Comments on: A CPU History

By: manzoor

manzoor — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:45:02 +0000

Very knowledgeful. Please update with latest changes.

By: Hugh Wyn Griffith

Hugh Wyn Griffith — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:59:12 +0000

That Tandy 186 was the Tandy 2000 and its graphics were not 100% compatible with Windows much to the distress of users (I was one when I bought my first “almost-PC” in the UK back in the ’90’s). This caused a lot of ill feeling between users and Tandy. The Users Group launched a monthly called “Orphans” and hated Ed Juge (who died recently) the then CEO of Tandy for not providing any support.

I was amused a few years ago when Googling on Tandy 2000 to pull up a full page advert for it from one of the well known magazines at that time in which Bill Gates lauded it saying how much his programmers depended on it for its performance! Might explain some of Windows problems if they were using a non-conforming PC !

By: archetype

archetype — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:19:50 +0000

There was also a Tandy / Radio Shack PC that used an 80186. Just one model that didn’t last for more than a year. Their usual black and silver case. I can’t swear that it was 100% compatible with the usual instruction sets that software depended on.

By: Sandy Jelusic

Sandy Jelusic — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:16:47 +0000

I have at home an pc desktop powered by an 8088 at 3.5 mhz with turbo mode, black-yellow monitor, 20mb disk and only 5.25” floppy. As for dos I think it’s ibm-dos. Not really certain.

By: Mick Russom

Mick Russom — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:13:34 +0000

Acorn’s Master 512 PC had a 10MHz 80186 CPU which ran MS-DOS and GEM. I would say this qualifies it as a “PC” running a 80186 running MS-DOS.

By: Bill Buchanan

Bill Buchanan — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:00:38 +0000

Correction to information provided on the Intel 80186 (1980).
This Processor was used in one desk top system but the system did not sell well. The company was Tandy and the model was Tandy 2000. There is a very good page at: http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=1219 covering the processor.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:39:49 +0000

This is great, im supposed to be at work, but im reading this, just spent quite a while reading it. Its very interesting, Thank You

By: darrel

darrel — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:54:39 +0000

Chris, It doesn’t say it was AMD’s answer. It was their “competitive response to Intel’s Pentium-class processor”
on a 486 motherboard.

Also, not mentioned is why Intel went from a number designation to a name title, the number, was actually the stock number. As I was told by a Intel Rep. at a Comdex show (Vegas) ‘94-’95. As Intel tried to sue AMD for copy right infringement. Like a fragrance, you can’t CR. the recipe only the name. They lost on the grounds, you can’t copy right a stock number (80486)! So they, Intel started using name designation (Pentium). As well as AMD did the same.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:44:19 +0000

The 5×86 was not AMD’s answer to the Pentium, the P5 was. The 5×86 was made to offer a greater performance boost to the millions of 486 PC’s out there, as it would work in (almost) any 486 motherboard with a socketed CPU or overdrive socket.

By: Woogle

Woogle — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:42:57 +0000

Just to point out that you state the 80186 never made it into a personal computer, however i owned a 186 system around 1992 that was made my Research Machines.
Just thought you would like to know.