Talk:Intel 80286

message: The article is somewhat confusing because it talks about Concurrent DOS running multiple real mode programs in protected mode, but elsewhere says the CPU doesn't allow it. E step 286 allows multiple real mode programs to run using LOADALL. Concurrent DOS was smart enough to do this Microsoft was not. There is no *technical* reason Microsoft couldn't have supported multiple real mode DOS programs at once in Windows 286 as the article implies.
It's also confused because it talks about the keyboard controller hack but DOS rarely used this because it used LOADALL on later 286 processors in order to implement the extended memory RAM disk so didn't have to leave real mode as the article implies.
Yes LOADALL is firmly in the 'dark arts' of x86 programming but it existed and was used successfully.
82.70.14.226 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected And Real

message: However, the 286 couldn't revert to real mode, so protected mode wasn't widely used until the appearance of the 386, which could go back and forth between modes.
It should be noted that although this is technically true, IBM and others created workarounds for this limitation early on, so it's not as big a problem as the article makes it sound.
References:
Protected mode overview
Triple-fault technique
Tim Peterson 18:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exiting protected mode 

message: 0.21 million instructions per clock? (first paragraph). Surely not? prehaps 0.21 MIPS, but not 0.21 M IPC?!. (Sam Cadby)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.137.68 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing that seems to make no sense is the fact that the 6 MHz version clocks in at 0.9 MIPS, while it says that the 12 MHz one comes in at 2.66.  That is almost 3 times the performance of the 6 MHz version while only twice its clock speed.  The only thing I can think of is that the 6 MHz version could be bottlenecked by memory speed (the 12 MHz version accesses it faster because the memory also runs at 12 MHz?).  But that's only me making a guess, as I don't remember how the memory bus was designed on these old machines. 84.49.75.226 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible err in para 1

message: I was wondering if someone should write something about the Intel C80286-4 in the article. The processor's maximum clock speed should be 4 MHz, and was for a short period manufactured and used in some personal computers, for example, the Ericsson 286 (which I personally owned once). The processor has LCC packaging. There seems to be conflicting information about this processor on the internet, and rarely have any information on the LCC packaged processor. Not sure about the speed though, maybe someone knows a bit better? See more information at . --62.142.251.79 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 MHz 286 chip?

message: I have a 80286 in a CPGA format. Ginbot86 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  80286 in PLCC only? 

message: This comparison is quite lengthy but conveniently ignores the 80186 which was somewhere inbetween the two series in terms of performance.  It was not popular as a PC processor but this is an article about the chip, not specifically PC history, so surely it deserves mentioning here. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance jump vs 8086 

message: I have taken the liberty, under the "be bold" rule, of simply deleting the slightly breathless and extremely incorrect claim that the 286 gave "the first glimpse of memory protection mechanisms that were previously exclusive to mainframes" mwa mwa mwa.  Most 16-bit microprocessors offered this feature in some form - for example, the Motorola 68000 had protected mode at its introduction in 1979 and full virtual memory support with the 68010 shortly thereafter.  In fact, the x86 family was unusual in not offering it from the get-go. 87.194.209.163 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed misleading paragraph about protected mode 

message: An image used in this article, File:The register set of 80286.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been deleted as it constituted a copyright violation. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:The register set of 80286.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no copyrighted material remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look out for possible copyright violations in this article 

message: Articles about other major chips feature current- or recent-era uses (where they have persisted in niche fields), and a section on what remains the legacy of the chip. I rather fancy something similar in here. I'd imagine by the time when Windows 3.1 came around, computers with this chip fell out of favour and then general usage, as many computer users until then were fine with DOS, Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and other by-and-large text mode applications.
Chances are that perhaps these paragraphs must have somehow already existed and then culled along with and after recent(ish) low-quality edits, which in turn were part of a school project in India. -Mardus (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current-era uses and legacy? 

message: The 6 MHz, 10 MHz and 12 MHz models were reportedly measured to operate at 0.9 MIPS, 1.5 MIPS and 2.66 MIPS respectively.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erickdingess (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be that instruction fetch from the memory chip would be a contributing factor. Dannyniu (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this correct?  The math doesn't add up. 

message: There is a good photo of 286 die.
But what region dedicades to what? What function handles each region on a photo? Could be nice schnematics, and my post is rather feature request;
For those who is familiar with drawing colored rectangles in paint and adding textual caption briefly describing what exactly each region of chip is dedicaded for..
t.y. in advance ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.246.99.112 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could some1 add a layout? 

message: No apparent reason why the clock driver should not be part of the article for the chip. Ifnord (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Support per nomination. Polyamorph (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't find it that obvious when 8284 and other supporting chips for 8086 have separate cross-linked articles too. But I suspect 82284 is not sufficiently notable on its own and it's unlikely to grow out of stub, so I'm not opposing.—mwgamera (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Intel 82284]]