Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!balboa.eng.uci.edu!fleming
From: fleming@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Dennis Paul Fleming)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt
Subject: Re: Need some info!
Message-ID: <1985@orion.cf.uci.edu>
Date: 27 May 89 01:15:17 GMT
References: <6102@cs.Buffalo.EDU>
Sender: news@orion.cf.uci.edu
Reply-To: fleming@balboa.eng.uci.edu.UUCP (Dennis Paul Fleming)
Organization: EE Dept., University of California, Irvine
Lines: 69

In article <6102@cs.Buffalo.EDU> ugbell@sunybcs.UUCP (William Bell) writes:
>
>	I am in the process of buying a 80286 IBM compatible system.

This is probably the wrong newsgroup for this but I can answer
a few of the questions


>1. Am I wrong when I say that Intel designed the 8085, 8088, 80286, 80386
>   lines?

They did.

>2. Does IBM only use Intel's uPCs? And if so, what uPC is in the IBM PCjr,
>   IBM XT, IBM AT, and IBM PS/2? (I think this is all of them).

	XT = 8088
	AT = 80286
	PS/2 have both 80286 and 80386 models


>3. Why does every clone manufacturer coin the phrase "IBM Compatible?"
>   Should they be saying "Intel uPC compactible?"

The compatable part comes from the whole machine, not the processor.
Taht includes bios (basic i/o system), bus (definitely not intel's Multibus),
and should run compatable software. Just as the Macintosh and the Sun 3
series both use 68000, you will agree that they are not compatable.

>4. I thought IBM did there own R&D. If so what uPc did they develop?

The IBM RT PC microprocessor was developed by IBM.  That machine is the purpose
of this news group.

>5. Why is the ATARI 520ST with the 68000 said to be easily "portable" to
>   IBM systems. They are running different uPc right?

I'm not sure why the code from the atari should be easily portable.

>6. I thought that 8088 was 8 bit, 80286 is 16 bit, 80386 is 32 bit, and
>   there is some talk of a 80486 coming out, am I right?

	8080 is 8 bit
	8086 is 16 bit 
	8088 is 16 bit with an 8 bit data bus
	80286 incorporates alot of on board memory management.
	80386 is 32 bit with a lot more memory management and power

>7. The ultimate question: I have used the IBM AT (I have no idea of the
>   hardware, uPc, etc) and I am told the Compac 80286 based system
>   is totally better (in design, etc.) why does compac say they are
>   "IBM compatible" is they are better?

IBM doesn't always do the best work.  Compatables are often faster and have
more features.  As long as they can do at least all of the things
that an IBM can, they are compatable.

>8. Lastly, does IBM have a computer running the 80386/ and or 80486?
>   And why do people say that the IBM PS/2 line is so bad?

Their higher PS/2 models use the 386 (Cant remember the numbers)
The complaints about PS/2 are varied and sometimes personal.  My
problem is that the operating system is written for a 286.  The 386 is so
much more powerful, but it's used mostly as a fast 286.

I hope this helps some. In the future you should direct your questions to 
ibm.pc

	Dennis Fleming