Originally posted by: HappyCracker
Our first computer, my dad went to a swap meet in LA and got us a mom n pop made 286. Wow! It was I think 8 MHz with a turbo button that got you to 12 or 16. 16 meg HD and 640k RAM. The 3.5 inch drive was a new thing at the time so we had that and the 5.25 incher, EGA was standard for monitors. Anyone remember XTree? That was mid-late 80s. In 91-92, I was in Best Buy and bought B17 Flying Fortress and it wouldn't run on it, we even tried taking it back because we thought the disks were bad. My parents ended up getting a new computer pretty much for that game. They got a Tandy Sensation!
Cor, the Turbo button that increased clock speed by 4Mhz. 12Mhz from an 8Mhz box, 16 from a 12Mhz box. Lovely idea. I had a PS/2 at work, and they didn't have turbo buttons :-( We used to use DrawPerfect for diagrams in WordPerfect documents. and it ran sooo slowly on a 286. Xtree was a dream. Lovely peice of software. For a while I used to use it as a shell, and launch WordPerfect, Supercalc etc from within it, then swapped to DesqView for 'true multitasking' As if... that hapepned when I got home and used the Amiga! But It was fun on the PC.
Remember the 32mb hard disk barrier? These PS/2s had 40mb hard disks (yes, thet 40MB!) that had to be partitioned into C and D in order to use all the space. We used to store all apps on C, and all data on D, for ease of backup.
Remember Expanded and Extended memory, and the confusion they caused? Extended was anything over the 640Kb (ulp!) barrier, and could be used by programs with the help of a DOS Extender, e.g. s/w could be run direct from Extended RAM. Expanded (EMS) had to be bank swapped, i.e. it didn't really have a physical address, it was more like a memory pagefile (which I'm sure you kiddies will be comfortable with!!! wink) . Mainly used to hold data, such as spreadsheets which is one reason the original spec was LIM - Lotus, Intel, Microsoft). Lotus was the driver, as they found that 640K was not enought to hold the 1-2-3 software plus the actual spreadsheet data. With a little trick it could hold program code, which was then swapped into use on demand, but this was risky.
My PS/2 had 2mb RAM, and the fun I had fine tuning that you acheive a good balance of EMS and XMS. Then came along DesqView, and then QEMM! Wow, hackers delight (I use hacker in the original sense, not the media sense). I could fine tune a PC and get almost all base RAM available. QEMM was the absolute cannines googlies, much better thabn 386MAX or MS s/w. Remember trying to cramm the HMA and UMB areas (which still exist, kiddie winkles) to free up as much of the 640K base as possible. Hell, Quarterdeck's product was so good, it was widely felt that MS tweaked Windows 3.1 to conflict with it. And then the technology was bundled with DRDOS6 and 7 - well wicked dos.
Hell, a good read on this can be found here
EMS and XMS btw this text is way obsolete, but please have a read and see what we were upgainst in 1992!!! Hey, look at those chip times!!! 150ns! 60ns RAM,
fast video RAM of 25ns ;-)
Remember adding a 287 math co-pro to the PS/2, and Supercalc ran much faster. Was a happy bunny for all of about 3 weeks. PS/2 was a stonking tower case, it had to be as the hard disks were huge. Hey, speed in those days wasnt about playing with a few BIOS settings and a heat sink. Oh no, it was fine tuning the RAM, decisions over EMS (EEMS was better), XMS, tune the HMA, UMB et al, and then the best drive technology - not just IDE vs SCSI, but ST-506 (and a subchoice of MFM or RLL encoding), ESDI, SCSI, or IDE. ST-506? Unlucky, large and slow. ESDI? Faster, but expensive. SCSI - price prohibitive, just for the controller card (in those days, 8bit 5MHz was standard, 10MHz was called Fast-SCSI II) Once you had your drive, you changed the low level format, the block interleave. Yup, some drives were so "fast" that the blocks had to be interleaved in order for the disk to read the data. It could take 11 revolutions of the disk to read 11 sectors... if you were lucky, you had a drive that was capable of sequentially reading the blocks, and so set up a 1:1 interleave. That really did result in a mammoth system speed boost!
The PS/2 had an ESDI disk subsyem (well, what else would you expect from Big Blue, only the best!) 40mb, large and fast. Well, it wasnt the best interleave on the block. IBM didnt tune the PS/2 - and I dont mean tune the system; along with everyone else, they played safe. Test a disk with a controller, work out the safe interleave. Many months later, the same interleave is still used regardless of whether the drives have improved in interim. Who cares, it gave us little tinkers an opportunity to tune the interleave, and wave the willy at the next door neighbour who couldnt understand why their identical PS2 was slower ;-).
