mkarcher wrote on 2025-09-14, 16:34:

Grzyb wrote on 2025-09-14, 08:59:

286 with 512 KB RAM? In 1988? Seriously???

That was a quite common entry-level AT configration in Germany at that time.

OK, just had a look into "Byte" magazines from 1988 - 286 boxes with only 512 KB RAM were still sold even in the USA.
Hard to believe it, considering that in 1987, all 286 IBM PS/2s already had 1 MB - but I guess some people wanted something cheaper, with the option to upgrade it later on.

Anyway, the fact that OS/2 was designed for 286, looks even more of a mistake...

Floppy controllers started to appear integrated on the mainbaord at that time.

Yes, but I would expect stuff integrated on the mobo only in brand-name PCs, eg. Commodore PC 10-III/20-III.
In generic clones, I would rather expect a multi-I/O card = FDC+LPT+COM+GAME+RTC.
At least that's what I recall from late XT clones...

Grzyb wrote on 2025-09-14, 17:36:

Hard to believe it, considering that in 1987, all 286 IBM PS/2s already had 1 MB - but I guess some people wanted something cheaper, with the option to upgrade it later on.

Anyway, the fact that OS/2 was designed for 286, looks even more of a mistake...

I think it's wrong to equate a processor type with a system configuration. I guess most people that bought the entry-level AT machines with MDA/Hercules and 512K of RAM were not looking for multitasking or modern operating system, they just wanted a system that supported 1.2MB instead of 360KB floppies. 360KB already started to feel "small" at that time. You started to have an operating system disk to boot, an application disk with the software and a third disk to store your data on. Even in a two-drive system, this means swapping disks got part of the daily routine. Note that this 286 system we are talking about did not include a hard drive! This system is somehow like a "Turbo PC" - still no hard drive, but more performance and bigger disk capacity.

Sure, there is no technical reason to not have 1.2MB drives in a PC-class 8088 system, and I guess most happy customers of 512KB/noHDD/Hercules/8MHz systems would have been fine with a 10MHz Turbo-XT as well, if it had 1.2MB drives. But the XT BIOS does not support multi-rate floppy controllers, and floppy controller cards with their own BIOS were not common. On the other hand, integrated AT chipsets started to get common, and AT boards with native HD drive support got a commodity item.

On the other hand, there were the higher-end 286 systems like the PS/2 series that started at 1MB RAM and could be upgraded to 4MB at least, possibly even 8MB. Those are the system OS/2 was designed for. In retrospect, we know that the 286 class as affordable PC system was quite short-lived, especially due to 386SX systems replacing that position on the market. While it didn't matter for native OS/2 applications, the 386SX with its built-in 8086 virtualization capability that enabled EMM386 and Windows/386 (the origin of Windows 3.0 enhanced 386 mode) was clearly the better processor to multitask legacy DOS applications. Harris published a paper that for 286 software, a 286 system is typically more performant than a 386sx system at the same clock rate. While that paper clearly has obviously written for marketing purposes (Harris had a 286 license, and was AFAIK the only vendor selling 20MHz and 25MHz 286 processors; Harris had no 386 license), and the performance benefits of 286 vs. 386sx is likely overblown, looking at the execution time tables of the 286 and 386 processors, there likely is some truth that the 286 would actually execute 16-bit OS/2 code faster than a similar 386SX system. If the 386SX wouldn't have taken the 286 market share, I would expect we would have seen 4MB 286 systems as mid-range systems in 1991, the perfect target for 16-bit OS/2.

Grzyb wrote on 2025-09-14, 17:36:

Floppy controllers started to appear integrated on the mainbaord at that time.

Yes, but I would expect stuff integrated on the mobo only in brand-name PCs, eg. Commodore PC 10-III/20-III.

Well, I thought the same, but I just recently help to get two dumpster-rescued retro systems up and running that were of the very age we are currently talking about - and both had a mainboard with an on-board floppy controller. One system was ASEM branded, and the other system was SWEDA branded. At least for me, that doesn't sound like the big brands. The SWEDA system is a 10MHz AT clone (with 512KB of 1MB populated on the main board), and the only issue it had was a broken WD 16-bit hard drive controller. The ST-225 drive in that system was still working fine with no bad sectors. We got a replacement HDD controller (a WD 1003-WAH) on which the floppy interface can not be disabled or moved to the secondary I/O address without also moving the hard drive part to the secondary I/O address, and thus we had to experiment which of the (luckily very few) mainboard jumpers was used to disable the mainboard floppy controller.

Just as a side note: The ASEM branded system is a 9.54MHz Turbo-XT based on the FE2010A XT-on-a-Chip, and someone installed an original IBM CGA into that system. The only issue with that system was a shorted tantalum on the 12V line on that very CGA card. The ST-225 in that system also worked fine with no bad sectors...

mkarcher wrote on 2025-09-14, 16:34:

I wonder who could make use of a 386 processor, but considered Hercules graphics sufficient. Classic Hercules cards are 8-bit cards and do not even manage to run without extra wait-states in a 4.77 MHz PC/XT.

Hi, I assume that DESQView+QEMM, DESQView 386 or Windows/386 or CEMM could have utilized the the 386 that early.

PC-MOS/386 also existed by 1987, but it was rather niche maybe. It just comes to mind because my father had it..

Concurrent DOS and Xenix had 386 versions, too but I have little experience here.
By late 80s, AutoCAD had 386 versions available, I think.

The DOS Extra Magazine does list Windows 2.03 and Windows/386, at very least.

But to be honest, I assume that the average user simply wanted an 386 in first place because it had offered noticeable better performance. 😟
The enhanced MMU and V86 were next on the wish list, maybe.

286 with 512 KB RAM? In 1988? Seriously??? What a beautiful machine for the brand-new OS/2 1.1, with Presentation Manager! 🤣

Hey, the Magazine wasn't called "DOS Extra" for nothing! 😃
It it was about OS/2, it'd been called "BS/2 Extra", after all! 😉

Seriously, though. As-is the models shown wouldn't have run OS/2 Presentation Manager anyway because IBM refused to support Hercules graphics.
Microsoft by contrast did support Hercules in Windows/386, for example.

Speaking of OS/2 1.1, it also ran on 386 systems, but there were differences between IBM and MS releases.
And tzere were different editions. Standard, Extended etc. Some might have needed 286 or 386 to run properly.
The HPFS 386 filesystem driver needed an 80386, for example.

The whole LOADALL vs LOADALL386 differences might have mattered, too.
AFAIK the average 80386 chip didn't have normal LOADALL instruction of the 80286 anymore (for security reasons), so the AT 386 BIOS emulates it for software requiring it.

However, if an OS is not running in Real Mode but Protected-Mode that emulation may or may not work?
An AT with an 386 CPU upgrade doesn't have LOADALL emulation, either, maybe.
Because, I assume, the AT BIOS is unware of the situation and treats the 80386 like an 80286.

PS: My apologies for being a bit off-topic. I didn't mean to de-rail the thread here through my replies.
It's just that I got a little bit carried away. I hope the OP doesn't mind.

mkarcher wrote on 2025-09-14, 18:59:

I guess most people that bought the entry-level AT machines with MDA/Hercules and 512K of RAM were not looking for multitasking or modern operating system, they just wanted a system that supported 1.2MB instead of 360KB floppies. 360KB already started to feel "small" at that time. You started to have an operating system disk to boot, an application disk with the software and a third disk to store your data on. Even in a two-drive system, this means swapping disks got part of the daily routine. Note that this 286 system we are talking about did not include a hard drive!

I'm looking at 1988 price lists, and it seems that XT with 20 MB HDD costs about the same as AT without HDD.

I would've definitely choosen the XT: 360 KB + 20 MB is way more convenient than 1.2 MB, no disk swapping at all!
...unless I was planning to upgrade it later - the XT was already pretty much at dead end, while the 286 was still very promising.

^But an traditional 8088 PC/XT @4,77 MHz was painfully slow (I have a few XTs here).
DIR command alone was a stress test (V20/V30 helped a bit).
The characters crawled the screen like you were calling a mailbox at 300 or 1200 Baud.

In terms of user experience, a slow 6 MHz AT must felt about same as a super fast 16 MHz PC/XT.
In practice, even a C64 seemed to respond quicker than an original 4,77 MHz PC.

If I had to opt between suffering financially and mentally, I would have chosen the first.
There are things that are more important than money in life, I think. Suffering isn't worth the money.

Also, in terms of productivity, an 4,77 MHz PC can hold up an entire workflow.
Using a mechanical typewriter or a real card file was the better alternative sometimes.

