Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Subject: Re: INTEL 310 Keywords: intel 310 ipsc Message-ID: <14739@bfmny0.UU.NET> Date: 27 Sep 89 02:28:12 GMT References: <124864@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <806@sdrc.UUCP> <124935@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <818@sdrc.UUCP> <6321@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Distribution: na Organization: ^ Lines: 23 Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <6321@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> If xx-DOS then probably comp.sys.ibm.pc since the 310 is like a pc clone. > >And it doesn't run xx-dos at all, it's got a multibus. > >Are you confusing the 310 with the 302? Actually in the bad old days there was an MS-DOS (*not* PC-DOS) for the 310. Generic MS-DOS doesn't need any part of the XT/AT bus, it only needs to be able to provide the INT 21H services. A concrete example was the old GRiD Compass portable which had an 80C86 based non-PC motherboard and an OEM version of MS-DOS. (Among other things this beast flew in the Space Shuttle middeck for experiment support, until the recent upgrade to Gridcase 386's.) Unfortunately the market decided this was a useless distinction, MS-DOS now equals PC-DOS and Intel doesn't support DOS on the 310. It does look as if the other fellow was thinking of a 302, though. I wish we could corral some folks who actually know an Intel chassis from a jukebox and get some discussion going in here. :-) -- "DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT blow the hatch!" /)\ Tom Neff "Roger....hatch blown!" \(/ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET