My first computer
-
Similarly, Motorola later make an 88000 RISC processor, too, as a RISC counterpart to their 68000 CISC processor family. Never really took off, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
@pete-s said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
@dashrender said in My first computer:
@pete-s said in My first computer:
@dashrender said in My first computer:
I bought my first computer when I was 12 (1988). It was a used 8088 with 640K memory (if memory serves), amber screen, two 5.25 floppies, no hard disk - $250. turned right around and went to Sam's club and bought a 30 MB drive for $300 - that was pre ATA (is that called Winchester?) My dad installed the drive, then I installed DOS 3.x on it.
I know I used computers before that, but I don't recall what they were though. I do remember playing with an Apple IIe in elemetry school, but we didn't have one at home. I think my computer was the first one owned by us in the house. Though my dad had a "portable" computer from the military that he brought home often. It was as large as carry on luggage today.
Before ATA I think it was ST-506 interface. "Serious" computers used SCSI disks though.
lol - I'm pretty sure the 8088 was considered a PC, not sure about the 'seriousness' of it.. but I wouldn't expect most home users to have SCSI.
Some 8088 were PC, some were not. Only the PC ones got famous in years later. But at the time, there were loads of non-PC 8088 based computers.
Actually 8086 was the real CPU (hence the name x86 architecture).
The 8088 was just a cheaper variation with 8-bit external bus (8088) instead of the standard 16-bit bus.Yup, I'm very aware, was already in to computers when PC architecture came out.
8086 was never used in a PC however. PC architecture, which required x86, used 8088 in all the first models, not the 8086 to save money. But the 8088 was an x86. But the 186, 286, and so forth all got used in real world PCs, while the 8086 did not. You could, in theory, make an 8086 based PC, it fits in the architecture, but they didn't release at the time.
But PC is a full system architecture, not just computers based on 8086 family processors. That was my point. Back in the 8086 and 8088 eras, half of the machines made with those processors (some 8088s and all 8086s) were not PC, but were x86.
oh - I forgot that Scott loves to jump on the "PC is an architecture" bit. Not saying he's wrong, just that most people don't talk about it that way.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
Similarly, Motorola later make an 88000 RISC processor, too, as a RISC counterpart to their 68000 CISC processor family. Never really took off, though.
Yeah, many things have failed over the years.
And also similar to Intel's 8088, Motorola made their cheaper variation of the 68000 called the 68008. But it was the 68K architecture - 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030 etc.
Assembler on the 68K where beautiful compared to the cluster-f*ck of the x86.
-
@dashrender said in My first computer:
But PC is a full system architecture, not just computers based on 8086 family processors. That was my point. Back in the 8086 and 8088 eras, half of the machines made with those processors (some 8088s and all 8086s) were not PC, but were x86.
oh - I forgot that Scott loves to jump on the "PC is an architecture" bit. Not saying he's wrong, just that most people don't talk about it that way.
Well, it's true but it sure doesn't matter much. You would need IBM PC compatible hardware for it to be a PC. That meant a BIOS, all DMA and interrupt circuitry, 8042 keyboard controller, ISA expansion slots etc etc.
I remember I had a book detailing every hardware aspect of the PC and another book detailing all BIOS functions into minute detail. I was writing device drivers in assembler at the time which was really in-depth stuff.
-
@pete-s said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
Similarly, Motorola later make an 88000 RISC processor, too, as a RISC counterpart to their 68000 CISC processor family. Never really took off, though.
Yeah, many things have failed over the years.
And also similar to Intel's 8088, Motorola made their cheaper variation of the 68000 called the 68008. But it was the 68K architecture - 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030 etc.
Assembler on the 68K where beautiful compared to the cluster-f*ck of the x86.
Man, I so wanted a late model Amiga with the 68030. So effing fast.
-
@dashrender said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
@pete-s said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
@dashrender said in My first computer:
@pete-s said in My first computer:
@dashrender said in My first computer:
I bought my first computer when I was 12 (1988). It was a used 8088 with 640K memory (if memory serves), amber screen, two 5.25 floppies, no hard disk - $250. turned right around and went to Sam's club and bought a 30 MB drive for $300 - that was pre ATA (is that called Winchester?) My dad installed the drive, then I installed DOS 3.x on it.
I know I used computers before that, but I don't recall what they were though. I do remember playing with an Apple IIe in elemetry school, but we didn't have one at home. I think my computer was the first one owned by us in the house. Though my dad had a "portable" computer from the military that he brought home often. It was as large as carry on luggage today.
