Spoken by someone who takes pride in being AlwaysWrong.
You do, DimBulb. Same intelligence.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Parallel port replacement??
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
So! It's proven... RoyLFuchs _is_ AlwaysWrong... IP match.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
It was never denied, dumbfuck.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
you really ought to though, because it runs off of a bloody '186, and is the basis for the utter destruction of your fallacious argument. Ta ta.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Clueless idiot; DimBulb class.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
They have the problem you appear to describe: CPU hardware interrupts clashing with the interrupt numbers foolishly chosen by IBM for BIOS services.
there may be some other problem, with the 80186 but you have not mentioned it.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
no it's not, just don't use those hardware features, it's not like the features are ones that 8088 targeted DOS applications will use anyway.
as far as I can tell the only hardware interrups that were added on the 186 were 'BOUND' and 'INVALID OPCODE' and they are entirely optional (in that software that was written to intel's 8088/8086 specifications will not trigger them).
what's more, these same interrups are present on the later processors.