Parallel port replacement??

Into mommy's dirty laundry for her socks again, DimBulb?

But that wasn't what I was suggesting. What I actually said was:

How you managed to interpret that as a claim of 100% compatibility is anyone's guess.

The issue was 100$ compatibility. The point that similar systems were made, but were *not* compatible, had already been made, many times. Your contribution was zero.

No, they certainly do not.

Completely, 100% wrong. The 286 was long after MSDOS.

re a

ional

for

No, a 386 could be used to make a machine that ran MSDOS with no changes at all. The BIOS was a little bit different but all of the entry points and returned results looked just like the one of the

The biggest difference in the BIOS was a few NOP instructions between some of the I/O instructions. This had to be done to make the I/O to the 8259 chip work right.

o dear where to begin.

Beyond subtle differences that exist between all successive releases, there's nothing preventing an 80186 from being the cpu in a complete compatible. Ever hear of the Ampro Littleboard/PC? Had an 80186 and was completely compatible (the later ones sported an NEC V40). One of it's novelties was that it was the first sbc that could be screwed on top of a 5 1/4" floppy drive (or hard drive). The Mindset also had one, as did the Televideo Personal Mini, Northstar Dimension, and others (some of these were at least partially incompatible, and some even didn't run DOS, but rather an early networking OS like Novell/ Infoshare). Some early handhelds had an 80186 or an 80188 (or possibly an 80c186/80c188). Didn't one of HPs little thingees have that? The IBM RadioPC also sported some version of those chips. There was a computer/mobo sold by Advanced Computer Products of,uh, Anaheim, CA I think that sported an 80186. There were others, possible even others I, even I, haven't yet heard of.

Show me a program that won't run on a Ampro Littleboard and I'll believe you. Even if you looked at the mobo of a Tandy 2000 (I can provide pictures upon request) you'll see that every peripheral chip present on an IBM PCs mobo is also there. The difference mainly has to do w/a different chipset used for video (and other smaller issues, but that is far and away the biggest one). SMC yada yada, not a Moto 6845. The BIOS was also loaded from disk. Other then that, it's one of the closest things to an IBM PC out there (amongst the pseudo compatibles that were introduced in the years after the IBM PC). It was BIOS and DOS compatible, meaning s/w that used BIOS or DOS assembly service calls and didn't directly address the hardware would run (it wasn't long before developers started writing misbehaving s/w usually for speed's sake). Off the top of my head I don't know of any other pseudo compatible that was compatible at both those levels.

Could you use some good genuine IBM 640 KB XT motherboards? I think I have half a dozen left.

Wrong. I've already explained that BIOS and the peripherals sat on the same interrupt vectors. That's kinda hard to get around.

MSDOS and *any* program that uses BIOS calls.

Not the release of MS-DOS that was specifically for AT class computers, you retarded f*ck.

Hardly relevant to the 186, DimBulb.

Thank you for that.

It seems the piece of hardware KRW was 'familiar' with was the one that had the re-wired BIOS. He has blinders on in other scenarios as well.

Nice try, KeithKiethTard... krw... aka KKT. U be dumb, boy.

well that's simply amazing. Do you own an Ampro LittleBoard PC? Do you even know what it is? Theory often conflicts w/reality, especially in this case where I've booted MS-DOS (or PC-DOS) many a time on my own unit.

You seem to be arguing against I point that I never made. I made comments about a 386 machine and its BIOS not about a 186 machine. The extra NOPs I mentioned were really there and were really needed.

I don't much *care* what it is. Do you know anything about the '186? Apparently not. Do you know *anything*? Apparently not.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@InfiniteSeries.Org says...>

Isn't it nice to have AlwaysWrong on your side of an argument?

AlwaysWrong, DimBulb.

You be Roy, boy.

No, idiot. Roy is a total retard, just like you.

He also does not post into this group.

You're a goddamned retard, and so is your little dog.

The nym I use to post depends on the answer I am giving, the topic, and usually several other factors.

I wouldn't expect a narrow minded twit like you to understand.