Before ATA I think it was ST-506 interface. "Serious" computers used SCSI disks though.
lol - I'm pretty sure the 8088 was considered a PC, not sure about the 'seriousness' of it.. but I wouldn't expect most home users to have SCSI.
Some 8088 were PC, some were not. Only the PC ones got famous in years later. But at the time, there were loads of non-PC 8088 based computers.
Actually 8086 was the real CPU (hence the name x86 architecture).
The 8088 was just a cheaper variation with 8-bit external bus (8088) instead of the standard 16-bit bus.Yup, I'm very aware, was already in to computers when PC architecture came out.
8086 was never used in a PC however. PC architecture, which required x86, used 8088 in all the first models, not the 8086 to save money. But the 8088 was an x86. But the 186, 286, and so forth all got used in real world PCs, while the 8086 did not. You could, in theory, make an 8086 based PC, it fits in the architecture, but they didn't release at the time.
But PC is a full system architecture, not just computers based on 8086 family processors. That was my point. Back in the 8086 and 8088 eras, half of the machines made with those processors (some 8088s and all 8086s) were not PC, but were x86.
oh - I forgot that Scott loves to jump on the "PC is an architecture" bit. Not saying he's wrong, just that most people don't talk about it that way.
Matters a LOT in a discussion like this when you are specifically discussing the original processors used in PCs and the original PC itself. In today's terms, people are loose with it. At the time, no one used that loosely, it was an incredibly strict term. So when you are talking first generation IBM PC, if you use the term loosely, there is no way to have the slightly clue what you mean. Today, context would tell you mostly.
-
Example...
In the era IBM made the PC and soon thereafter Compaq made a PC-compatible. Using x86 that wasn't PC compatible was common and easy at the time (hard now.) And if you had an 8086, that meant it couldn't be a PC or PC-compatible as no one made that. If you had an 8088 it was likely PC or PC-compatible, but not for certain.
But PC always meant IBM's PC line, and PC-compatible always meant PC architecture that wasn't made by IBM. Not longer after that, they were all called PC as it was PC architecture either way.
But if you use PC to mean something else, it would be super confusing because you'd be talking about machines that had nothing alike between them. Because an 8086 machine couldn't run PC software.
-
@dashrender said in My first computer:
I bought my first computer when I was 12 (1988). It was a used 8088 with 640K memory (if memory serves), amber screen, two 5.25 floppies, no hard disk - $250. turned right around and went to Sam's club and bought a 30 MB drive for $300 - that was pre ATA (is that called Winchester?) My dad installed the drive, then I installed DOS 3.x on it.
I know I used computers before that, but I don't recall what they were though. I do remember playing with an Apple IIe in elemetry school, but we didn't have one at home. I think my computer was the first one owned by us in the house. Though my dad had a "portable" computer from the military that he brought home often. It was as large as carry on luggage today.
MFM was the precursor to parallel ATA and SCSI IIRC. The drives filled two 5 1/4" drive bays full-height and were xMB to xxMB in size.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
common and easy at the time (hard now.) And if you had an 8086, that meant it couldn't be a PC or PC-compatible as no one
This is like calling a Surface a tablet - and people think youre talking about something like an iPad or an Android tablet.
-
@phlipelder said in My first computer:
@dashrender said in My first computer:
I bought my first computer when I was 12 (1988). It was a used 8088 with 640K memory (if memory serves), amber screen, two 5.25 floppies, no hard disk - $250. turned right around and went to Sam's club and bought a 30 MB drive for $300 - that was pre ATA (is that called Winchester?) My dad installed the drive, then I installed DOS 3.x on it.
I know I used computers before that, but I don't recall what they were though. I do remember playing with an Apple IIe in elemetry school, but we didn't have one at home. I think my computer was the first one owned by us in the house. Though my dad had a "portable" computer from the military that he brought home often. It was as large as carry on luggage today.
MFM was the precursor to parallel ATA and SCSI IIRC. The drives filled two 5 1/4" drive bays full-height and were xMB to xxMB in size.
That sounds familiar - yep, my drive was huge - two 5.25 bays and had two connectors(ribbon cables) plus power.
-
I think we got our first computer in the house in the early 90's. I have no idea what they would have been, probably some sort of whitebox special. But I remember that we had two, one had one of those green on black monitors and DOS only, and then we got one with a color monitor and windows 3.1. I still remember having to press 7 to boot into windows or press 5 to play commander keen.
