🚀 go-pugleaf

This doesn't really have much to do with the RT, but here goes anyway....

In article <6102@cs.Buffalo.EDU> ugbell@sunybcs.UUCP (William Bell) writes:

>1. Am I wrong when I say that Intel designed the 8085, 8088, 80286, 80386
>   lines?

Intel did design those chips.
 
>2. Does IBM only use Intel's uPCs? And if so, what uPC is in the IBM PCjr,
>   IBM XT, IBM AT, and IBM PS/2? (I think this is all of them).

IBM has lots of different computers...mainframes are proprietary,
minis are proprietary, the RT is proprietary.  The PC line and the PS/2
line use Intel architecture chips.

>3. Why does every clone manufacturer coin the phrase "IBM Compatible?"
>   Should they be saying "Intel uPC compactible?"

There's more to being "IBM Compatible" than using an Intel microprocessor.
Just the microprocessor itself says very little about how to program a
system.  What I/O ports are assigned to the disk drive, and how do you
use them?  How do you do I/O to the screen?  What is the memory map of the
operating system?  These questions are all completely separate from the
microprocessor instruction set, but are intimately tied to being compatible
with a particular computer system.  So a system which uses an Intel 
micro but which has a completely different method of programming the
keyboard, for example, might not qualify as IBM Compatible.

>4. I thought IBM did there own R&D. If so what uPc did they develop?

As mentioned above, IBM has designed lots of computer architectures
and lots of chips.  They are all used internally in IBM products, to my
knowledge IBM doesn't sell chips to other companies.  IBM is probably the
largest designer and manufacturer of chips in the world.

>5. Why is the ATARI 520ST with the 68000 said to be easily "portable" to
>   IBM systems. They are running different uPc right?

I don't know.

>6. I thought that 8088 was 8 bit, 80286 is 16 bit, 80386 is 32 bit, and
>   there is some talk of a 80486 coming out, am I right?

That's right.  The 80486, from a programming point of view, is about the 
same as the 80386...it's not 64-bit, if that was the implied question.

>7. The ultimate question: I have used the IBM AT (I have no idea of the
>   hardware, uPc, etc) and I am told the Compac 80286 based system
>   is totally better (in design, etc.) why does compac say they are
>   "IBM compatible" is they are better?

A good question, I can't comment.  The IBM PC/AT uses the 80286.

>8. Lastly, does IBM have a computer running the 80386/ and or 80486?
>   And why do people say that the IBM PS/2 line is so bad?

The PS/2 Models 70 and 80 use the 80386, as does the new portable
announced a few weeks ago (sorry, I don't remember the number).
To my knowledge there are no 80486 machines on the market by any vendor.
I cannot explain the opinions of others, I'm afraid.

I am not an official spokesman, and am often confused, so nothing I say
is anyone's opinion.


Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center