decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86 | 687 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT
80186 was made for embedded markets and had features deemed incompatible with
IBM PCs. Having said that, it was used in quite a number of PC like devices. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80186

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

at the same time, Intel couldn't protect x86
Authored by: greed on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 11:14 AM EDT
The 80186 wasn't interesting enough for people to make new boards. It wasn't
pin-for-pin compatible with the 8086; it had on-chip controllers that had to be
wired up separately for the 8086.

There were a few machines that used it, but it never went mainstream--it was
only a bit faster than the 8086 clock-for-clock, but it had the same address
space limits. "Interesting enough" didn't happen until the 80286 with
protected mode. (The 80286 got to star in the IBM PC AT... where they stuck
with it while everyone else found out about the 80386.)

The government-mandated CEMCORP ICON was one; a classic example of the Ontario
government designing contract requirements that only a local company can
fulfill. (That way, it's not a bail-out or diversion of funds! It's just
responsible business!) CEMCORP got bought by Burroughs, who got bought by
Unisys, so by the end we had quite a collection of company logos on the various
nodes.

Say, remember protected mode was an 80286 feature? The ICON ran QNX, a
UNIX-like system. And the 80186 does not have protected mode.... Fun with
finding root passwords was had....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )