Post 8080/Z80 S-100 stuff is more Minicomputer/Unix territory. And yes there are many x86 S-100 cards so MS-DOS is possibility. No real IBM compatibility tho. Minicomputers and Unix machines had SVGA level graphics in the 70s.

Hi, there are now S-100 x86 cards that can run standard MS-DOS 6.22.. 😃
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-100_bus
http://www.s100computers.com/My%20System%20Index%20Page.htm

Here in Europe we used to have Europe Card Bus, though. ECB-bus.
It was being used for Z80 systems, often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_Card_Bus

Edit: Also popular (for a short time) in my country was the c't-86 computer.
It was a homebrew PC based on 8086 and ECB-bus.
The magazine "c't Magazin" had published schematics and hex dumps.
It mainly ran CP/M-86, vanilla MS-DOS and Norton Commander could be patched to run on it.
https://www.applefritter.com/appleii-box/X02_1_ct8601.htm

Well you can make a single board computer with any bus. The golden question is how it really use The S-100 for other than power suply.
Eurocard is also industrial and more minicomputer stuff. I have used a x86/68k eurocard based CNC machine. Yo had to be a good programmer to integrate DOS to it.

Hi, I admit this was before my time. Rather time of my dad.
He had built an c't-86 computer in the 80s and sold it to an architect he knew.
That means it ran AutoCAD and DOS, since he still has same version (AutoCAD for DOS, rather than CP/M-86).

Video output was done via a CGA compatible board.
Plain 320x200 4c and 640x200 mono compatible, at least, without the unneccesary palette stuff.
That wasn't too uncommon, because bog-standard green monitors (aka data displays) with plain VBS input were in wide use in computing of the 70s, 80s.

When I jokingly told my father that it sounded defacto like a CGA card,
he was a bit embarassed, sad and upset.
He argued, "okay, but that was the only time!",
meaning that he realized that he had once had built a video board that was PC compatible video adapter.
(What else? It had BIOS support, that was useful. But thinking of it being CGA made someone feel sick.)

CGA had a stigma of beeing a kids toy, but at least in 640x200 b/w mode (mode 6h) it was "acceptable", even if not pretty to look at.
Here, it was on par with early Apple II graphics resolution;
and the Apple II in turn was used in semi-professional fields and was being respected.

AutoCAD 2.x even supported worse 320x200 4c mode (mode 4h), while also warning the user that that this configuration was very low-res.
Which is a nice way of telling users that it's a piece of sh.., scrap metal.

Again, normal 640x200 b/w resolution was acceptable, though.:
AutoCAD supported CGA in dual-monitor mode with MDA (for text console).

Needless to say that my father never bought a CGA card for himself.
On his PC/AT he had a proper Hercules card and an IBM 5151 monitor..

-

Anyway, all I can show as a proof of concept are some photos by an user named rhtux.
He has a c't-86 computer running ordinary MS-DOS 5.
I've attached them. They're low-res and I do give credit, so I guess it's okay.
Source: 1, 2

Typix foxed.

I forgot to mention, there of course also had been graphics adapters that were merely CGA compatible in terms of memory map and BIOS support.
Without the ugly physical traits of CGA (15 KHz, 200 lines, NTSC CVBS).
The Olivetti M24 or the IBM PGC board or Wyse wy-700 come to mind.
They had quality text fonts stored, too, so text-mode was looking normal (comparable to IBM MDA).

Edit: By "ugly" I mean it in sense of "unschön". Literally meaning "unpretty" (an actual English word?).
I don't mean it in the sense of disgusting, that's too powerful.

Edit: Here's AutoSketch v1 via CGA output.. It's acceptable.

Loved my Compaq Enhanced CGA with 286 Deskpro. All the graphics modes of CGA. But the text mode was MDA resolution. An that orginal amber monotor.

