Intel 286 System

jbltecnicspro

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
9,533
So someone is giving us a 286 box. What can I do with this thing? I was planning on running old DOS games, but I see that the 286 is kindly regarded as a turd. I don't know the specifics of the system just yet, so maybe this thread is premature, but is it possible to upgrade the CPU to something with a little more oomph for DOS games? I'm talking old Sierra SCI titles like Kings Quest 4, 5, 6 and the like. Thoughts?
 
So someone is giving us a 286 box. What can I do with this thing?

Target practice or see how long it functions after throwing water on the motherboard. Maybe test hot inserting cards or memory.
 
There are lots of DOS games that run very well on a 286.
Vogons.org is a forum dedicated to old games and computers, you will find all information you need there.
 
I started on 286. If you're only looking for old DOS games it should work but memory might be an issue. I had mine to 1MB but then went to 386 afterwards. The 286 couldn't multitask in Windows 3.1. Not sure anymore how much memory a 286 can address/use.
 
Relic.

My retro gaming system is a Pentium 3, and most people would call that a door stop. :)

If the oscillator is socketed and the board supports 12MHz+ CPUs, you may be able to install a new oscillator and faster CPU. Harris made 16, 20 and 25MHz versions in PLCC packages (really annoying to remove from socket). If it's a PGA chip you're out of luck. If it's a CLCC chip, I think AMD made a 16MHz version.

Just look through craigslist. Someone's bound to be giving away something faster, at least as slow as a Pentium. I wouldn't spend a dollar upgrading a 286 unless it was used for something critical. :p
 
Last edited:
You could play Wing Commander 1 and 2 if you can find an old ISA Soundblaster card. Or you could be daring and run OS/2 1.3 and make use of that 16 MB.
 
You could play Wing Commander 1 and 2 if you can find an old ISA Soundblaster card. Or you could be daring and run OS/2 1.3 and make use of that 16 MB.

I have a Roland MT-32 and Sound Canvas. :) So I'm covered there. :D I'll have to see what it is and what it can do. I'm kind of hoping that the guy giving it to us is wrong and that it's a faster chip (like a 386), but common sense tells me that if he knows enough of what a 286 is, then he's probably right.
 
Just look through craigslist. Someone's bound to be giving away something faster, at least as slow as a Pentium. I wouldn't spend a dollar upgrading a 286 unless it was used for something critical. :p

Of course spending money on it is a bad deal. But if $10 makes it faster and fun to dick around with... :D
 
I have a Pentium 133 box that runs dos on it.

You would run into problems with some of the more visual dos games (think lucas arts).
 
Pull the CPU and add it to your collection. I have tons of old CPU's, they are fun to collect.
 
I have a Pentium 133 box that runs dos on it.

You would run into problems with some of the more visual dos games (think lucas arts).

Yeah, I'll be limited for sure. The bigger issue with Pentiums, however (and most people probably don't know this) is that the more common Roland MT-32 devices tend to have buffer overflow issues because the faster chips dish out the required sysex files (this creates new instruments and sounds on the unit) too quickly for it to react. So a Pentium (unless I had a Roland LAPC-I or CM-32L or 2nd Gen MT-32) would be a no-go for my setup.

EDIT: I should explain. First generation MT-32's required 40ms of wait time in between Sysex messages. Older games are sometimes programmed to go off of the system clock, instead of being properly coded to wait 40ms before each sysex message. Because of this, on a faster CPU like a Pentium, the games bombard the MT-32 with Sysex way too fast, causing it to crash and not load all the sounds correctly. The 286 CPU definitely won't be having this problem. I believe all CPU's up to 486's are okay. Pentiums and higher are the ones that are too fast, and as a result, a utility like Mo-Slow will have to be used to temporarily slow the machine down so as not to cause a crash. Or, in the case of DOSBOX, just slow the emulated CPU cycles down to some stupid low number while the game loads the sounds, and speed it back up afterward. :)
 
Pull the CPU and add it to your collection. I have tons of old CPU's, they are fun to collect.

I may do this too. The computer is a complete system, btw. So I'm kind of excited to see what it is... And my wife's calling me to come down and get it. Woo!
 
Yeah, I'll be limited for sure. The bigger issue with Pentiums, however (and most people probably don't know this) is that the more common Roland MT-32 devices tend to have buffer overflow issues because the faster chips dish out the required sysex files (this creates new instruments and sounds on the unit) too quickly for it to react. So a Pentium (unless I had a Roland LAPC-I or CM-32L or 2nd Gen MT-32) would be a no-go for my setup.

EDIT: I should explain. First generation MT-32's required 40ms of wait time in between Sysex messages. Older games are sometimes programmed to go off of the system clock, instead of being properly coded to wait 40ms before each sysex message. Because of this, on a faster CPU like a Pentium, the games bombard the MT-32 with Sysex way too fast, causing it to crash and not load all the sounds correctly. The 286 CPU definitely won't be having this problem. I believe all CPU's up to 486's are okay. Pentiums and higher are the ones that are too fast, and as a result, a utility like Mo-Slow will have to be used to temporarily slow the machine down so as not to cause a crash. Or, in the case of DOSBOX, just slow the emulated CPU cycles down to some stupid low number while the game loads the sounds, and speed it back up afterward. :)

I think I remember this issue with my 133 as well. Its an old old old HP, the S3 video card was giving me issues with DOS based games as well. If you really wanted to throw a DOS box together and didn't want to bother with emulation you could probably find a 486 DX2+ system somewhere. I bet I still have mine.

I'd probably be a bit more excited for a 386, as 286's had a terrible time with Windows 3.1.

You could throw a ton of different OS's on there.
 
Let us know what it has in it.

I used to have a bunch of old SB ISA cards.. like 3 Awe32s and a few SB 16s. The AWE32s had horrible noise and the SB 16s I was not going to use, so I gave all those cards away.

I did keep an AWE64 Gold! and my old Opti 930 with 4MB hardware wavetable though. Those are in my retro rigs.

If I run across any more really old hardware that I don't want, I'll post it in the free section on here.
 
It's an old IBM PS/2 286 Model 30. From what I can tell, it doesn't even have a sound card. Lame. I *think* it may have a VGA graphics card, but I can't tell yet. I do know it works, and it supposedly has ISA slots. It has the original disks for Windows 286, DOS 4.0, and a whopping 20MB hard drive. LOL!
 
I remember being fairly disappointed with my old 286 for gaming. I was so happy to jump to a 386 dx40, eight meg of ram, Trident 1 meg SVGA and Qemm so I could rage on X-wing and Tie Fighter. Whooo!

Multi tasking in Win 3.1 with a 286 and two meg of ram was awful.
 
I remember being fairly disappointed with my old 286 for gaming. I was so happy to jump to a 386 dx40, eight meg of ram, Trident 1 meg SVGA and Qemm so I could rage on X-wing and Tie Fighter. Whooo!

Multi tasking in Win 3.1 with a 286 and two meg of ram was awful.

I plan on using DOS 4.0 with it. Hopefully it's enough... If not? Well... it's not like I spent any money on it. :D
 
Hmm... well wouldn't it need a VGA to out put to your monitor? :D Its probably one of those combined controller cards that shared a small amount of onboard memory and eventually became our southbridge.

Either way, you have Windows 2! I hated that thing!
 
Personally I'm a young'n, I look at that generation and I see the 486 DX2 as the sort of best chip to play old dos games on. It can even run Doom!
 
I'm curious about why you would bother, can't you just use DOS box on pretty much any PC from the last 10-15 years?
 
I'm curious about why you would bother, can't you just use DOS box on pretty much any PC from the last 10-15 years?

It's one of those geek things, I suppose. You're right. I've been using DOSBOX for years now, so I'm no stranger to it. I just thought it would be neat to run some old games on it and see how it worked on hardware of the era. But since it has like, no hardware at all (no sound card or anything, for example), I'll pass and recycle it.
 
the 286 was my 1st ever CPU. Makes me want to tear up ;)

Loved learning to do protected mode programming on that thing.
 
the 286 was my 1st ever CPU. Makes me want to tear up ;)

Loved learning to do protected mode programming on that thing.

Actually, this may be something cool to work with. I'm a developer myself, and I've never touched x86 assembly. How hard is it to do in DOS?
 
Actually, this may be something cool to work with. I'm a developer myself, and I've never touched x86 assembly. How hard is it to do in DOS?
You can make .com files really easily using debug since it's a mini monitor/debugger and can convert assembly language mnemonics into machine code*. DOS and BIOS services are made via interrupt calls. 16 bit programming is kind of a pointless exercise and you don't really gain anything that isn't as easy to learn starting with 32-bit/64-bit x86 assembly language.


* you can easily lock up the computer requiring a reboot and it's a bit tedious to manually manage addresses using debug. If you want to learn x86 assembly language, use an assembler under an OS which separates process spaces so mistakes don't write all over memory. :)

example of making a short 16-bit x86 assembly HELLO WORLD! program that runs under DOS:
Code:
DEBUG
A 100
MOV AH,9
MOV DX,108
INT 21
RET
DB 'HELLO WORLD!$'
explanation of that short code:
Int 21, service AH=09 prints a $ terminated string to console
DX = 108 is the offset to the string
Int 21 called to print the string
RET returns control back to the OS

then write it to a .com file:

R CX 15
N HELLO.COM
W
Q

(length of program is 21 ($15) bytes including the string to print, name is HELLO.COM, write file then quit debug)
yes, the complete program is only 21 bytes.

and run it:
HELLO.COM
 
Last edited:
Actually, this may be something cool to work with. I'm a developer myself, and I've never touched x86 assembly. How hard is it to do in DOS?

