Intel and Rambus out to jointly screw the PC world

Post #20,333 by tonytib 12/5/01 11:41:29 AM Reply	Intel and Rambus out to jointly screw the PC world [link\|http://www.theinquirer.net/05120101.htm\|Inquirer article] on Intel and Rambus jointly licensing Rambus patents, giving both companies the right to sue everyone. My opinion: there is no way in hell I'll buy, recommend, or specify ANYTHING from Intel, whether its a desktop CPU, or embedded chip (StrongARM, CAN, flash, etc). And I hope Rambus (especially) and Intel die horrible deaths. Tony
Post #20,351 by inthane-chan 12/5/01 1:47:58 PM Reply	Intel-free... ...since my P-133. RAMBUS's claims are pretty piss-poor - this seems more like a way for Intel to weasel out of a bad deal, than any actual divvying up of the market. The patents that RAMBUS acquired were gained in direct contravention of a legally binding agreement they entered into a while back - putting them in breach of contract, and probably nullifying their patents. They're still Evil, and should be Staked. Go AMD! "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #20,360 by tonytib 12/5/01 3:44:05 PM Reply	Well, Intel is also litigation happy (e.g. suing VIA) where they should be competing on merits. If something is a direct copy, sure, sue the hell out of the other company. My only Intel system is a P-III laptop. But, if I buy another laptop. I'll make sure it isn't Intel. Tony
Post #20,375 by Meerkat 12/5/01 5:05:20 PM Reply	MeToo (tm) come to think of it. Last Intel chip I bought was a P166MMX. Since then it's been AMDs and PowerPC. On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
Post #20,376 by Silverlock 12/5/01 5:08:26 PM Reply	Never owned an Intel based PC First system was a IBM PC clone with a Z10(?) chip. Been using AMD ever since then. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #20,383 by a6l6e6x 12/5/01 5:30:41 PM Reply	You mean the NEC V20 chip, an improvement on Intel 8088? Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #20,458 by Silverlock 12/6/01 8:44:54 AM Reply	Don't think so. I'm pretty sure it was a Z10. Company name might have been Zilog? I think they make chips for embedded products now. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #20,464 by broomberg 12/6/01 9:24:38 AM Reply	Z10? Not Z80? Z80 were in CP/M machines. A Google search for "zilog z80" returns 4,630 pages. A Google search for "zilog z10" returns none. Are you sure it was a PC compatible?
Post #20,465 by Silverlock 12/6/01 9:47:54 AM Reply	Am I sure? Yeah, it was a PC clone. What I'm not sure of is the name of the chip and/or the company that made it. I am positive it was not a NEC chip though. The Z80 sounds vaguely familiar. I do remember that the chip was faster than a comparable Intel chip. 4.77 vs 8 MHz? 8 vs 10 MHz? You know your getting old when you can't remember what you once used for bragging rights. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #20,481 by a6l6e6x 12/6/01 12:03:22 PM Reply	Well, the V20 was compatible with Intel 8088 used by IBM... i.e. pin compatible and machine instruction compatible as well. It is 16-bit processor with an 8-bit data bus. Functionally it is equivalent to he Intel 8086 which had a 16-bit data bus. NEC V30 was pin compatible with Intel 8086. The NEC chips had a better design for integer math operations (link says ~15%). My wife had an IBM PS/2 Model 25 whose 8086 I replaced with a V30. The improvement was not large, but noticeable. [link\|http://lowendpc.com/tech/8086.shtml\|Link.] The Zilog/Mostek Z-80, which I knew quite well, was compatible with the Intel 8080 but had many additional machine instructions. The 8080 and Z-80 chips were used on the S-100 Bus machines of the pre-PC period. I built one of these Z-80 machines almost from scratch. e.g. designed, laid out, and etched copper for the processor board, etc. Anyway, the 8-bit data of 8080/Z-80 vs. (internal) 16-bit data of 8088 (and 8086) difference are such you could not run DOS programs on it. In other words, the programming model of the CPUs are different. [link\|http://vmoc.museophile.com/cards/\|Here's a list of other micros.] Pick one. But if you were PC compatible and not Intel, it was probably a NEC V20/V30. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #20,482 by Andrew Grygus 12/6/01 12:19:48 PM Reply	Z80 - 8088 NEC also made a chip, I think it was called the N300 that executed Z80 instructions but was clock and buss compatible with the 8088. This allowed a machine to have both Z80 and 8088 compatible CPUs on the same board. My Octagon 8/16 S100 machine had this and could boot CP/M-80, CP/M-86 Concurrent CP/M-86 and MS-DOS. