Post by thread:[EE]: 8088 system

Imre, There isn't much easyest to grab a small 8088 main board ? Or you plan to built more than one piece... If I'll search, I have somewhere a small one, for you. Vasile On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, dr. Imre Bartfai wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi, > > I am very interested how to build a minimal 8088 system, so could you tell > us please what another chips are needed. I think of a minimal system with > SRAM and EEPROM, USART. What do I need yet? > > Thank you. > Imre > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Dale Botkin wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Chris Pringle wrote: > > > > > Wow, I never knew any of that. > > > So, can you still buy 8088s? And, if so, what can they do. Do you need > > > EPROMS for memory? Can they be used in the same way as a PIC can? > > > > Yes, 8088's are still available. > > > > They can do anything an 8086 can do... which is to say, most of what a > > Pentium-III can do, but without the memory management (and way slower). > > 1MB physical address limit, segmented into 64K banks. The chip is a CPU, > > not an MPU, and has no internal ROM, EPROM, RAM, peripheral functions, or > > anything other than the processor itself. So no, you ca't use it as a > > single-chip embedded processor, but I've seen designs with as few as 3 > > 40-pin packages. It's more suited to larger and more complex embedded > > tasks or general-purpose computers -- the IBM PC & XT used the 8088, as > > did many other systems. > > > > Dale > > --- > > The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new > > discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." > > -- Isaac Asimov > > > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList > > spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu> > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Vasile, If you have two, I could use one. I'd appreciate your looking and letting me know if you have a second spare SBC. It doesn't have to be an 8088, but it does need to be IBM compatible. Thanks and Regards, Jim On Mon, 23 April 2001, Vasile Surducan wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Imre, > There isn't much easyest to grab a small 8088 main board ? > Or you plan to built more than one piece... > If I'll search, I have somewhere a small one, for you. > Vasile > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, dr. Imre Bartfai wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am very interested how to build a minimal 8088 system, so could you tell > > us please what another chips are needed. I think of a minimal system with > > SRAM and EEPROM, USART. What do I need yet? > > > > Thank you. > > Imre > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Dale Botkin wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Chris Pringle wrote: > > > > > > > Wow, I never knew any of that. > > > > So, can you still buy 8088s? And, if so, what can they do. Do you need > > > > EPROMS for memory? Can they be used in the same way as a PIC can? > > > > > > Yes, 8088's are still available. > > > > > > They can do anything an 8086 can do... which is to say, most of what a > > > Pentium-III can do, but without the memory management (and way slower). > > > 1MB physical address limit, segmented into 64K banks. The chip is a CPU, > > > not an MPU, and has no internal ROM, EPROM, RAM, peripheral functions, or > > > anything other than the processor itself. So no, you ca't use it as a > > > single-chip embedded processor, but I've seen designs with as few as 3 > > > 40-pin packages. It's more suited to larger and more complex embedded > > > tasks or general-purpose computers -- the IBM PC & XT used the 8088, as > > > did many other systems. > > > > > > Dale > > > --- > > > The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new > > > discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." > > > -- Isaac Asimov > > > > > > -- > > > http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList > > > .....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > > > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics jimKILLspamjpes.com -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Craig Cassin wrote: > Subject: Re: [EE]: 8088 system > > Why not llook at 8052s? This will save on external chips. Yeah... but not nearly as much as using a PIC will. I have a couple of 8051 boards at home. Each has an 8051, EPROM, RS232, and one has an 8Kx8 EEPROM. I bought them to play around with several years ago. Cute, but not terribly useful if you're wanting to do things with an absolute minimum of parts and effort. You almost need external driver transistors for an LED, for heaven's sake. No timers, no hardware USART, lots of current required and they're picky about power -- none of this running from two AA batteries. I don't use them for anything now. I probably will figure out some use for them, but right now they're paperweights. Yes, I know there are far better 8052 variations available now, but not at PIC prices, and not from the places I buy from. All in all, I'm happy with PICs and have not had any recent instances of wishing I were still writing code for Intel processors. > But why not stick with Pics? > > It will be hard to find an embedded project that you cannot do with an 877. Amen brother! Dale --- The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