So unless the PC was used as an electronic typewriter (word processor) or for hobby use,
I would have installed a CPU accelerator not long after.
Such as Orchid Tiny Turbo 286 or an Microsoft MACH card (fast 8086 or 80286).

Because, if you pay lots of money for a PC it must at least be usable also.
If it's not fully functional, then there's no real gain and the investment was a failure.
So it's better to pay extra money to make it run as intended, even it hurts financially a little bit.

Edit: Again, sorry for being a bit off-topic. Maybe should go back on main topic.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-09-14, 21:23:

^But an traditional 8088 PC/XT @4,77 MHz was painfully slow

We're talking about 1988 here - 4.77 MHz XTs are no longer available.
Note that those Marlow systems from your magazine are 10 MHz - both the 8088 and 286 models.
The 286 is more than 2x faster, of course - but the Turbo XT is also bearable with 80s software.
Also, speed is not just about CPU, but also about disk I/O - there's plenty of applications that run faster on an XT with HDD, than on 286 with floppy!

If you needed a computer for a well-defined purpose, without plans to use it for anything else - a good XT was perfectly fine!

Otherwise... better buy a poor AT - with the constantly dropping prices, adding more RAM and HDD was sure to become affordable sooner or later.

Edit: Again, sorry for being a bit off-topic. Maybe should go back on main topic.

I wouldn't worry - looks like the topic got exhausted anyway...

BaronSFel001 wrote on 2025-09-09, 13:58:

This is the bigger market picture I see: as of 1991 Apogee still supported CGA not just as a matter of principle; their catalog for that year still included Kroz and the FAST engine games while, as I already mentioned, Softdisk's subscription model accommodated an even lower common denominator. Come to notice it, Goodbye, Galaxy! was the last Apogee game to support CGA, and only in that special edition (not unlike how MicroProse released special editions of F-117A Stealth Fighter 2.0 & Gunship 2000 that same year for those who still only had EGA capability). Invasion of the Vorticons and Todd Replogle's games based on id technology (Dark Ages & Duke Nukem) required EGA, so I can buy Apogee considered potential sales lost for users of lower-end systems. Yet John Carmack did the work, as confirmed by how impressed he was by the composite CGA conversion a few years ago, and he's not a man known for engaging in afterthought projects - such projects existed for id, but typically got farmed out to Jason Blochowiak instead of involving the main team.

I guess actually the irony is that the initial Commander Keen game was based on an engine the original id guys wrote while working at Softdisk in their spare time. Because the game engine did not support CGA, the Softdisk management did not want to use it. So the id guys took their ideas to Apogee who were contacting them seeing their games, and who then published a game from the engine, which only supported EGA. But then Softdisk, finding out what they did, confronted the team about using company resources, and ended up preventing a revolt of sorts of people quitting, and decided to contract with the team that was forming id that they would deliver a number of games for their publications. One of those games was Keen Dreams, which supported CGA. So I do think that in the effort of delivering those games, Carmack decided to extend Keen to support CGA for a Softdisk release, maybe because he thought it was technically possible anyway? So Keen went from being rejected for not supporting CGA, to writing a CGA port anyway because they had to get another game out, to get out of a mess they created with their former employer.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160402151326/ht … om/keenhistory/

So since the Keen engine gained CGA support with Keen Dreams, I guess the subsequent releases also had it just simply out of principle that the engine supported it.

Inspired by discussion that spawned off, I made some "tests" on my trusted XT.

As a child in early 90s, I knew it is as shit for games as it gets. CGA with monochrome green phospor screen, 4.77 MHz.

But it has been upgraded meanwhile, system speed bumped to 7.15 MHz, soundcard and ATi Wonder 800+ in. The clock increase gives out ~ 50% opcode and mem access buff, but only ~ 6% VRAM access because the onboard video hardware uses original CGA dual ported VRAM. With the ATi card, the VRAM access is +50% also. Thus, I have three experiences on the same computer - o.g. IBM PC performance level with IBM CGA. Basic Turbo XT perf level with CGA and basic Turbo XT perf level with typical ASIC 120ns VRAM graphics card. And with/without soundcard use.

So lets start with basic M19 (IBM PC + Plantronics Colorplus). There's not much to be said here, a lot of late 80s and early 90s games that support CGA are painfully slow, even worse if digital sound is on.

