real/protected mode. 🙂 […]
Show full quote

waterbeesje wrote on 2021-08-22, 21:22:

The 386sx 16 is a dud on terms of a 386, but it gives you basically some 16MHz 286 power with the 386 instruction set. It does everything the 286 does, and can even switch into protected mode and back without half. The 286 has difficulty with that. So yeah, it covers the 286 need it you ask me 😀

To be fair, though, in DOS there's no need anymore to switch back and forth between real/protected mode. 🙂

"The above method was obviously not usable on 286 systems. However, HIMEM.SYS version 2.06 added a new code path which
avoided the BIOS thanks to the well-undocumented LOADALL instruction. LOADALL can be used to load the entire
internal CPU state, including hidden registers. HIMEM.SYS modified the hidden segment base registers to point
to the source or target memory location above 1MB. The processor was never switched out of real mode.
The block move was done with interrupts enabled, although if an interrupt actually occurred, the selector bases
had to be reprogrammed and the move restarted. The LOADALL method was then the only 286 code path,
because V86 mode was not applicable (in other words, the CPU was always in real mode when executing HIMEM.SYS
and LOADALL could be used)."

Source: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/himem-sys-unreal- … de-and-loadall/

Edit:

8. I think yes, but i ask the question, is 640kb ram really needed as a minimum to runs all 8088 games, and i want to run commander keen serie and wolf3d on it, even if its slow. I think with 512kb i cant runs these games, is it right ? So what do you think as a minimum of ram that is correct, 640kb vs 512kb vs 256kb ?

Back then, many different memory configurations existed.
It depends on what version of DOS and how many drivers you use, I think.
Some people at vcfed forum made a list that documents how much memory each DOS version does take up.

Personally, I'm using MS-DOS 6.2x on my XT class PC.
https://youtu.be/8nMB8XvwUJo

By the way, despite popular belief, 640KB never was the maximum amount of RAM that XT users had installed.
People back then were less religious than todays vintage PC enthusiasts.

704KB (HGC) , 736KB (CGA) or 900KB (CTTY) weren't unheard of.
In fact, the original IBM PCs 5150/5160 were easy to modify for 7xx KB of RAM:

"I have found out that IBM PC 5150 continues BIOS memory test to 704 kilobytes with undocumented SW2 DIP switch settings ON ON OFF ON OFF and DOS automatically uses all of that as conventional memory. This is an alternative way to utilize 64 kilobytes of RAM at segment A0000".

source

That being said, I don't mean to start a religious fight here over the 640KB barrier.
Because, no doubt some people will claim I want to revise history etc.
Instead, I'll simply add documents/tools (PD) from the 1980s. 😁

I will use the 704k file, its nice. Thanks

Cool reminder about the higher base mem configurations. Don't tell people about the util that lets you use VGA framebuffer as RAM disk and the other one that lets you use disk as EMS though, or it will get complicated.