My first computer I built/owned personally had AMD K6-2 500mhz processor and like 128mb of RAM. This would have been late 90's. I remember thinking at the time that there was no way I would ever fill up the huge 20GB hard drive. Of course, we then tried to find everything we could on Napster anyways. It's funny how much has changed only in the last 20 years for me. I cant imagine some of you more 'seasoned' guys seeing it all from the beginning.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
Example...
In the era IBM made the PC and soon thereafter Compaq made a PC-compatible. Using x86 that wasn't PC compatible was common and easy at the time (hard now.) And if you had an 8086, that meant it couldn't be a PC or PC-compatible as no one made that. If you had an 8088 it was likely PC or PC-compatible, but not for certain.
But PC always meant IBM's PC line, and PC-compatible always meant PC architecture that wasn't made by IBM. Not longer after that, they were all called PC as it was PC architecture either way.
But if you use PC to mean something else, it would be super confusing because you'd be talking about machines that had nothing alike between them. Because an 8086 machine couldn't run PC software.
I still remember the phrase "IBM compatible". I never knew what it meant at the time, I always associated that with DOS and Windows as a kid.
-
@donahue said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
Example...
In the era IBM made the PC and soon thereafter Compaq made a PC-compatible. Using x86 that wasn't PC compatible was common and easy at the time (hard now.) And if you had an 8086, that meant it couldn't be a PC or PC-compatible as no one made that. If you had an 8088 it was likely PC or PC-compatible, but not for certain.
But PC always meant IBM's PC line, and PC-compatible always meant PC architecture that wasn't made by IBM. Not longer after that, they were all called PC as it was PC architecture either way.
But if you use PC to mean something else, it would be super confusing because you'd be talking about machines that had nothing alike between them. Because an 8086 machine couldn't run PC software.
I still remember the phrase "IBM compatible". I never knew what it meant at the time, I always associated that with DOS and Windows as a kid.
LOL, yeah definitely doesn't mean that. That would have been "Microsoft compatible", if we were going by companies.
IBM compatible was always a misnomer, as would be Microsoft compatible. Since when DOS came about, Microsoft's main product was actually XENIX UNIX, so being compatible with Microsoft would be more towards Linux, than DOS.
IBM always had many products and they were in no way compatible with each other. Today, nothing that people traditionally associate with IBM is compatible with anything IBM makes. IBM compatible today means more than it ever did, as IBM today uses a single platform family, the Power family.
-
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
@donahue said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
Example...
In the era IBM made the PC and soon thereafter Compaq made a PC-compatible. Using x86 that wasn't PC compatible was common and easy at the time (hard now.) And if you had an 8086, that meant it couldn't be a PC or PC-compatible as no one made that. If you had an 8088 it was likely PC or PC-compatible, but not for certain.
But PC always meant IBM's PC line, and PC-compatible always meant PC architecture that wasn't made by IBM. Not longer after that, they were all called PC as it was PC architecture either way.
But if you use PC to mean something else, it would be super confusing because you'd be talking about machines that had nothing alike between them. Because an 8086 machine couldn't run PC software.
I still remember the phrase "IBM compatible". I never knew what it meant at the time, I always associated that with DOS and Windows as a kid.
LOL, yeah definitely doesn't mean that. That would have been "Microsoft compatible", if we were going by companies.
IBM compatible was always a misnomer, as would be Microsoft compatible. Since when DOS came about, Microsoft's main product was actually XENIX UNIX, so being compatible with Microsoft would be more towards Linux, than DOS.
IBM always had many products and they were in no way compatible with each other. Today, nothing that people traditionally associate with IBM is compatible with anything IBM makes. IBM compatible today means more than it ever did, as IBM today uses a single platform family, the Power family.
Yeah, my mom has been in IT for probably the last 35ish years, she is essentially the IT manager for a regional retail store (probably about 150-200 stores) here in the NW. Now that I do this, its kind of weird trying to talk shop to her because most of her hands on experience is from at least 20 years ago. One of the last conversations we had, I was trying to explain some of the benefits of virtualization to her as she said they basically didn't have anything virtualized and they had several hundred physical servers. She deals a lot more with things like VISA processing that I didn't understand, but from my perspective we jumped straight to virtualization with our first server. She was the one always telling me "IBM compatible", but it comes from the early 90's.
-
@donahue said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
@donahue said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller said in My first computer:
Example...
In the era IBM made the PC and soon thereafter Compaq made a PC-compatible. Using x86 that wasn't PC compatible was common and easy at the time (hard now.) And if you had an 8086, that meant it couldn't be a PC or PC-compatible as no one made that. If you had an 8088 it was likely PC or PC-compatible, but not for certain.
