Compaq Portable III fails POST?
THX1138 at dakotacom.net
Sun Aug 20 20:07:05 CDT 2006
jim stephens wrote:
> Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>>> How do you know the keyboard is "incompletely connected"?
>>> I assume that those "few threads" are actually capable of
>>> carrying current?
>> No, I mean, the cable is frayed and wires are open, visible and in
>> most places
>> partially or totally cut. As in, the cable is barely physically intact.
> I just unpacked one that had been stored in a reasonable warehouse
> this week, and when I pulled off the keyboard, the insulation sheathing
> totally disintegrated.
This is not A Good Thing.
> I think they tried some sort of plastic to make the cable retain the
> curl, and it was not very good.
> I have not tested the keyboard, the later suggestion of trying another
> standard at is a good one.
> This is pretty much an AT with a 30 or so entry HD table, instead of
> just the AT's 15 entry table in the disk extension.
> As such, you need an AT setup disk to set the cmos if it is dead. It
> boot and run either the compaq one, or the standard AT one. If you dont
> need > 15 in the drive type, the standard AT will work. A lot of these
> had drive type 2, which IIRC is a 20mb.
Ah, I hadn't realized anything other than the Compaq setup/test/install
> Another thing that concerns me is that you need to say whether you
> see floppy activity, either constant (bad ps) or none at all after
> you boot up. You should see a floppy seek if you have a floppy
> installed, just like an ordinary AT would do.
I *think* the drive door must be closed for it to seek (?).
I.e. insert floppy and PUSH the "button" so it stays IN
(press again to release/eject)
>> I have it connected to AC, so unless it needs the battery to boot
>> (*mumble* fricking Mac Portable*mumble*), it shouldn't be that ...
> yes, it needs to have cmos setup program booted from floppy if (since
> the battery will be) is dead.
>> Please let me know what you find. The form factor is fascinating, so I
>> would love to get it running again.
> They are nice 286 or 386 machines, consume much less than preserving the
> equivalent AT pile.
I thought the Portable III was strictly a 286. The "Portable 386"
was it's lookalike 386 cousin?
More information about the cctalk