• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Sinclair PC200

Gary C

Gary C

Veteran Member
Joined
May 26, 2018
Messages
2,743
Location
Lancashire, UK
Just been powering up the Museums PC200 and while it works I have a few questions if anyone can help ?

It had a 3.5" floppy installed that didn't work, so I have put a Gotek in which works fine, but it doesn't see disk changes ? Tried to set it up to use pin 34 as per normal IBM but it doesnt work. I have to change to drive B to get it to reread the directory. Anyone installed a Gotek and got it working with this machine ?

The monochrome monitor means GEM wont run (works ok to a TV though), does that mean no GEM on this monitor or does it need more memory (as it suggests it wont work on an 'unexpanded' system), and would using a CGA monitor work ? (never one about when you need one !)

Thanks.

PS CGA monitor works fine with GEM :), but not in keeping
 
Last edited:
Gary C said:
Just been powering up the Museums PC200 and while it works I have a few questions if anyone can help ?

It had a 3.5" floppy installed that didn't work, so I have put a Gotek in which works fine, but it doesn't see disk changes ? Tried to set it up to use pin 34 as per normal IBM but it doesnt work. I have to change to drive B to get it to reread the directory. Anyone installed a Gotek and got it working with this machine ?

The monochrome monitor means GEM wont run (works ok to a TV though), does that mean no GEM on this monitor or does it need more memory (as it suggests it wont work on an 'unexpanded' system), and would using a CGA monitor work ? (never one about when you need one !)

Thanks.

PS CGA monitor works fine with GEM :), but not in keeping
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I don't know what to do since I'm a little unfamiliar with the pc200
 
I thought that and have set the Gotek to signal disk change to pin 2 (and 34), maybe the sense is the wrong way around.
 
The schematics for the pc200 seem to show nothing on pin 34 but there is something on pin 2 of the FDC header, but the bad pdf I found doesn’t actually make it clear what signal is on each pin.

Does this Gotek you’re using have FlashFloppy on it? There are options in the configuration file for FF to invert the meaning of DCD.
 
Gary C said:
The monochrome monitor means GEM wont run (works ok to a TV though), does that mean no GEM on this monitor or does it need more memory (as it suggests it wont work on an 'unexpanded' system), and would using a CGA monitor work ? (never one about when you need one !)
Click to expand...
The PC200 on a monochrome monitor only works on MDA text only mode, no Hercules graphics at all. Yes, it's weird but, unfortunately, it's the way they designed it. I just don't understand what was Sinclair thinking to: in 1988 MDA was a totally obsolete standard... So on a CGA monitor or TV it should work in 640x200 two color mode.
 
It's an Amstrad machine, just branded Sinclair (there's also a white Amstrad-branded version, the PC20). It reuses the chipset from the PPC512/640. Since the PPC had a fixed resolution 640x200 LCD there wouldn't have been any question of Hercules support, and that limitation carried through to the PC200 where it made much less sense. It would have made much more sense for the PC200 to have had MCGA if not VGA, assuming that could have been made to produce RF output.

As I recall the PC200 internal floppy drive needs to be jumpered as drive 0 rather than (as on most PCs) drive 1. Also one of the DIP switches swaps the internal and external drives so make sure that's set correctly.
 
JohnElliott said:
It's an Amstrad machine, just branded Sinclair (there's also a white Amstrad-branded version, the PC20). It reuses the chipset from the PPC512/640. Since the PPC had a fixed resolution 640x200 LCD there wouldn't have been any question of Hercules support, and that limitation carried through to the PC200 where it made much less sense. It would have made much more sense for the PC200 to have had MCGA if not VGA, assuming that could have been made to produce RF output.

As I recall the PC200 internal floppy drive needs to be jumpered as drive 0 rather than (as on most PCs) drive 1. Also one of the DIP switches swaps the internal and external drives so make sure that's set correctly.
Click to expand...
Figured a PC-200 was an amstrad machine. I don't think Sinclair would ever manufacture their own DOS machine. Let alone a machine with a disk drive.
 
xp0nentz said:
Figured a PC-200 was an amstrad machine. I don't think Sinclair would ever manufacture their own DOS machine. Let alone a machine with a disk drive.
Click to expand...

It was an Amstrad machine... I remember when they touted it back around 1985-ish and didn't tell anyone what they were doing... It looked a lot like some of those ideas *did* supposedly come from Clive Sinclair originally, but they didn't execute any of them - that was entirely Amstrad.

I recall the discussion of the era as to whether it was going to be a CP/M machine with an ISA BUS ( which didn't make a lot of sense at the time but was one take ) and people kept on suggesting the single expansion slot should be S100 then... Or whether it was going to be a PC compatible with only one ISA slot. What the magazines printed at the time was often unreliable and sometimes they credited the wrong people.
 
cj7hawk said:
It was an Amstrad machine... I remember when they touted it back around 1985-ish and didn't tell anyone what they were doing... It looked a lot like some of those ideas *did* supposedly come from Clive Sinclair originally, but they didn't execute any of them - that was entirely Amstrad.

I recall the discussion of the era as to whether it was going to be a CP/M machine with an ISA BUS ( which didn't make a lot of sense at the time but was one take ) and people kept on suggesting the single expansion slot should be S100 then... Or whether it was going to be a PC compatible with only one ISA slot. What the magazines printed at the time was often unreliable and sometimes they credited the wrong people.
Click to expand...
I like it's design if I ever can lll buy a transformer and that machine.
 
cj7hawk said:
It was an Amstrad machine... I remember when they touted it back around 1985-ish and didn't tell anyone what they were doing... It looked a lot like some of those ideas *did* supposedly come from Clive Sinclair originally, but they didn't execute any of them - that was entirely Amstrad.

I recall the discussion of the era as to whether it was going to be a CP/M machine with an ISA BUS ( which didn't make a lot of sense at the time but was one take ) and people kept on suggesting the single expansion slot should be S100 then... Or whether it was going to be a PC compatible with only one ISA slot. What the magazines printed at the time was often unreliable and sometimes they credited the wrong people.
Click to expand...
I like it's design if I ever can lll buy a transformer and that machine.
 
I love the PC200. I think it was a really good idea. My guess is they intended to compete with the Amiga 500 and Atari ST, but it was a relative commercial failure. If they had put an integrated VGA on it (as they themselves did at the same time with the Amstrad PC2086, which was very successful), maybe a 3 voice chip, plus 640 Kb of RAM from factory instead of 512, I think it would had being really competitive. The sad truth is the MDA/CGA standard was already decaying in late 1988. CGA games were mostly nothing to write home about, and its poor mono hi res mode wasn't very attractive too for business apps, let's not talk about the MDA text only mode...
 
Last edited:
MCGA (mode 13) was a suitable standard for games. As long as it was supported you could run most games.

I remember using the Trident 8900 toolset to change the sync rate to use other monitors, including 15KHz to run VGA games. They were quite effective.

That mode lasted nearly another decade.
 
Just a shame we want to display it complete with the MDA monitor so that significantly limits what we can put on it.

Unless of course we can find a S14-CM monitor or the identical Amstrad monitor which we could spray black and fit a badge.
 
Last edited:
Gary C said:
Just a shame we want to display it complete with the MDA monitor so that significantly limits what we can put on it.

Unless of course we can find a S14-CM monitor or the identical Amstrad monitor which we could spray black and fit a badge.
Click to expand...
I honestly really like it's design, it looks cool overall and I hope to own one, one day.
 
xp0nentz said:
I honestly really like it's design, it looks cool overall and I hope to own one, one day.
Click to expand...

Feature-wise I think the Tandy 1000 EX/HX wins the “80’s keyboard PC” contest on total points(*), but the Sinclair is a neat machine and (probably?) faster.

(* If Tandy had made an HX successor using the SL chipset with an 8086 then it’d be no contest, but they went with a tiny pizza box for the RL instead.)
 
Eudimorphodon said:
Feature-wise I think the Tandy 1000 EX/HX wins the “80’s keyboard PC” contest on total points(*), but the Sinclair is a neat machine and (probably?) faster.

(* If Tandy had made an HX successor using the SL chipset with an 8086 then it’d be no contest, but they went with a tiny pizza box for the RL instead.)
Click to expand...
Yeah.
 
Eudimorphodon said:
Feature-wise I think the Tandy 1000 EX/HX wins the “80’s keyboard PC” contest on total points(*), but the Sinclair is a neat machine and (probably?) faster.

(* If Tandy had made an HX successor using the SL chipset with an 8086 then it’d be no contest, but they went with a tiny pizza box for the RL instead.)
Click to expand...

I think you are probably right... That was the machine with MCGA support wasn't it? At the very least, it was a widely supported game graphics option. Very similar to the PCJR.

If based on points(*) though what points are you thinking off? Just video and speed?

The Amstrads tended to have 8Hz 8086's over the 8088... Which was only slightly faster.

The PC200 and PC500 were just Sinclair branded Amstrads following ideas they had long before then that took a while to execute. I don't think they were intended as games machines, though notably were fast enough to play some emerging games of the era that a normal XT would be a little slow to, not that the graphics were all that fast at the time. IIRC, speed improvement was nothing too much - they were all XTs in an ERA the 286 was significantly pushing boundaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top