With M19 in 50/50 duty (Turbo XT + Plantronics Colorplus) things start looking way better regardless of just nominal 6% VRAM access buff. Commander Keen CGA ports, Prince of Persia get somewhat playable - well Prince not that much because you can't save and it's still very slow. Single screeners that want 286 like Monuments of Mars get quite playable. The 16 color Plantronics stuff (only SCI0 off historic games...) does lag a bit in some more involved animations in SCI0 games. The late 80s games that were slow on normal XT now get playable. The games that are incredibly slow on normal XT such as Golden Axe or Xenon 2 get better, still not very playable.

With M19 in 50/50 duty and ATi card we get a very cheap computer from 1990 listings and here things get interesting due to EGA support. Early Commander Keens run excellent. Fluid, it is enjoyment to play them. The later Keen's CGA ports work quite faster than on original CGA card, and this is the pattern of the build - if not too busy and programmed with care, EGA stuff works fast, and altogether CGA works quite faster. Civilization runs, it is not too bad to play, I haven't got far into a game where a lot of stuff happens so can't tell will it start lagging heavily in between turns, but it loads surprisingly fast. Prince of Persia starts touching the nominal FPS numbers but still dips if there is enemy and candles on screen, tiles falling etc. Oh and its very worthwhile to run games with sound that support it.

My conclusion - around 89/90 a 8 MHz XT + any card that can follow the system clock (so basically any card produced/sold in that year) can be a decent "low budget gaming" machine for next couple of years.

I will try to find some mags on archive.org and compare the prices in lets say December 1989 of Turbo XT against 286/386 to back up my claim that it was an attractive platform to buy.

Hence in December 1991 when Keen 4 was released if someone ran the CGA edition on a 10 MHz V20 el cheapo PC, the game would run very much OK considering the PC running it. I'd say it would be even something to market in terms of software excellence.

zb10948 wrote on Yesterday, 14:48:

but only ~ 6% VRAM access because the onboard video hardware uses original CGA dual ported VRAM.

The original IBM CGA (and many early clones) do not use dual-port RAM as video memory buffer, but ordinary DRAM. This is one reason why the video memory access is that slow: In graphics modes, the CGA card is using 50% of the available RAM bandwidth to read data to refresh the screen (and the 8088 at 4.77 MHz is unable to hit every time slot that would be available for CPU access to video memory). I would expect if you go up to 9.54MHz (+100% CPU clock), CGA video memory access would go up by 50% (unless too many wait states are added to ISA bus access), because at that speed, the processor should be able to catch every second instead of every third time slot available for CPU use.

Except for the claim that the CGA uses dual-ported RAM, your idea is correct that the original CGA is the bottleneck in your system, and a more modern video subsystem that better decouples video refresh and CPU access to the video memory will yield better performance.

The only low-end IBM graphics solution I know of that actually uses dual-ported ram (the RAM type called VRAM) is the onboard MCGA in the 8086 variant of the IBM PS/2 model 25 and 30.

zb10948 wrote on Yesterday, 14:48:

well Prince not that much because you can't save and it's still very slow.

You can save in Prince of Persia. This fact is not very widely known, but a lot of people found the key combination to save (IIRC Ctrl-S). This key combination even works if cheat mode (prince megahit) is not active. It is far less known how to load the game. This is because many people just tried every key combination in the game with cheat mode activated to discover all available buffs, but the key combination to load a game only works in the title screen. If you know that Ctrl-S can be used to save the game, and there is a key combination to use in the title screen to load a game, it isn't that surprising that this combination is Ctrl-L.

Nevertheless, even if you know how to activate the load feature of the game, depending on the provenance of your copy of prince of persia, you might encounter a screen you never saw before and is not completable unless you have the printed manual of the game at hand.

zb10948 wrote on Yesterday, 14:48:

My conclusion - around 89/90 a 8 MHz XT + any card that can follow the system clock (so basically any card produced/sold in that year) can be a decent "low budget gaming" machine for next couple of years.

On the other hand, a 8MHz AT with a VGA card that supports 16-bit memory access and a game that actually uses 16-bit access will be way faster than an 8 MHz XT. Even if only 8-bit access is possible, if you get one of the variants of VGA cards that are able to buffer writes with zero AT wait states and perform them as burst in fast page mode (the ET4000 chips are well-known for being good at this discipline, but they are neither the first ones to introduce this feature nor the only ones to hit top ISA speed), you will get video RAM performance the far exceeds the capabilities of an XT. There are a lot of games that run perfectly fine on an 8MHz or 10MHz XT, but you shouldn't expect the same level of performance you would get from an AT at the same clock rate.

