VOGONS


Reply 40 of 49, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The c't 86 computer was a DIY project, I remember.
It was a DOS compatible PC from 1984, but with a terminal i/o instead of a PC graphics card/keyboard.
It also used a real 8086, of course, not an 8088. And Europa Card Bus (ECB).

https://www.applefritter.com/appleii-box/X02_1_ct8601.htm

"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 42 of 49, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Scali wrote on 2023-06-24, 09:40:
Jo22 wrote on 2023-06-24, 02:12:

It was a DOS compatible PC from 1984

It doesn't seem to say anything about DOS, it runs CP/M 86.

Just asked my dad, who had built one.
He says it ran both, but MS-DOS had to be patched, because the boot track didn't match. Whatever that means. 🤷‍♂️

Anyway, this guy has recorded a video about his c't 86.
I think I can make out a "DOS" directory in the path variable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tujJqBYyxOc

Edit: What I really enjoy seeing is the term "monitor" appearing during boot.
Back in the day, certain computers had a socalled monitor program.
It's essentially a combination of a bootloader/debug program and a couple of i/o routines.

"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 43 of 49, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Jo22 wrote on 2023-06-24, 11:22:

Anyway, this guy has recorded a video about his c't 86.
I think I can make out a "DOS" directory in the path variable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tujJqBYyxOc

Yea, looks like it runs DOS indeed.
Makes me wonder how close the machine is to a real PC. There's various computers out there that use an x86 and hardware similar to the PC, but using different IO addresses and such, so they aren't compatible at the hardware level. Most notably the NEC PC-98 platform, or the Tandy 2000.

The table at page 86 seems to indicate that the IO registers are very different from a regular IBM PC.
It also does not appear to use a DMA controller. I see no listing of the 8237 chip, or any alternative.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 44 of 49, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Scali wrote on 2023-06-24, 12:01:

It also does not appear to use a DMA controller. I see no listing of the 8237 chip, or any alternative.

The DMA controller might have been located on the optional graphics card.

"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 45 of 49, by seaken64

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

One of the comments suggested that “XT” machines used the 8088 and any machine that used an 8086 would be an “AT” machine since it was a “x86” variant. I disagree with that understanding of what is an XT and what is an AT.

If you are younger than 50 you may not remember the days of the IBM PC, then the XT, and then the AT. I was just entering the work force in the 80’s and by 1989 I was looking to buy my first “personal computer” that I would use in our small family business.

I was aware of the IBM PC in 1981, as was my yet-to-be father-in-law. But the system that was chosen by my father-in-law’s family for their business was a NorthStar Advantage. I married into that family in 1987. By that time my FIL had moved the Advantage into the attic and was using his IBM PC. I was involved in upgrading that IBM PC machine with a Hercules graphics card and a 20MB MFM hard drive. This effectively turned his PC into an “XT”, although we still had the original motherboard/planer so it was not a “real” XT.

In the late 80’s and into the early 90’s I was carefully considering what would be my first personal computer that I would buy with my own money. As I remember it, an “XT class” machine was either the actual IBM XT or a “clone” of the IBM PC/XT class of machine and it almost always came with an 8088. Sometimes an XT Clone was offered with a V20/V30 replacement for the 8088/8086. But an XT was always cheaper than an “AT Class” machine and it was being offered as an alternative to the IBM AT and AT Clones which were much more expensive.

The original IBM AT was using an 80286. It was “advanced technology” over the previous PC and XT classes. When looking at alternatives to the IBM AT we looked at machines with 80286 processors. At least in our market (Northeast US) an “AT” clone was using an 80286 - NOT an 8086. An 8086 was always considered as an XT Class.

When IBM introduced the PS/2 line that replaced the previous lines (PC/XT/AT) they did offer a couple of models that used an 8086 and an ISA bus. We considered this a substitute for an XT rather than an AT. It was an offering that allowed users who didn’t want to upgrade to the AT/80286 or MicroChannel to stay with their PC/XT software and save some money.

As a buyer at that time I considered 8088 and 8086 as XT Class. I considered the 80286 as AT Class. I did not know that Tandy would later use some 80286 processors in some of their XT Class machines. I was also not aware of some of the European machines that were using the 8086 instead of the 8088. But I understood that the 8088 was essentially the same as the 8086 only it was using an 8-bit external bus. The 80286 was a different animal and was the next generation being used by IBM in their advanced technology ATs.

As to the popularity of these two classes among the DIY system builders at that time, my recollection is that kit builders and hobbyists of the day were much more likely to be building on some other platform like a 6502 or Z80, etc. And gamers were usually more interested in Commodore and Atari than PC Clones. But as PC Clones became more common as personal, or home computers, it was very common, at least in my circles (which was about business use and we were not gamers), to purchase “Bare Bones” systems and build up from there. If you did not have the knowledge to DIY you would go to a local computer store and they would build you a “white box”.

You would buy a bare bones system that would include a case and power supply, either an XT class MB or an AT class MB, and a keyboard. Then you would add your monitor and video card (sometimes already integrated into the MB), RAM chips, floppy and hard drives, and maybe a multi-I/O controller (sometimes already integrated even in XT class machines). Actual IBM AT and PS/2 machines were expensive but many business people like us purchased them because they felt more comfortable with IBM and did not like the idea of DIY. But eventually the clones did become popular with the DIY and gamers. But I do not remember this being very common with XT and AT class machines. I remember the build your own movement being more around the time of the 80486 and Pentium and then AMD.

Seaken

Reply 46 of 49, by pentiumspeed

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Absolutely correct. If XT, it will have 8 bit board with 8 slot while AT class is always 286 with 16 bit board with 16 bit slots this what was kicked into motion by IBM. Same thing applies to clones. When 386 and 486 came around for the clones, done with third-party chipset kept using AT bus architecture even longer even some they had VLB which is separate CPU bus while chipset drives the AT bus.

AT bus with AT compatible chipsets even lasted even longer into Pentium Pro, Pentium and Pentium MMX, Slot 1 and some on socket 370.

If I hear a 8 bit PC, guy is assumed to be referring to original IBM PC with 8bit 5 slot board based on 64K-256K motherboard.

8088 is 8 bit datapath using 86 16 bit core while 8086 is 16bit datapath with 86 core.

There is another twist to XT thing, there is a PS/2 model 30 used 8086 processor but the slots still is XT. IBM also created model 30-286 using same model 30 chassis using AT clone chipset by VLSI. IBM also confused a bit using a XT chassis using a XT 286 motherboard in it that is also based on AT architecture too.

Cheers,

Great Northern aka Canada.

Reply 47 of 49, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
seaken64 wrote on 2023-06-26, 18:54:

One of the comments suggested that “XT” machines used the 8088 and any machine that used an 8086 would be an “AT” machine since it was a “x86” variant. I disagree with that understanding of what is an XT and what is an AT.

I agree with you.
I wrote a blog on these classes a few years ago: https://scalibq.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/pc-c … s-all-relative/
I basically define three classes: PC, XT and AT.

I didn't specify where an 8086 would fall, but if we disregard the CPU itself, I don't think any 8086-based machine meets the other criteria I list for an AT:

Two 8259A PICs, in cascaded master/slave arrangement Two 8237 DMA controllers, cascaded for 16-bit DMA transfers 8253 Programmab […]
Show full quote

Two 8259A PICs, in cascaded master/slave arrangement
Two 8237 DMA controllers, cascaded for 16-bit DMA transfers
8253 Programmable Interrupt Timer
AT keyboard interface
6 narrow 16-bit ISA expansion slots (backward compatible with 8-bit XT slots) and 2 narrow 8-bit ISA expansion slots
MC146818 real-time clock and timer
CGA, EGA or MDA video
IBM Cassette BASIC ROM

Granted, this talks about the actual AT, clones may differ in number of slots, and clones won't have the BASIC ROM.
But the other characteristics still hold for all AT clones: two PICs, two DMA controllers, an AT keyboard interface, 16-bit ISA slots, and a MC146818 or compatible CMOS timer.

In theory you could build such a machine around an 8086 or V30 CPU, but as far as I know, all of them are XT-class in the way I defined them: one PIC, one DMA controller, 8-bit ISA slots, XT (or proprietary) keyboard interface, no CMOS timer.
Even the relatively late 8086-based IBM PS/2 model 25/30 only have 8-bit ISA slots and don't offer the other AT-class hardware either afaik. So they would be considered XT-class.

And as already mentioned before, there are a few machines that use the 286, but also do not meet the other criteria for being an AT-class system. So it's not just about the CPU (although in 99% of all cases, a 286 or higher will indicate an AT-class machine).

Last edited by Scali on 2023-06-26, 20:12. Edited 1 time in total.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 48 of 49, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

An 8086 system more or less had to be an XT due to only having 1 16 bit irq and 20 address bits.

I suppose a psueodo AT could be created from an 8086 but it’s “16 bit slot” could not be fully AT compatible and you would have a bit of whackyness with the keyboard controller, timer and the interlaced bus.

AT286 Machines could address memory using non-multiplexed pins which fundamentally changes how the bus works, let alone the massive speed boost

If an 8086 were made into an AT like system there would likely be software compatibility issues around various things like the software not getting what it expected with the keyboard not being in the right place or in the case of a ps/2 mouse not being in the correct address

Reply 49 of 49, by Ryccardo

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

…and, to add to the confusion, the most desirable features of the AT (all but the key switch and the larger mobo + case + super-height cards) were put in previous generation cases, creating the XT 286 - which is what generic ATs (then more commonly called Baby AT for clarification) really are!