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #20,484 by Silverlock 12/6/01 12:28:15 PM Reply	Damn. I used to have a memory that worked. It was the NEC V20. I think. It also had the 10 Meg hard drive that failed all over the place. I splurged and got a 20 meg to replace it for (IIRC) ~$300. Things are coming back to me. I bought a fancy dancy CGA monitor with a hercules video card to go along with this technical marvel. I replaced and upgraded various parts of the system over the years until nothing of the original was left. I am still using its spiritual succesor. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #20,488 by inthane-chan 12/6/01 1:03:32 PM Reply	Sigh... The Zilog/Mostek Z-80, which I knew quite well, was compatible with the Intel 8080 but had many additional machine instructions. The 8080 and Z-80 chips were used on the S-100 Bus machines of the pre-PC period. I built one of these Z-80 machines almost from scratch. e.g. designed, laid out, and etched copper for the processor board, etc. It's stories like that which make me wish I had been born 10 years earlier. :( "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #20,500 by Another Scott 12/6/01 2:24:39 PM Reply	Another machine from the earlier days... In grad school in 1985 or so I got to play with an [link\|http://www.coho.org/~pete/IPC/integral.html\|HP Integral Personal Computer]. It was a "luggable" lunch-box-like portable computer. Moto 68000, 1 MB RAM (512 kB standard), built-in 9" yellow on black (or reverse) EL graphics display. Built-in inkjet printer. Had a new-fangled built-in 700 kB floppy drive (disks were $70 for a box of 10). Ran HP-UX 5 out of ROM. Had a built-in HP-IB interface for attaching to instrumentation, external hard drives, etc. The school was evaluating them as required PCs for the program. The list price was something like $7500 and we were getting them for a little under $5000. It was a nice machine, but too expensive for the students. That's when companies weren't afraid to innovate. :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #20,503 by nking 12/6/01 2:31:05 PM Reply	NEC V20 We used it in a BBS the community college ran. It seemed to run faster at 8Mhz and ran all the same BBS software and MS-DOS utilities that the BBS computer ran before on the 4.77Mhz 8088 chip. As I recall it was just a drop-in replacement for the 8088 that almost doubled your CPU speed.
Post #20,512 by a6l6e6x 12/6/01 3:04:09 PM Reply	Well, you would have had to change the crystal as well. That's the kind of thing IBM made impossible in later machines. The power on diagnostics in the BIOS did a timimg run and would refuse to proceed is the speed was beyond the spec. That was to ensure IBM PC reliability, of course, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the availability of faster machines from IBM. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #20,449 by static 12/6/01 5:32:21 AM Reply	I thought Microsoft was...? But Intel and Rambus want to too? Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #20,563 by wharris2 12/6/01 8:01:36 PM Reply	Since we're going all nostalgic anyone remember the add-in 80286 cards? Processor upgrade, just by plugging it in. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #20,603 by Andrew Grygus 12/7/01 12:23:45 AM Reply	I remember a rash of "upgradable" PCs. Great marketing ploy - until the users found out the "upgrade" cost as much as a new computer and wasn't as fast because of mother board limitations. I never heard of one actually being upgraded, but I did dismantle a few for parts and scrap. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #20,609 by wharris2 12/7/01 2:34:04 AM Reply	Wasn't upgradable PC I had a Tandy 1000 and this card (I'm almost positive it was an 80286 card) was a LOT less expensive than a whole new computer. Something like $100 or $200, in the late 80's. At the time, a new computer would have run something like $3000. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #20,623 by nking 12/7/01 8:16:27 AM Reply	I remember it was like an 8 bit ISA slot with an 80286 or 80386 on the board. The motherboard bottlenecks slowed the system down so that it was slower than a real 286/386 system, but at least the Math calculations where faster so the accountants got happy that Lotus 123 calculated faster. ;) I always stuck to the custom build AT type case systems, that way I could swap out the motherboard and transplant the cards into the new motherboard. I did this to upgrade my 386 to a 486, then Pentium, then a new Mid-Tower AT case for the faster Pentium, then ATX when I went to a Celeron. If I upgrade my current system (possibly after landing that job and being employed for a year or two) I'll use the current ATX case and swap out the motherboard again. I got a little Pentium 166Mhz system I am building out of spare parts, but only have a 240M Quantm Prodrive LPS for it to use. Good enough for Windows 95. AT mid-tower case. After IBM came out with the PS/2 series, many PC makers started using intergrated motherboards and proprietary designs that are not as upgradeable as the customized AT/ATX designed systems of today and yesterday.