+1

That was/is a really fine PC, wished I had one! 🙂

Btw, here's an interesting part of an interview with Mr. W. Kahan about the design of the i8087 numeric data processor..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-QVgbdt_qg

Quick update. This is also interesting..:
https://paleotronic.com/2020/06/02/the-busine … r-aided-design/

Quick update. Also loosely related to the topic..
https://autodesk.blogs.com/between_the_lines/ … h-retrocad.html

That being, I could run a slightly older DOS version than 2.18 in DOSBox just fine.
My German copy had been set up for CGA, for reasons mentioned earlier, but also supports Hercules (aka Herkules), of course.

I think that's one of the moments in which Hercules (aka MGA) emulation of early ISA VGA cards was useful!
Via mode utility, it was possible to emulate Hercules and run an ancient high-end software in best resolution (old ACAD predates EGA/VGA).

Edit: Also interesting is the linked image gallery.
There's an leaflet/list of various configurations/upgrades for AutoCAD-86 and AutoCAD-80.
It lists the 8087, the Vectrex VX384 display controller box and Hercules Graphics Card among other things.
The Victors 9000 is also being mentioned (Sirius 1), that's cool.

Quick update. A bit more about the c't-86 computer..

https://github.com/RoSchmi/CT86
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tujJqBYyxOc

PS: A low-res photo of this fellow's video board.
CGA compatible, it probably was being called "Farbgraphikkarte" once.

Please note the connector and the soldered cable.
ECB-bus and 75 ohms coaxial connections weren't uncommon that time.
The board probably had plain monochrome VBS on these two pins ("BAS").

Quick update. Found this, "Retro CAD Workstations".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlD0CAE_Bw

Quick update. Found an interesting '85 magazine advertisement.
I've added it below, it's a low-res version. Hope that's okay.

The interesting thing is the mentioning of original HP LaserJet, Sirius 1 computer upgrades (aka Victor 9000), 8087/80287 numeric data processors,
lots of RAM expansions, the Hercules card, IBM EGA +64KB upgrade and an unknown 800x600 16c card (plus matching 19" monitor).
No mentioning of CGA thank lord. 😉

The mentioning of the Sirius 1 is interesting, because it was a big rival of IBM PC once.
At least here, in my home country. It was better in almost every way, too. And available before IBM PC (EU release ca. 1983).
The ~1981 model had 1,2 MB floppy drives, 800x400 graphics, internal DAC for sound, up to ~800KB of DOS memory etc.

Here's a cool video of it:

Victor 9000 / Sirius 1 - The MS-DOS Competitor to the IBM 5150
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A93TmmF3Q3w

Quick update. Also interesting is this statement about x87 numeric co-processors..

Autocad (2.6?) was faster on a 4.77MHz PC (5-slot PC, not XT) with an 8087 than on a 386DX–25 without a coprocessor - both with […]
Show full quote

Autocad (2.6?) was faster on a 4.77MHz PC (5-slot PC, not XT) with an 8087 than on a 386DX–25 without a coprocessor - both with EGA video.
It made no difference for non-floating point stuff, but for Autocad, the difference was like night & day!
Without a coprocessor, Autocad was practically unusable.
You could go brew a pot of coffee before it was done refreshing the screen if you didn’t have a coprocessor.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Was-there-any-benefit-o … to-an-IBM-PC-XT

I think that could be about right.

My Commodore PC10 with V20+8087 @4,77 MHz (VGA) performs drawing in AutoSketch quite fast.
Faster than I do remember it from back in the day on a 286 @12MHz (VGA).
Without the 8087 the drawing on PC10 was very, very slow. It crawled.

By the way, there's something I should mention here.

By mid-80s, Digital Research's CP/M (incl. CP/M-86) had the GSX extension available.
Not to all computers, but in principle, at least.

So if CP/M-86,-or Digital Research for the matter-, would have had stayed relevant just long enough at the time,
MS-DOS and the 100% IBM PC Clones wouldn't have been such a necessity on the market.
- The whole idea of cloning IBM PC-specific things like CGA and PC BIOS, I mean.