I don't want to spark a religious debate, but I can't let this pass... I have done a fair amount of work with the 8051 family and (I freely confess) nothing much with the PIC yet. That being said: There are more than 300 different 8051s out there, from 20 pins to 100 pins+. Many have flash memory. 99% have UARTs. Running on batteries isn't a problem, and neither is driving LEDs. CAN, ADC, DAC, PWM, etc, are all (of course) available. Big advantage (as far as I can see) is the *ALL* of the 8051s have the same core architecture and - crucial for me - can be prigrammed with the same C compiler (from Keil in my case). This does not seem to be the case for the PIC familiy, for which I seem to need around three different compilers? Michael. {Quote hidden}> > I have a couple of 8051 boards at home. Each has an 8051, EPROM, RS232, > and one has an 8Kx8 EEPROM. I bought them to play around with several > years ago. Cute, but not terribly useful if you're wanting to do things > with an absolute minimum of parts and effort. You almost need external > driver transistors for an LED, for heaven's sake. No timers, no hardware > USART, lots of current required and they're picky about power -- none of > this running from two AA batteries. I don't use them for anything now. I > probably will figure out some use for them, but right now they're > paperweights. > > Yes, I know there are far better 8052 variations available now, but not at > PIC prices, and not from the places I buy from. All in all, I'm happy > with PICs and have not had any recent instances of wishing I were still > writing code for Intel processors. > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Yeah... but not nearly as much as using a PIC will. I have a couple of 8051 boards at home. Each has an 8051, EPROM, RS232, and one has an 8Kx8 EEPROM. I bought them to play around with several years ago. Cute, but not terribly useful if you're wanting to do things with an absolute minimum of parts and effort. An 8x51 is actually quite similar to the PIC, and has onboard xROM, RAM, and usually uarts and timers as well. It ALSO has the ability to run in "external" mode, where program and data memory are connected externally. This was a very useful thing in the days before erasable memory... Yes, I know there are far better 8052 variations available now, but not at PIC prices, and not from the places I buy from. Atmel 89C2051 - $5 from http://www.bgmicro.com - a mini 8051 with 2k flash, uart, two timers, 128 ram, LED capable drive, analog comparator, 20 pin package. Perhaps more importantly, there are a LOT of vendors in the 8x51 space, so you're not quite as much at the whims of a single manufacturer. BillW -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Michael Pont wrote: > I don't want to spark a religious debate, but I can't let this pass... I'm not trying to start a holy war either, really I'm not. I was just offering my own input, YMMV. > I have done a fair amount of work with the 8051 family and (I freely > confess) nothing much with the PIC yet. > That being said: > > There are more than 300 different 8051s out there, from 20 pins to 100 > pins+. Many have flash memory. 99% have UARTs. Running on batteries isn't > a problem, and neither is driving LEDs. CAN, ADC, DAC, PWM, etc, are all > (of course) available. No argument there, there is a dizzying array of different types of 8051 derivatives available from numerous sources. I'm sure there is a perfectly suitable 8051 derivtive from somewhere for almost any task. However, only a few are readily available from the suppliers I use (Digi-Key, JDR, Jameco, Mouser, etc). I can almost scoop PICs up off the street on my way to work, they're easier to find than coffee. > Big advantage (as far as I can see) is the *ALL* of the 8051s have the same > core architecture and - crucial for me - can be prigrammed with the same C > compiler (from Keil in my case). This does not seem to be the case for the > PIC familiy, for which I seem to need around three different compilers? Not really. If you want to encompass ALL of the different PIC families you'll need one for the 12/14 bit cores, and one for the 16 bit cores. But really, that's like saying you'd need separate compilers for the 8048 and the 8051 (or 8051 and 80196, whatever). They come from the same manufacturer and have some definite similarities, but are different animals. I can buy one compiler that will handle all 12xxx, 14000, 16xxx and 17xxx parts if I need to -- though I didn't; I only need to use the midrange parts. I don't know what 8051 compiler prices are like, but the last time I looked they were substantially higher than what I paid, which is a big factor for those of us who don't do this full-time. I liked the '51 a lot, still do. But I'll still stand by my orignal statment: > > Yes, I know there are far better 8052 variations available now, but not at > > PIC prices, and not from the places I buy from. All in all, I'm happy > > with PICs and have not had any recent instances of wishing I were still > > writing code for Intel processors. Dale --- The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, William Chops Westfield wrote: > Yes, I know there are far better 8052 variations available now, but not at > PIC prices, and not from the places I buy from. > > Atmel 89C2051 - $5 from