Post #20,653 by wharris2 12/7/01 12:08:50 PM Reply	It's been on-going After IBM came out with the PS/2 series, many PC makers started using intergrated motherboards and proprietary designs that are not as upgradeable as the customized AT/ATX designed systems of today and yesterday. That wasn't just after PS/2; Compaq long had a reputation for weird non-standard stuff. Shoot, for that matter the Tandy 1000 was a marvel of proprietory design that long predated the PS/2. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #20,691 by nking 12/7/01 4:18:18 PM Reply	Tandy 1000 series From what I can recall, they used the PCJr audio and video and then reversed the expansion slots and switched some interupts in Tandy's version of MS-DOS so it would only run on Tandy systems. It was like a total control that Tandy had on the PC systems they made. My wife has an old Tandy 1000 SL that her father had given to her over 10 years ago. As far as I know it still works, but hasn't been powered on in like 5 years. It has a 5.25" floppy and internal hard drive. I've kept it in the basement. It seems I have collected a lot of old/classic systems. I also have a Mac SE, Mac IIcx, Amiga 500, and the remains of a broken Amiga 1000 (minus the keyboard, internal floppy, and original monitor).
Post #20,753 by wharris2 12/7/01 10:30:21 PM Reply	History redux When was the Tandy 1000 and PC Jr? I thought the T1000 predated the Jr, but in my confused memory, I do remember a fellow college guy (who later went on to the NASA JPL) talking about his PC Jr. That pre-dates my acquisition of my Tandy 1000. Norm, I work with a guy who has stacks of old computers in a warehouse. He's got Kaypro's. He's got ozbournes. Actually, it would be better to list those computers he doesn't have. He regrets that he doesn't have a copy of Microsoft Bob. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #20,853 by nking 12/9/01 9:01:26 PM Reply	Is he selling any of them? If so, he may be able to move some of them if he listed them on online auction sites? But then it depends on how much he is selling them for, if over $100, you might as well pick up a cheap "Pentium 1" box for that much.
Post #20,914 by wharris2 12/10/01 1:39:58 PM Reply	That's not his purpose He's talked about setting up some sort of microcomputer museum, though that sounds like a pretty ambitious project. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #20,963 by nking 12/10/01 10:42:07 PM Reply	What is his purpose? He could make a lot of money selling to user groups for those older systems. I know there are local TI, Apple, Commodore, Atari, groups here that would love to get a supply of replacement parts for their systems. The Museum sounds cool, I thought of doing that myself once but decided it would be better to have a Cybercafe instead with a showcase of older computer systems and parts.
Post #21,013 by wharris2 12/11/01 12:51:44 PM Reply	What's money? He's near retirement age and (from what I can tell) is okay for money. Might as well have a hobby after retirement, I suppose. (He stops at almost every computer show or ham radio convention he passes, it seems; most of them, I've never heard of.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #20,620 by hnick 12/7/01 7:29:47 AM Reply	Similar I had a board in my 4.7 XT that had a 10MHZ CMOS Z-80 clone, made by Hitachi, I think. Had 64K of ram and ran CMP-86. I used it for developing Z-80 type controllers. It was faster than the 8088s for interrupt driven applications. It is probably still hanging around in my basement somewhere. Regards, Hugh

Welcome to IWETHEY!