ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Wed Apr 27 16:45:24 CDT 2005
>Subject: RE: S100 haul
> From: "Adrian Graham" <witchy at binarydinosaurs.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:13:56 +0100
> To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>The reason I thought the N* was multiuser is that all the machines I've seen
>have had more than 1 RS232 port on the back for terminals.....this makes me
>think the Minstrel was 'just' a N* clone from the UK :)
If anything they are both generic S100 crates. Most S100 systems needed at
least two serial ports. One for the console and often if there was a modem
one for that. In my case I used a DEC 100 printer which happens to be a
serial interface rather than parallel.
Those that did run multiuser often had many more than two ports. I have
a few S100 4 port cards and have seen systems easily capable of running
8 or more users.
If anything S100 was the PC of the era in the sense that there wer plenty
of crate (bus and power) vendors and a plethora of board suppliers. At
times mixing and matching was like PCs post XT era in that most boards
nearly worked but there were variantion on interpretation on bus standard.
The Apple and SS50 bus machines (6800 and 6809) were also common too in
the way of machines with some kind of bus that multiple things could
be plugged into. In Europe there was ECB bus and I suspect others.
So in most cases S100 implies generic system but little beyond that.
For example for S100 the cpu list included everything up to
and including 386s!
By specifiying a vendor of S100 system we are usually talking about
box/CPU/FDC as an agragate system from vendor. It was common to
have memory from the same of multiple vendors and possibly added IO.
A pure single vendor S100 system is sometimes uncommon. It just so
happens that NS* marketed the Horizon as complete systems that were
business ready and modestly priced as a complete hardware and software
More information about the cctech