• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

3rd party extender/receiver cards

I'm having a hard time understanding a historical use for these as well. If I had one I wouldn't know what I'd use it for.
Same here; back in the day, I put a 486 board in mine and threw out the original innards.

Collectible maybe, but with non-IBM backplane and cards? Might as well put a 5161 label on an XT and use Interlink ;-)

But a chacun son gout, as they say...
 
I'm having a hard time understanding a historical use for these as well. If I had one I wouldn't know what I'd use it for. Does anybody know what these expansion units were sold for?

Like Shadow Lod stated. There were initially sold as a way to add hard drive functionality to the 5150. The added expansion slots were nice too, but I'm like you. Why would IBM make such a thing when you couldn't completely fill both units? There are only so many IRQs, and those are used up pretty quickly.

What were they initially sold for? Well, ole, I thought you had one of these and the extender and receiver cards you gave me were extras you somehow collected. But to answer your question, I really wish I knew. The closest thing I can come up with is the product release notes from IBM, and even they don't give any kind of reason for making it available. So we're all left with the same explanation of being able to add a hard drive to the 5150 due to the enemic power supply of the original PC. IBM could have just as easilly made a hard drive installation kit that included a more robust power supply. And it would have cost users a lot less.

And like Shadow Lord expresses, it is like having a fully functional XT, although one with dual floppy and hard disk drives, plus more expansion slots. If it werent for the fact that I do have a multi card, the AST Six Pack Plus, I would need the extra slots to add all of the functioanlity. So, the expansion unit did have it's place. To be honest, I have the exact oposite problem as most though. I'm surprised that IBM sold as many as they did for the shher fact that multi cards were available, and the need for more expansion slote diminished dramatically.

My own reason for wanting one stemmed from my desire to not only build the best possible example of a complete IBM 5150 system, but to preserve some of the lesser known peripherals for the future. If I had not run into that IBM5150.net, and learned of the existance of the IBM 5161 expansion unit, I would have gone on blissfully and not caring that it was even out there. But because I obsess over everything; Well, of course, I had to gwet one. Now that I have mine, and it's working with my 5150, with the exception of a problem I'm having getting my hard drive low level formatted, (See my new thread here: http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum/showthread.php?31243-Debug-and-Low-Level-Format) I love the way it works. And the fact that certain things have to be done in a certain order, make it all the more interesting to me; like the simple act of booting the system for example.
 
You can completely fill both units it just seems silly these days. Some cards don't need an IRQ, and many devices can share an IRQ as long as they're not used at the same time. A lot of the time cards back then were single-device-per-card too.

e.g. in a machine you COULD have

4 x serial cards
2 x printer cards
1 x MDA + printer (dual monitor ftw)
1 x CGA
1 x FDC
1 x HDC
3 x 128K memory expansions
1 x clock card
1 x network device
1 x sound device
1 x transmitter
1 x receiver
2 x ST412
2 x Tandon 360

Doing so might be silly, but you could if you wanted!
Having less slots wouldn't have helped them, becuase they were reusing the 5160 case.

I'd love a 5161 but it'd have to be an original, collectors piece more than an accessory.
 
Might as well put a 5161 label on an XT and use Interlink ;-)
Funny you should mention that.... I was just thinking that it would be much easier to connect two XTs together with Lantastic Z, but I passed on making that comment, 'till you opened the door. :) :)
 
Okay. I was just wondering if the BIOSes would conflict. I am asking because if I win that 5161 on Ebay, it comes with an ST-412 and controller. I would like to use my two 360k IBM FDs and the ST-412 in my system unit and a 2Gb SCSI HD, SCSI cdrom, 1.44Mb FD, and a 1.2Mb FD in the 5161 if I win it. That way, the system unit is pretty much all original IBM and the 5161 gets all tricked out.
 
What 8-bit SCSI controller do you have with all that capability on it??? And, how much power do you think the 5161 can supply? What did you say you were smoking? :)
 
My NEC Trantor SCSI controller works great with my NEC Multispin cdrom drive and SCSI HD (which has some issues with the bearings) and my MACH 20 lets me connect HD FDs(a homemade power adaptor lets me use 3.5"). I don't know about the 5161 but I run that setup in my 5160 just fine.
 
What 8-bit SCSI controller do you have with all that capability on it??? And, how much power do you think the 5161 can supply? What did you say you were smoking? :)

I think most of the early Adaptec SCSI controller's had a FDD controller as well, at least this was true on the EISA and 16bits ISA (1542) models. However, two problems I see:

1. The 5161 is not recommended for use w/ FDDs because of timing issues. I am guessing this will not be resolved just because you are using a different controller.
2. The Adpatec controller's FDD can interfere with your primary FDD. So you need to make sure that the FDD controller in the 5161 is set as a secondary (assuming timing is not an issue).

The 5161 had a 130W PSU - more than enough fora HDD and two FDDs. A CD-ROM mabe pushing it depending on the cards in the system.

I am sure Chuck will be along soon to set us all straight! ;)
 
I have a separate FD controller from my SCSI controller. The FD controller is actually called the Microsoft Disk Plus and is really just an attachment to a massive card called the MACH 20 that also gives me a 286 (currently not used) and 3.5Mb of EMS. I doubt I'll ever use the 286 upgrade part of the card because I hope to put it in a 5161 and it can't connect to a CPU socket when it's in the 5161. As far as the issues with timing go, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
 
Last edited:
I have a separate FD controller from my SCSI controller. The FD controller is actually called the Microsoft Disk Plus and is really just an attachment to a massive card called the MACH 20...

It was my understanding that the Disk Plus was meant to take the place of the original primary floppy controller so as to free up a slot--not to supplement it. Or so Microsoft said.
 
I don't think it really matters whether or not there is the original floppy controller. It is my understanding that the original controller had no onboard BIOS so it is automatically recognized.The MACH 20 has an onboard BIOS so it forces it's recognition. these are just guesses on my part, so I could be wrong, but I just don't see how they could interfere with each other.
 
AFAIK it's not a case of recognition, its a case of replacing the BIOS routines to support splitting requests between multiple controllers.

So you'd need an EPROM programmed specifically to control 3-4 drives on two controllers. Or a controller with EPROM that supports up to 4 drives.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
If it was designed to replace the standard controller it will likely be port compatible with it, so coexistence would be dependent on being able to configure the port ranges on the Microsoft card.

Re FDD in 5161, this I find interesting. From what has been posted before there are really two limitations with the 5161 architecture:

1. no wait-states are added to IO port accesses, and
2. options ROMs and any memory-mapped windows must all exists within the same contiguous block

The 2nd limitation will govern card placement I would have thought.
 
Back
Top