http://www.bgmicro.com - a mini 8051 with 2k flash, uart, > two timers, 128 ram, LED capable drive, analog comparator, 20 pin package. > Perhaps more importantly, there are a LOT of vendors in the 8x51 space, so > you're not quite as much at the whims of a single manufacturer. Yes, about half a dozen from them. A hundred or so PICs from Digi-Key compared to a couple dozen 8051 derivatives. I'm not disagreeing with anyone who sings the praises of the 8051 architecture, just saying there are reasons I switched to PICs. Dale --- The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Hi, unfortunately, I found. Possible solution would be also some PIC, with a huge amount of external ROM, but I need also about 32-64k RAM. I did already used such RAM connected to a PIC but it is not straightforward and rather cumbersome. Beneath this, there are affordable development tools on the market (I mean http://www.dunfield.com) where C compiler produce ROMable 8086 code. A real alternative would be only a good old Z80, but AFAIK it could not DIV or MUL. Regards, Imre On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Craig Cassin wrote: {Quote hidden}> Subject: Re: [EE]: 8088 system > > Why not llook at 8052s? This will save on external chips. > > But why not stick with Pics? > > It will be hard to find an embedded project that you cannot do with an 877. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Everyting depend's on where do you live. It's sure that postage expense will be greater than board itself..., my offer was for someone living close enough from me. Mail me directly if still interested. Vasile On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, James Paul wrote: {Quote hidden}> Vasile, > > If you have two, I could use one. I'd appreciate your looking and > letting me know if you have a second spare SBC. It doesn't have to > be an 8088, but it does need to be IBM compatible. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Jim > > > > On Mon, 23 April 2001, Vasile Surducan wrote: > > > > > Imre, > > There isn't much easyest to grab a small 8088 main board ? > > Or you plan to built more than one piece... > > If I'll search, I have somewhere a small one, for you. > > Vasile > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, dr. Imre Bartfai wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am very interested how to build a minimal 8088 system, so could you tell > > > us please what another chips are needed. I think of a minimal system with > > > SRAM and EEPROM, USART. What do I need yet? > > > > > > Thank you. > > > Imre > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Dale Botkin wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Chris Pringle wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wow, I never knew any of that. > > > > > So, can you still buy 8088s? And, if so, what can they do. Do you need > > > > > EPROMS for memory? Can they be used in the same way as a PIC can? > > > > > > > > Yes, 8088's are still available. > > > > > > > > They can do anything an 8086 can do... which is to say, most of what a > > > > Pentium-III can do, but without the memory management (and way slower). > > > > 1MB physical address limit, segmented into 64K banks. The chip is a CPU, > > > > not an MPU, and has no internal ROM, EPROM, RAM, peripheral functions, or > > > > anything other than the processor itself. So no, you ca't use it as a > > > > single-chip embedded processor, but I've seen designs with as few as 3 > > > > 40-pin packages. It's more suited to larger and more complex embedded > > > > tasks or general-purpose computers -- the IBM PC & XT used the 8088, as > > > > did many other systems. > > > > > > > > Dale > > > > --- > > > > The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new > > > > discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." > > > > -- Isaac Asimov > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList > > > > EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > > > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > jimspam_OUTjpes.com > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

My first thought was 'WHY??' when you can buy a celeron and motherboard for about $100. Right now I have minimal time for hobby work so I tend to focus it by applying money to acclerate projects. When I was in high school/college, money was tight. I built my own preamp and amp out of radio electronics articles. The learning and satifaction is emmense. So, Imre, that's why. And yes, if you just want to accomplish something, if it is embedded, use a PIC/8051 whatever. If it is desktop, have someone give you a 386 laying around. If you are in it for the fun, build your own. Steve Subject: Re: [EE]: 8088 system Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:09:52 +0300 From: Vasile Surducan <@spam@vasileKILLspamL30.ITIM-CJ.RO> Imre, There isn't much easyest to grab a small 8088 main board ? Or you plan to built more than one piece... If I'll search, I have somewhere a small one, for you. Vasile On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, dr. Imre Bartfai wrote: > Hi, > > I am very interested how to build a minimal 8088 system, so could you tell > us please what another chips are needed. I think of a minimal system with > SRAM and EEPROM, USART. What do I need yet? > > Thank you. > Imre -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu