alistermorton Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Standard 486 memory addressing capability was 4GB, but a lot of motherboards didn't allow that capacity to be addressed, which was a shame because for its time the 486 was a good processor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazeja Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 But how do I tell what type of CS card I have ? I have found the CS card, but does anyone know what an old or new one looks like ? Also, the processor on the PC motherbaord is a 133Mhz Pentium - but the data sheet for the 430 said it would be a 75Mhz. Does this indicate anything ? The new CS cards are square(ish) with a 3.6v nicad. The olde CS cards were oblong with a large blue battery. As far as I'm aware, both processors were used. The only limiting factor was a maximum of 8Meg of memory due to overlapping addressing problems on the olde CS cards. K So going back to the motherboard - will I be able to install the newer 2.8.6 software ? Or am I limited due to having the old CS card If the console has version 1.XX software then chances are it will have a version B password and you will not be able to install any form of 2.x software which requires a version C password.Passwords are still available from Strand. K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianknight Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Standard 486 memory addressing capability was 4GB, but a lot of motherboards didn't allow that capacity to be addressed, which was a shame because for its time the 486 was a good processor. Yes but DOS 6.22 (which is the OS for the 430 & 500 series) is limited to 64Mb max of memory and I remember seeing somewhere that GeniusPro wouldn't use anything beyond 8Mb because of compiler and internal structure limitations. It might have been possible to use one of the DOS compatible OS's that could address more memory but it's a waste of time as GeniusPro is still limited with memory useage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alistermorton Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Yes, DOS memory limitations were a pain (but a DOS extender got around that particular problem in some specific cases (though not this specific case) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.