If you consider the bang-for-the-bucks, and do not require top performance, the Turbo XT indeed might have been a quite sensible choice in 1989.

Sorry about the nomenclature mistake.

There is an XT machine which has very similar onboard graphics card as M19 with same components used, Commodore PC-I, which is able to run at 9.54 MHz. I wonder about graphics performance in that mode.

Of course you shouldn't expect AT performance at same clock, due to word size in the case you outlined the AT is twice as faster baseline, not counting in any extra waitstates.

The 16-bit "XT" machines exist (M24) but those are not the types we're talking about, which would be newly produced hardware at end of 80s.

Yeah I would agree with your assessment too, but I believe there is still a good gap between a 8MHz 286 and V20 system in late 80s. By late 80s there were multiple sources of XT-on-a-chip ASICs like Faraday FE2010A that could be used to make a cheap "clone board", the 286 platform parts weren't as accessible. In 1988 Faraday e.g. Western Digital had several XT integrated or half-integrated chips in catalogue, just one 286 'controller', in 2 chips as far as I recall.

zb10948 wrote on Today, 01:12:

The 16-bit "XT" machines exist (M24) but those are not the types we're talking about, which would be newly produced hardware at end of 80s.

The PC1512 technically is from 1986, too. That's still mid-80s, maybe.
It had an 8086 @8 MHz, but quite some users took the oportunity to install an V30,
when they had the cabinet already open to upgrade RAM to full 640KB.

https://www.dosdays.co.uk/computers/Amstrad%2 … trad_pc1000.php

The reason I mention this particular model is because my father had one in the 80s.
Where I live, the Schneider branded version was sold via "Quelle" mail order company at the time.
I've seen some old catalogue pictures of it on the internet, too.
The Euro XT and some other models were shown by late 80s, too.

In additon to that, the PC1512 was being mentioned in PC magazines of the 80s over here.
Such as Happy Computer magazine. So it was sort of a standard computer, rather than an obscure model.

It was also popular for using GEM on PC platform. Except for the PC1512/PC1640, it was mainly used on Atari STs.

https://stcarchiv.de/hc1986/10/schneider-pc

Here's an image of Power Play magazine article of 1987.
In the picture of upper right corner, there's an PC1512 or 1640 sitting on the desk.

https://www.retroplace.com/de/feature/die-80e … y-asm-und-co/94

Yeah, XT was alive and well everywhere, not just in Europe.
The issue here is AT was not a successor to XT price/segment wise. And 286 was not a particularly successful CPU either, the added instructions and functionality weren't globally used, and most of software targeting 286 PC performance in mid 80s was still 8086 code.

PC/XT was designed and produced as cost effective machine. When IBM and PC companies started chasing performance due to massive adoption of the platform in first years of life, they kinda dropped that sentiment.

Per Computer Shopper Magazine's random ad pick, a 8-bit ISA VGA is 2.5x cheaper than 16-bit, same vendor (Paradise).
By looking at other stuff, building a 8 MHz 286 full 16-bit PC vs building a 8 MHz V20 8-bit PC, is north of $500 of difference.

Btw, in 1989 5150 still being sold, for 800 bucks. I think Turbo XT 8 MHz with VGA falls into $1000 category where most of it is the monitor cost.

zb10948 wrote on Today, 09:45:

Yeah, XT was alive and well everywhere, not just in Europe.

I know, the reason I mentioned the PC1512 was because it was a noteworthy 8086 PC,
because it didn't just exist on paper but could be encountered in real life, too.
The PC1512 was the closest thing of a household PC here in Europe.
It was in used in a few movies and TV series as background prop, too.

The video here explains it rather well.

The PC That Cracked Europe - Amstrad PC1512 and 1640
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PYpMXseflM

zb10948 wrote on Today, 09:45:

The issue here is AT was not a successor to XT price/segment wise.
And 286 was not a particularly successful CPU either, the added instructions and functionality weren't globally used, and most of software targeting 286 PC performance in mid 80s was still 8086 code.

Hi, I don’t know much about price segments, I'm afraid. 😟

But the 80286 or 8087 co-pro was desperately wanted in business applications, I think.
A bog-standard 4,77 MHz PC somtimes was performing so slow that the running gag with going to the coffee machine was invented.