But PC always meant IBM's PC line, and PC-compatible always meant PC architecture that wasn't made by IBM. Not longer after that, they were all called PC as it was PC architecture either way.
But if you use PC to mean something else, it would be super confusing because you'd be talking about machines that had nothing alike between them. Because an 8086 machine couldn't run PC software.
I still remember the phrase "IBM compatible". I never knew what it meant at the time, I always associated that with DOS and Windows as a kid.
LOL, yeah definitely doesn't mean that. That would have been "Microsoft compatible", if we were going by companies.
IBM compatible was always a misnomer, as would be Microsoft compatible. Since when DOS came about, Microsoft's main product was actually XENIX UNIX, so being compatible with Microsoft would be more towards Linux, than DOS.
IBM always had many products and they were in no way compatible with each other. Today, nothing that people traditionally associate with IBM is compatible with anything IBM makes. IBM compatible today means more than it ever did, as IBM today uses a single platform family, the Power family.
Yeah, my mom has been in IT for probably the last 35ish years, she is essentially the IT manager for a regional retail store (probably about 150-200 stores) here in the NW. Now that I do this, its kind of weird trying to talk shop to her because most of her hands on experience is from at least 20 years ago. One of the last conversations we had, I was trying to explain some of the benefits of virtualization to her as she said they basically didn't have anything virtualized and they had several hundred physical servers. She deals a lot more with things like VISA processing that I didn't understand, but from my perspective we jumped straight to virtualization with our first server. She was the one always telling me "IBM compatible", but it comes from the early 90's.
Yeah, by the early 90s it should have been a long dead term. I remember people using it incorrectly. Traditionally that term was a reference to mainframes, not PCs. IBM Mainframes had their own architecture and to be compatible with it took some doing.
Virtualization is not new, it's been standard since 1964 (IBM again.) I started in IT in 1989 and it was well known by then. If they are lacking it where she works, it's not from being "out of date." Vendors like IBM, Sun (now Oracle), and many others were virtualizing for decades before the SMB market got into it. And the SMB only took so long due to a lack of power in the chips, nothing to do with not being aware of it or not wanting it.
-
I dont know a lot about their setup, just that it's a completely different business type with different needs, and a night and day difference between staff levels. She is a manager with probably 20 or 30 staff in her department. My department consists of me :). Its hard for us to relate because there is not a lot of common ground.
-
@donahue said in My first computer:
I dont know a lot about their setup, just that it's a completely different business type with different needs, and a night and day difference between staff levels. She is a manager with probably 20 or 30 staff in her department. My department consists of me :). Its hard for us to relate because there is not a lot of common ground.
Except the universal need for virtualization
-
@scottalanmiller that's my thought. But you just cant come out an tell your mother that, especially since I am still relatively inexperienced. The same thing happens with my father in law. He just recently retired from working as some sort of systems admin for the EPA. I don't know what exactly he did, but I always get the feeling that he is going to tell me something that was relevant in server 2003.
-
@donahue said in My first computer:
@scottalanmiller that's my thought. But you just cant come out an tell your mother that, especially since I am still relatively inexperienced. The same thing happens with my father in law. He just recently retired from working as some sort of systems admin for the EPA. I don't know what exactly he did, but I always get the feeling that he is going to tell me something that was relevant in server 2003.
Haha.
-
@phlipelder said in My first computer:
@dashrender said in My first computer:
I bought my first computer when I was 12 (1988). It was a used 8088 with 640K memory (if memory serves), amber screen, two 5.25 floppies, no hard disk - $250. turned right around and went to Sam's club and bought a 30 MB drive for $300 - that was pre ATA (is that called Winchester?) My dad installed the drive, then I installed DOS 3.x on it.
I know I used computers before that, but I don't recall what they were though. I do remember playing with an Apple IIe in elemetry school, but we didn't have one at home. I think my computer was the first one owned by us in the house. Though my dad had a "portable" computer from the military that he brought home often. It was as large as carry on luggage today.
MFM was the precursor to parallel ATA and SCSI IIRC. The drives filled two 5 1/4" drive bays full-height and were xMB to xxMB in size.
I think MFM was really the encoding of the data on the drive but the interface was ST-506.
The first SCSI disk I got was for a file server and it was a monster drive from Micropolis. It was state-of-the-art, fast seek times and about 500 MB. Normal disks were 20-40MB at the time.
