Search results

The original one had no APM or SMI support. (Of course, the "Am486Plus" chip fixed this, but I am talking about before that)

Thinking about it, I wonder why IBM even bothered with the EGA in the first place when the EGA and PGC used the same tubes. I believe even VGA is compatible with the PGC too.

I think many early ones may only support 16MB.

December 1985: first EGA clones came out, work on "CP-DOS" started. late 1986: FOOTBALL work started assuming EGA: https://www.os2museum.com/wp/playing-football/ May 1987: first MS OS/2 SDK released with only IBM VGA hardware. December 1987: first OEM MS OS/2 release, first non-IBM VGA clones.

Which is why I focused on the 387DX, which the average user is more likely to touch than the 386DX anyway.

I don't think the 386 would fit in a PLCC package anyway.

Which also reminds me I should ask why the 387DX was packaged in 68-pin PGA instead of CLCC/PLCC

reminds me of this: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.os2.advocacy/c/Z3pFyFanRn8/m/QadNvLspaiMJ (I assume that the 386SX only barely existed in 1989 when the OS/2 2.0 project first started, right)

Which reminds me of projects like the TV Typewriter. It probably helped that acoustic couplers were legal thanks to Hush-a-Phone and Carterfone.

Though early microprocessors were expensive as well. It took until MOS Technology 6502 for the cost to come down.

Part of the reason I suggested the 74LS181 is that before the 74LSxxx chips were invented these 74xxx chips would also have consumed a lot of power as well.

In this case I used the 74LS181, which also consumed less power.

(For those that are not well aware, 74LSxxx consumes much less power than the original 74xxx chips)

until the microprocessor became common, right? It would be funny if the 74LS181 caught on instead of the microprocessor.

For example, the difference between MC68000G8 and MC68010P8.

I am talking about the difference between the "G" and the "P" packaging for example.

Nope, I don't think this is true. You can see this in the different package types.

I mean that it was based on a die shrink, which is why it took so long.

http://www.easy68k.com/paulrsm/dg/dg17.htm "As a result, work on a faster (shrunk) 68000 has been set aside and all hands are concentrating their efforts on the 68010. We understand that the 68010 will be the chip targeted for speed improvement. The good news is that the 68010 is pin compatible...

I mean CSDs.