Its not brilliant, but read this for an overview of dead disk technology.
Drive types
486SX -25MHz, 4 MB RAM, 1x CDROM, and a whopping 106 MB HD. That thing was bad azz because it came with a 2800 baud modem. My dad used to sit on AOL all the time. Still have the manual that came with that computer. An extra 4 MB RAM cost my dad $80 back then. Finally in late 1998 we got a new Dell P2 450. That was the most drastic change I've noticed next to replacing my P2 400 laptop with this XP2500 desktop. It's wierd how when you get a new computer, you can't really imagine how anything could get faster than that. Ahh the memories.
In these days I was programming with the Army, a very small team (6 of us) providing IT support to about 11,000 engineers. We 'coded' in Supercalc and DBASE, then Paradox and GRASS (application programming). We had had one 386/33 in the office, and used to fight over getting on it for DrawPerfect use. Nice machine, and I still like the sound of "386/33", it just sounds fast! We finally managed to upgrade the PS/2's to 386 machines, a mixture of 386DX40 and 386SX25. Ach, that was where Intel went wrong, releasing braindead chips like the SX (there again, IBM launched the PC/AT with a 286 when the 386 was available, and then lost the lead to compaq who launched the first 386 based PC, which is why all the ancient benchmarks benched against a Compaq 386/33).
Then one of the other guys, Marty Smith, bought a 486/25, soundblaster (not sure which!), and 8mb RAM. Well wicked, although still thought the Amiga sound was better. But it was faster than my 2000 with 68030, I felt. C= took a long time releasing an 040 based Amiga, and I couldn't afford an 040 based accelerator for mine. In fact, it took me many years to get a better Amiga... 1998/99, when even the die-hards started moving away. I swapped a 9gb UW SCSI disk for a 4000/030, then obtained a Warp Engine 040 daughter board (replaced the 030 CPU daughterboard), Cybervision 64-3D gfx card. A mate even gave me an A1200 tower with 060 card. Actually, he didnt give it me. He wanted to sell, let me use it for a while to see if I wanted it, and I moved. Hmm. I still owe him £100 for that. Sugar. Was it Gary??? Oops, if ever you read this, I didn't mean to "rip you off" mate.
At this point, I feel the enthusiast angle of PC reached a zenith of sorts. Discussion over what was better, PCI or VESA Local local busses, DX or DX/2 processors (the 486DX50 was faster than the 486DX2-66, as the bus dan at full speed rather than half bus speed), issues with bus timings, DX2-80, and the (in)famous White Lightning triple clocked 486 chips. Then came Pentium, and all we could do was add cache RAM (CELP sockets!), and o/c the chip. No more interesting debates or choices of chips - not Intel, AMD, Cyrix, but what sort of 486? DX, SX, SLC, /2, /3, or normal?!!!
I bought a PC card for the Amiga, originally a 386SX based chip, but could be upgraded to use the 486SLC chip, and wow, did that work wonders. WIth a MAC card I could have 3 PCs in one box all running full speed, as it was not emulation but actual hardware.
Ah, those were the days. Hmm, were they? I used to make the same comment in the very early 90's when disparaging MS software for being bloatware, and recall the days of programming in <64K (the C64 had 64K, but only 38Kb available to user, including screen RAM, oh, what you would understand as gfx memory). I used to swear that
all programmers should learn on a VIC-20, and learn to code in just 3.5Kb of RAM. "Cor, 640kb! Spoilt, you are. I had to learn on a VIC-20 with just 3kb. I thought heaven had come when I had a C64 and a whole whopping 30KB to play with". there again, I also used to swear by hand-crafted assembler as opposed to the bloaty machine code produced by compliers. Or even better, the stuff that BASIC compliers produced!!! For a giggle, a friend started low level programming Windows, dissembling the various routines, and replacing them with his own, coded by hand assembler rather than compiled C/C+.
Other o/c moments. O/c an Acorn Atom (forerunner of the BBC Micro, did you ever get them in the States?) to 2MHz, and eventually blowing it, and then o/cing the C64 to 2MHz, just cos I could.
Bloody hell, I must seem a right old crumbly! Able to drivel on about ancient dead technology at the drop of a hat. Whenever nearly-deads go on about the "good old days" I used to retort "ah yes, those were the days of influenze and whooping cough, when we used to shove small children up chimneys to clean them, and not care if they lived or died. Child labour and mass poverty, rationing and bayonet charges in the face of machine gun fire. Makes sense, I guess, provided youre the guy with the machine gun."
I think I'll shut up now!
Brgds
Alan