Because, some calculations in spreadsheets etc took so long that the normal workflow was interrupted.
Users at workplace literally made some coffee or drank a cup of coffee while waiting for the IBM PC to finish work.

About the AT.. The AT's support for a Real-Time-Clock, 5.25" 1.2 MB floppy disks
and a keyboard with 12 F keys was also more relevant to business users, as well.
Home users didn't really need that, I think. An XT architecture with 80286 was already more than good enough, maybe.

To home users, the 80286 was perhaps seen indeed as expensive luxury, I admit.
To tho them, the graphics sub system was likely imposing more of a bottleneck at the time than the 8088/8086 processor itself.

To programmers or accountants, the 80286 was surely seen positively early on.
Even a "cheap" 8086/286 CPU accelerator installed in an existing IBM PC made a big difference (Microsoft sold MACH cards to make Windows 1.x and 2.x use bearable).

Power users went straight for a 80386, rather, I think.
It allowed running tools simultanously in an multitasking environment (DESQView 386, PC-MOS 386) with lots of RAM.

zb10948 wrote on Today, 09:45:

PC/XT was designed and produced as cost effective machine.
When IBM and PC companies started chasing performance due to massive adoption of the platform in first years of life, they kinda dropped that sentiment.

Yes, and the PC/XT architecture reached an high integration level during the 80s due to its simplicity.
The microcontroller chips 80186 and NEC V40/NEC V50 were basically primitive x86 SoCs already (System on a Chip).

The high integration level allowed handheld computers such as the Poqet PC or Atari Portfolio.
Or these Juko XT motherboards which sometimes feature V30 or EMS support.
They got popular in late 8os/early 90s. The compact models were comparable to the highly integrated 386 Baby AT motherboards of 1993-1996 (am386DX-40 etc).

In additon, the early appearing of that anonymous XT BIOS from Taiwan (or Hong Kong?)
and the many no-name XT boards from same origin contributed to the success of the PC/XT class.
Suddenly, there was a legal souce of 1:1 IBM compatible motherboards.

Even by mid-80s, years before the Turbo XT craze, barebone 8088 mainboards were cheaply available that way.
Merely the the RAM chips and the BIOS ROMs had to be populated, as far as I know.

Something comparable for PC/AT platform didn't exist at the same time, by contrast.

Some, err, 8088 "replica" mainboard users kept using the no-name XT BIOS they got for free,
while some used copies of the IBM BIOS and the ROM BASIC.
Either for better IBM compatibility (copy protection, dongles etc) or their ego, not sure.

There was sort of a piracy business in supplying users with IBM ROMs at the time.
If you had good contacts to a computer seller or
had a friend with a C64 and an EPROM programmer, chances were good you could get a copy of IBM firmware.

zb10948 wrote on Today, 09:45:

Per Computer Shopper Magazine's random ad pick, a 8-bit ISA VGA is 2.5x cheaper than 16-bit, same vendor (Paradise).
By looking at other stuff, building a 8 MHz 286 full 16-bit PC vs building a 8 MHz V20 8-bit PC, is north of $500 of difference.

The 8-Bit version of the PVGA1A was limited to 256KB, sadly, due to the type of RAM chips and limited number of DIL sockets.

For basic VGA use, 640x400 in 256c (Windows 2.03 to 3.x) or business SVGA in 800x600 16c those basic 256KB were good enough.
Considering that original VBE specification of 1989 merely supported that one 800x600 16c mode, anyway.

But Ventura Publisher, AutoCAD, P-Cad and many paint programs could use higher resolutions and 256+ colours, if only 512KB or 1MB was installed on the card.
So it made sense for such users to buy the mote costly 16-Bit card with 512 KB of video RAM and put it into an 8-Bit slot of their PC/XT.

I recently did something similar with an PVGA1C in order to run Minuet DOS web browser from 1994.
Because, it needed 256c VBE video mode for rendering 256c GIF pictures of early websites.
I've loaded the WDC/Paradise VBE extension TSR from DOS.

zb10948 wrote on Today, 09:45:

Btw, in 1989 5150 still being sold, for 800 bucks.
I think Turbo XT 8 MHz with VGA falls into $1000 category where most of it is the monitor cost.

I see, makes sense. At the time, the C64 was still sold, too.

It's also notable that here in Europe home computers took the role of family computers (hence their name).
Even in former easter block, I think; they had their various ZX Spectrum clones.

