Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Jason Lefkowitz

@cstanhope In a way, the story of the 286 is the story of the end of an era. It was pretty common in the small-systems world before that for each new generation of hardware to not be backwards compatible with the previous one. It was just expected that you'd have to throw away all your old software when you moved to the next generation.

The 286 was the first time in the PC world that the previous generation had sold enough software (and had software that was being put to enough actually mission-critical purposes) that when people were asked to throw away their old software, they were like, "um, no. No way. Try again."

3 comments
Your friendly 'net denizen

@jalefkowit Yeah, and the '286 was introduced just months after IBM launched their 8086 based PC. So it must've been in the works for a while, well before any of what eventually became the PC market would've maybe influenced Intel's design choices. I'm not even sure who Intel's customers were for the 8086 before IBM came along. Niche CP/M machines and embedded control applications?

Oh well, much like digital watches, I still think the '286 is neat. :)

Computer Chronicles Revisited

@jalefkowit @cstanhope There was also the fact that the growing use of high-level languages like C finally made it possible to have "portable" programs. This came up during the "Chronicles" episode I covered on the RT. Even the IBM rep made a point of promising compilers to make the transition to the new platform smoother. Sure, it didn't help the RT in the end, but clearly the old way of throwing away the old software, as you put, was no longer gonna fly in the business market.

MarkusL

@jalefkowit @cstanhope It had been at least attempted in the microcomputer world. If you bought a second 6502 for your BBC Micro (doubling your memory to 64K and increasing clock speed from 2MHz to 3MHz) then well-written software, which did everything through the OS, was supposed to work. Unfortunately, lots of software wrote directly to screen memory for performance, and that simply wasn't in the second processor's memory map.

Go Up