8088 vs. 80c88

[Chris M]

regardless, and be sure I am no expert on semiconductor manufacturing, I'd be surprised to find out that all 8088's were CMOS after a certain date. The 80c88's were used mostly in small laptops, no? (small being anything smaller then that Zenith big honker, w/the shocking blue display. It used a *real* 8088 IINM). A CMOS version would be slower and more prone to damage from static electricity. And it would require less power. Off the top of my head I can't think of any desktops that used them, but I may have actually ran into 1 or 2 in my travels.
 But I am glad you managed to answer your own question Jimbo :)

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:

From: Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org>
Subject: Re: 8088 vs. 80c88
To: General at mail.mobygames.com, "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 2:49 PM

Jim Leonard wrote:
> So a simple routine to try to identify the 8088 vs. the 80c88 would look something like:
> 
>   mov     cx,2            ; test if following instruction will be
>                           ; repeated twice.
>   db      0F3h,26h,0ACh   ; rep es: lodsb
>   jcxz    Yes             ; intel non-CMOS chips do not care of rep
>   jmp     Nope            ; before segment prefix override, NEC and
>                           ; CMOS-tech ones does.

It turns out my information is bad.  The bug only asserts itself when an interrupt occurs during the REP.  Buggy CPUs don't continue; later ones do.  So to fix my detection code, I will increase the count in cx to something much longer, probably f000.
-- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org)            http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project:           http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at     http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/