Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Booting the Multia


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10532 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 19 March 2018 - 08:32 PM

Good story: https://blog.pizzabo...ing-the-multia/

 

spacejam.png

The Multia feels to me like Digital’s take on a high-end “legacy-free” (at introduction in late 1994) desktop. Its spec sheet includes features unheard of in its contemporaries:

  • a 64-bit RISC processor
  • ECC memory
  • Ethernet networking
  • SCSI2 hard drive
  • high-resolution (1280x1024) monitor support
  • PCMCIA expansion slots

A RISC processor, powerful networking, and PCMCIA slots nearly sounds like a description of a Network Computer, but the Multia pre-dates the NC by more than a year. It was also ahead of its time in terms of its original OS: the fully 32-bit Windows NT 3.5. There wouldn’t be a 32-bit capable consumer Windows for another year (Windows 95 came out in late 1995).

 

 


  • Blackcrack likes this

#2 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 14284 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 19 March 2018 - 08:54 PM

It was also ahead of its time in terms of its original OS: the fully 32-bit Windows NT 3.5. There wouldn’t be a 32-bit capable consumer Windows for another year (Windows 95 came out in late 1995).

Maybe  a consumer Windows OS, I had (like the rest of the world of course) NT 3.5 in late 1994/early 1995 on a i386 "plain" PC:

https://en.wikipedia.../Windows_NT_3.5

 

:duff:

Wonko


  • Nuno Brito likes this

#3 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10532 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 March 2018 - 10:21 AM

In 1996 it really seemed Windows 95 was way ahead of anything else. I had no idea that a Windows 3.5 existed. Even more surprising was to learn that this machine was already at 166Mhz inside a 64bit CPU speed whereas my own computer was still stuck on 4,77Mhz inside a 16bit CPU.

 

:cheers:



#4 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 14284 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 20 March 2018 - 11:04 AM

In 1996 it really seemed Windows 95 was way ahead of anything else. I had no idea that a Windows 3.5 existed. Even more surprising was to learn that this machine was already at 166Mhz inside a 64bit CPU speed whereas my own computer was still stuck on 4,77Mhz inside a 16bit CPU.

 

:cheers:

Well I had already Windows NT 3.1 at the time in the office.

 

In those years a few months made a BIG difference, but I still can remember (curiously I was in Portugal at the time) the blueish graphical screens of the Windows 95 preview/beta install (that was 1994, possibly a 122 or 189 build) and the awe it inspired.

 

PC processors were however at the time 486's and topped - if I recall correctly - at 100 Mhz.

 

:duff:

Wonko






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users