On 3/15/21 7:23 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
> From: Guy Sotomayor
> the LOADALL instructions including all of it's warts (and its inability
> to switch back from protected mode)
Good to have that confirmed (for the 286; apparently it works in the 386).
The 386 loadall
> From: Guy Sotomayor
> the LOADALL instructions including all of it's warts (and its inability
> to switch back from protected mode)
Good to have that confirmed (for the 286; apparently it works in the 386).
> the other way to get back to real mode from protected mode is via a
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 at 19:37, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk
wrote:
>
> At the time I was fairly familiar with the LOADALL instruction. I had
> modified PC/AT Xenix to use the LOADALL instruction to allow for running
> Xenix programs and multiple DOS programs simultaneously.
Incidentally, I believe
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> > I should also note, that the other way to get back to real mode from
> > protected mode is via a triple-fault. What gets me (and I railed on
> > Intel when I worked there for a time) that it still existing in the
> > architecture even though
On 3/14/21 11:36 AM, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote:
>
> I can say with a fair amount of certainty, that we at IBM knew of the
> existence of the LOADALL instructions including all of it's warts (and
> its inability to switch back from protected mode) from the earliest days.
>
ca. 1980, we
In contrast, Apple chose to abandon compatability with all previously
existing software
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
When they stopped selling Apple II's when Lisa was released.
Yes, exactly.
I was referring to the switch to 68000 (Lisa and then Mac), rather than
trying
On 3/14/21 1:42 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
In contrast, Apple chose to abandon compatability with all previously existing
software
When they stopped selling Apple II's when Lisa was released.
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote:
There were many heated discussions in various task forces (this was of course
IBM) about the next generation OS (to become OS/2) about the '286.?? First
and foremost was how to be able to run DOS programs on the '286. Over very
vocal
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 at 19:37, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk
wrote:
> There were many heated discussions in various task forces (this was of
> course IBM) about the next generation OS (to become OS/2) about the
> '286. First and foremost was how to be able to run DOS programs on the
> '286. Over very
On 3/14/21 11:09 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 04:32:20PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.
[...]
The existence of LOADALL (used for
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 04:32:20PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
>>> The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.
[...]
> The existence of LOADALL (used for in-circuit emulation, a predecessor
> technique to modern
n-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
> Subject: RE: 80286 Protected Mode Test
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Pope
> > Sent: 06 March 2021 23:20
> > To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Rob Jarratt ;
> > General
> > Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic P
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
> > The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.
>
> Really? So why all the hullabaloo about Triple Faults:
>
> http://www.rcollins.org/Productivity/TripleFault.html
>
> back in the day; and why did IBM set up the
> From: Jim Stephens
> The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.
Really? So why all the hullabaloo about Triple Faults:
http://www.rcollins.org/Productivity/TripleFault.html
back in the day; and why did IBM set up the keyboard controller so it could
send a RESET
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Fred Cisin via
> cctalk
> Sent: 06 March 2021 23:17
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test
>
> A stupid idea:
> Could the test require, and be f
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis via
> cctalk
> Sent: 07 March 2021 00:08
> To: Sean Conner via cctalk
> Subject: Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test
>
> On 3/6/21 3:10 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote:
>
> > There might be
On 3/6/2021 3:10 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote:
Once the 80286 is in protected mode, there is no way to get out of
protected mode except via the RESET signal.
The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.
Microsoft's extended memory driver pissed off the world (Intel)
On 3/6/21 3:10 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote:
> There might be damage to the keyboard controller that could cause the
> issue. Once the 80286 is in protected mode, there is no way to get out of
> protected mode except via the RESET signal. If I remember correctly, you
> could program the
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Pope
> Sent: 06 March 2021 23:20
> To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Rob Jarratt ; General
> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test
>
> Rob,
> There is probably hidden damage t
Rob,
There is probably hidden damage to the motherboard. The acid will
follow the traces inside the board and consume them. There is no way to
stop this kind of damage. Sorry for the bad news.
GOD Bless and Thanks,
rich!
On 3/6/2021 4:59 PM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
I have a
A stupid idea:
Could the test require, and be failing, access to memory above 1M?
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a "simple
test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual I have that
for this
It was thus said that the Great Rob Jarratt via cctalk once stated:
> I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a "simple
> test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual I have that
> for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the machine status
I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a "simple
test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual I have that
for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the machine status word
is checked to see whether it indicates the protected mode and then
23 matches
Mail list logo