Instead, in another reality, MS-DOS compatibles with more advanced abilities could have had been made, while keeping software compatibility (platform independency).
In both directions, by the way. Applications would automatically have adapted to the capabilities of each system.

Same thing could have been possible, if MS have had offered its own GSX-like extension for DOS as a standard (like GW-BASIC, which often was being bundled).
- But instead, MS Windows was being developed. The rest is history.

(After GSX, GEM was DR's second attempt to bring a standard graphics system to PCs.)

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEM_(desk ... nment)#GSX
http://toastytech.com/guis/gsx.html

Anyway, I'm just saying.. The IBM PC clones/IBM PC compatibles basically solved an issue in terms of compatibility
that wouldn't have existed without the IBM PC and IBM market dominance in first place.

GSX was unique in that it did more than display graphical content on a screen, it could also handle plotters, cameras, and printers.
DRI had intended GSX to become the standard for microcomputers and to this end it was available on CP/M, CP/M-86, CP/M-68K, MS-DOS, MP/M, and so on. [..]

Source: https://www.abortretry.fail/p/the-gem-of-digital-research

1.3 million px/s is the speed of the video generation part - certainly not what you'd hope to achieve in application throughput.

Back then pushing pixels on screen was the definition of costly

- DRAM cost for additional pixels, monitor cost to display additional lines
- Software coping with larger data and possibly weird memory formats (what is that, 3bit 1024x1024 ?)

I guess people knew there is professional gear around they can't afford and do not need.

IBM left that piece of market open for a decade, since CGA was released and before VESA was adopted the high-resolution standards were disparate and proprietary.

Hi, thanks for reply, that makes sense! 🙂

I guess people knew there is professional gear around they can't afford and do not need.

There's a saying that if you have to ask for the price, you can't afford it. ;)

PS:

DRAM cost for additional pixels, monitor cost to display additional lines

Professional grade b/w video monitors (CRTs) can display up to 800 lines.
Which includes those green/amber VBS monitors,
as well as ordinary b/w studio monitors (also used for surveilance/by security cams).
Non-interlaced, that'd be 400 lines, still.

Normal TV grade CRTs could resolve about 300 lines, still.
There's a saying that the green monitor in the Amstrad PCW is just an ordinary RGB monitor, with the green gun wired only.
Either way, that thing can display 720x256 pels, still! 🙂👍

CGA, of course, remains stuck at 640x200 forever.
Not even Plantronics helped making it square pixels.
The Olivetti M24/AT&T 6300 added 400 line support (DCGA), finally, however.
CAD programs such as AutoCAD or ProtoCAD 3D supported this 640x400 mode. A happy end, so to say.

Higher end PC/XT class laptops of the 80s also added support for DCGA, because LC displays by nature had no issues with higher line count.
To fill an 4:3 screen area, physically, 400 lines were needed, anyway.
Otherwise, the laptop monitor had looked weird. Like a big stripe.

I find this aspect very interesting.
AutoCAD on a palm-sized handheld PC in 1990 must have been a shock.
Even AutoCAD 2.x from 5 years earlier was still considered high-tec.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqyKiSVILDM

PS: What could have ruined the fun might have been the d*ngles introduced in ~1986 (v2.1?).
These chubby things were almost as big as a handheld PC.

Edit: It seems the d*ngles were mainly meant to, err, bring joy to European users exlusively.
In the US, the d*ngles were used for a short time only (v2.5). More info here.

Quick update. Since AutoCAD became industry standard, there had been AutoCAD look-alikes, as well.
There's MultiCAD from former East Germany or Generic CADD 3.0, or DesignCAD 2D 3.x etc.

Edit: Also interesting, there was AutoSketch (!) for RM Nimbus PC-186?
Also, I didn't know about FlexiCAD. Looks a bit like AutoCAD.

Quick update. Here's a picture of a DEC Rainbow 100 running AutoCAD 2.x!
https://www.valoroso.it/en/dec-rainbow-100-pd … ofessional-380/