This was a good tool in its day. Now It is free

http://www.openwatcom.com/index.php/Wasm

80286 Programmer's Reference Manual

80286 Hardware Reference Manual

This interesting one from AMD

DOS and BIOS services are made via interrupt calls.

16 bit programming is kind of a pointless exercise and you don't really gain anything that isn't as easy to learn starting with 32-bit/64-bit x86 assembly language.

DOS and BIOS calls are for wennies ;)

The beauty of 16 bit 80286 system programming is the fact that the architecture is simple enough that one can actually program right into the various components of the system.

Never had so much fun as those days
 
Last edited:
Nice. One of my first interaction with a PC was a 286 running TEST DRIVE.

I don't have a 286 anymore in my vintage collection, I find a 386sx downclocked to 8-12MHz is pretty good for any really old games and parts are easier to find to keep it working.

Watch out if it has a barrel battery on the mainboard (I can't remember if most 286 even came with those) because those leak over time and kill the components. Every vintage system that has one that I find usually has the terminals at least corroded. There might be an external battery connector that you can connect a 3.6-4.5v external battery to (WATCH the voltage...even though a higher voltage battery might work, it can kill the bios over time).
 
Personally I'm a young'n, I look at that generation and I see the 486 DX2 as the sort of best chip to play old dos games on. It can even run Doom!

oh man, local buss, now we're talking!
 
DOS and BIOS calls are for wennies ;)

The beauty of 16 bit 80286 system programming is the fact that the architecture is simple enough that one can actually program right into the various components of the system.

Never had so much fun as those days
There's not much difference writing directly to b000:0 (or b800:0), but it's kind of pointless for such a trivial program.

The text already on the screen was printed by BIOS and/or indirectly via DOS calls, so niceties like cursor position and scrolling are managed*, and the speed difference for printing a few characters of text is negligible.

* to be 1337, you would need to make a BIOS call to grab the cursor position, then potentially handle scrolling and update cursor position after you're done... which is just dumb. :p I've done my share of low level assembly programming on a few different architectures.
 
The text already on the screen was printed by BIOS and/or indirectly via DOS calls, so niceties like cursor position and scrolling are managed*, and the speed difference for printing a few characters of text is negligible.

Your point is valid.

I'm just being goofy, because back in the day, the course I was taking was on systems programming, and the whole idea of the professor was to code directly to each component chip.

Made sense at the time since I was in Elec Eng. You could have a system where you were using the 286 and some other chips but with no BIOS.

Soon after I quit EE, and went to Com Sci. I did miss those low level programming. Hell, anyone here done any microcode? Only did it on a simulator. What about SDK-86? That was fun too.
 
we need a retro sub from around here
ocing seemed like it was more fun back in the P-II to Athlon days
 
we need a retro sub from around here
ocing seemed like it was more fun back in the P-II to Athlon days

What's amazing to realize is that, when the 286 was introduced, Intel was using 1.5 micrometer sized fabrication. When Broadwell comes out, they'll be using fabrication over 100 times smaller than what was used in 1982.
 
What's amazing to realize is that, when the 286 was introduced, Intel was using 1.5 micrometer sized fabrication. When Broadwell comes out, they'll be using fabrication over 100 times smaller than what was used in 1982.

What's even more amazing is that current mainstream processors from intel are now coming clocked at 4000 MHz with 4 cores, compared to the fastest 286 which came in at 25 MHz. 1000 times the clock speed. I remember back in early high school being jealous of a friend that got a 12 MHz 286 while I was still chugging away with an 8 MHz 8086 XT.
 
What's even more amazing is that current mainstream processors from intel are now coming clocked at 4000 MHz with 4 cores, compared to the fastest 286 which came in at 25 MHz. 1000 times the clock speed. I remember back in early high school being jealous of a friend that got a 12 MHz 286 while I was still chugging away with an 8 MHz 8086 XT.

What's even more amazing than that is that 100 times smaller transistors means 10,000x more room for transistors.

Does anyone know how many flops the 286 ran at when introduced?
 
What's even more amazing than that is that 100 times smaller transistors means 10,000x more room for transistors.

Does anyone know how many flops the 286 ran at when introduced?

What is even more amazing is that is the PRICE of today systems.

[RANT] When the music industry went from vinyl to CD the price more than doubled for a product that was cheaper to produce.

Love the PC Business. Hate the Music Business

[/RANT]
 
What is even more amazing is that is the PRICE of today systems.

[RANT] When the music industry went from vinyl to CD the price more than doubled for a product that was cheaper to produce.

Love the PC Business. Hate the Music Business

[/RANT]

My only issue with CDs when they came out compared to vinyls is not the sampling rate for CDs, but the dynamic range allotted for each sample (16 bits). 16 bits allows for 65,536 discrete levels of audio. I'm pretty sure that caused a small but noticeable change in the sound quality for many different albums. 24 bits per sample is far superior.

But hey, I also miss the scratchiness of albums. Heh.
 
Back
Top