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