Replying to a message of Scott McNay to Darryl Gregorash:
 DG>> There were many 8086-based machines, but were not popular
 DG>> relative to the 88 systems because they required 16-bit
 DG>> interface cards in a day when the 16-bit interface card
 DG>> was
 SM> Negative; they required that the motherboard be designed to
 SM> support it; before the 286, most manufacturers didn't want
 SM> to go to the extra expense of designing the more complex
 SM> boards that this required, when they could get nearly the
 SM> same performance with the 8088.
Like I said, there were many 86-based machines. After that, all you said was 
what I said.. of course the motherboard had to be designed for it, you cannot 
drop a CPU with a 16-bit data bus interface into a motherboard with an 8-bit 
data bus and expect anything to work.
 SM> Even today, I can take an 8-bit card that used to be in a PC
 SM> or XT, and it'll work in my Pentium-compatible system.
Of course you can; the ISA 16-bit bus specifications call for full 
compatibility with 8-bit interface cards. 
 SM> few months ago, I had an old full-length 8-bit CGA card on
 SM> a Pentium board, to run a CGA adapter.  This would not work
 SM> if 16-bit (or higher) CPUs *required* 16-bit (or higher)
 SM> cards.
This has absolutely nada, zilch, empty set to do with what the CPU 
*requires*. It has everything to do with whether or not the 16-bit bus 
supports 8-bit cards (which, again, the ISA specifications require).
 DG>> The ***ONLY*** difference between the 8086 and the 8088....
 SM> Not quite the only difference; the prefetch queue is also a
 SM> different size.
True; but to say that when the poor chap is so confused may have only 
confused things much more for him :)
--- FleetStreet 1.21 NR
---------------