In the home land of the IBM PC, by contrast, users bought computers they knew from work.
Such as DOS computers or some Apple systems.
Which made sense considering the previous video game crash over there.

That's why the home users were fine with lower specs, over there, I assume.
They bought affordable low-end PCs for non-work use, too.:
To play games, write letters, store recipes (true?), do calulations for loan etc.
Computers of the type of Tandy 1000, the Sanyo MBC-550 etc.

Here in Europe, by contrast, I think, the VGA card made a change for the better.
Suddenly, the once serious electric typewriter could all sorts of multimedia.
The PC nolonger was seen as a piece of businesses equipment,
but like an advanced general-purpose computer, like a small workstation for home use.
Like an Amiga or a comparable computer (Atari ST, Acorn Archimedes).

Anyway, I'm just a layman here. PC/XT hardware was before my time, I admit.
I think I do merely know this from point of view of public domain software (they're from '80s onwards) and electronic hobbyist magazines.

Such as amateur radio magazines, which were about Do-It-Yourself (DIY) electronic projects,
which also included PCs, CW/RTTY software and radio interfaces (AEA PK-232 etc).
And DOS software to predict orbits of amateur satellites.
Not the typical world of the average user maybe.

But it's certainly the type of hobby use that justified buying an IBM PC that's not intended to be used for work or school.
But on a second thought, the C64 was overly popular among German hams too in the 80s, I'm afraid..

(Some users in the 80s over here had bought a low-end PC solely to run Turbo Pascal and GW-BASIC at home. For school, to do homework.
That's why some old Z80 CP/M computers still had a second life, as they could run CP/M-80 version of Turbo Pascal 3.
So students still bought obsolete computers such as Commodore 128(D) for actual money at the time.
Performance wasn't that important to students, as long as it could run Turbo Pascal for IT class.)

For specific hobby use (non-work), in late 80s, entry class PC models such as
Schneider Euro XT, PC1512/PC1640, Atari PC1, Commodore PC1 and Olivetti Prodest or Poisk-1 still had a place.

They were small, cute and silent. Like a home computer, but DOS compatible.
But not used especially for gaming like in home land of the IBM PC,
were gamers had an interest in good performance and good graphics (Tandy/EGA/VGA).

Overall use case was more like that of a humble Apple II, maybe. But with access to DOS software library instead.
Here in Germany, MS Works was bundled with the Euro PC, for example.

The computer couldn't compete with a games computer such as C64, perhaps,
but run otherwise ambitious things like BTX decoder software or a terminal software.
Or run RAM heavy simulations such as various flight sims, Sim City, or logic games such as Tetris etc.
Or then-famous Prince of Persia, which wasn't available on C64.
It also had an external HDD sold optionally. The Hercules/CGA graphics was okay for the use cases.

A computer of this type basically was like a C64's cousin, but for running DOS software.
It could be set up side by side to a C64 II, basically, without hurting the aesthetics.

Edit: My apologies for the very bad write-up here, hope it can be understood nevertheless.
I have a little bit of concentration issues right now.

Jo22 wrote on Today, 12:00:

Yes, and the PC/XT architecture reached an high integration level during the 80s due to its simplicity.
The microcontroller chips 80186 and NEC V40/NEC V50 were basically primitive x86 SoCs already (System on a Chip).

The high integration level allowed handheld computers such as the Poqet PC or Atari Portfolio.

The general sentiment of this statement is correct, and there were a couple of XR-mainboard-on-a-chip solutions like the FE2010A, used for example in the Schneider Euro PC, which proves your point about higher integration. Mentioning the Atari Portfolio (a DOS machine that is not IBM compatible) next to the micro-controller chips like the V40 or 80186;is misleading, though. The CPU of the Atari Portfolio is the fully static CMOS version of the 8088 (IIRC my portfolio has an 80C88 produced by OKI), not a microcontroller with integrated peripherals.

Nevertheless, the "Atari" Portfolio is an excellent demonstration about the capabilities of integration and power efficiency available at that time. The manual of the Portfolio quotes a runtime of several weeks on a set of 3 AA alkaline cells at light use. I got around a week of use on cheap 500mAh NiCd cells at moderate use. The brand name Atari is just used for marketing. The Portfolio was developed by the British company DIP (IIRC Digital Information Processing) and is not related to any Atari product.