garyf@mc0.UUCP (06/09/86)
The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal,
6/6/86, pg. 25: (reprinted without permission):
[BEGINNING OF ARTICLE]
IBM'S IMPROVED PC KEYBOARD IS SETBACK FOR SOME SOFTWARE
For years, users have complained about the awkward keyboards
in the IBM Personal Computer family. Now International Business
Machines Corp. has introduced a new keyboard aimed at such
complaints-only to spur a new round of gripes.
The problem: Some software programs won't operate on the new
device, now sold as an option with the PC XT and AT models. The
snag illustrates a sort of high-tech Murphy's Law: As computer
makers try to make things ever easier for customers, the internal
workings of the machines get ever more complex, sometimes
defeating the effort.
The new keyboard simplifies things by separating the cursor
keys that had doubled as number keys; marking the enter key
"enter" instead of using only a broken arrow, and placing special
"function keys" horizontally for easier access. But such
programs as Ashton-Tate Inc.'s Framework and Borland
International Inc.'s SuperKey won't work with the new layout.
Indeed, even a version of IBM's own "windowing" program, Topview,
won't run on the new IBM keyboard; buyers must avoid version
"1.01" in favor of "1.10."
IBM says any problems are the fault of software developers
that violate IBM's technical guidelines. "There's no story
here," a company spokeswoman says. But software makers say IBM
is unrealistic. A cardinal IBM rule dictates that software
should "talk" only to the PC's internal coding, known as the BIOS
(basic input-output system); then the BIOS acts as a translator
and tells the machine's chips what to do. But many programs
violate this rule, bypassing the translator and talking directly
to the chips to let screen images show up more quickly and to add
special commands.
Software makers gamble that the rules they break won't work
against them when IBM later changes hardware features. "In
certain products we have to depart from them to get the
performance we need," says Roy Folk, Ashton-Tate's executive vice
president. With Framework, Ashton-Tate gambled and lost. The
program uses unusual key combinations to move rapidly across the
screen, but the new keyboard doesn't recognize them. Ashton-Tate
is writing new software to fix the problem.
IBM says it tested 200 programs and only a half dozen or so
didn't work on the new keyboard, which most XT and AT customers
are buying instead of the original device. But the snags may be
more widespread than the IBM sample indicates. After all, there
are some 10,000 IBM PC-compatible software programs now on the
market.
[END OF ARTICLE]
Why, why, why, why, why does ANYONE patronize IBM??????
--
Gary Friedman
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
UUCP: {sdcrdcf,ihnp4,bellcore}!psivax!mc0!garyf
ARPA: ...mc0!garyf@cit-vax.ARPApointer@hpccc (06/10/86)
# Written 9:25 am Jun 9, 1986 by mc0!garyf in hpccc:net.micro.pc
> Why, why, why, why, why does ANYONE patronize IBM??????
Because everyone else does. Disgusting, isn't it?
*dave@hplabs [standard disclaimer and whatnot]brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/11/86)
In article <284@mc0.UUCP> garyf@mc0.UUCP (gary friedman) writes: > >[BEGINNING OF ARTICLE] > > IBM says any problems are the fault of software developers >that violate IBM's technical guidelines. "There's no story >here," a company spokeswoman says. But software makers say IBM >is unrealistic. A cardinal IBM rule dictates that software >should "talk" only to the PC's internal coding, known as the BIOS >(basic input-output system); then the BIOS acts as a translator >and tells the machine's chips what to do. But many programs >violate this rule, bypassing the translator and talking directly >to the chips to let screen images show up more quickly and to add >special commands. > Software makers gamble that the rules they break won't work >against them when IBM later changes hardware features. "In >certain products we have to depart from them to get the >performance we need," says Roy Folk, > .... > [END OF ARTICLE] > > Why, why, why, why, why does ANYONE patronize IBM?????? > I guess they do it because IBM has the guts to improve a product along lines that their technical specs said was perfectly valid, even though they know it breaks badly-behaved, popular programs. How can you have sympathy for Ashton-Tate or Borland? IBM manuals said, "here is how to access the keyboard. Do it this way, or your program may not work on future products." Programmers ignored this rule in full knowledge. Now it comes to pass, and people bitch? I have a product which writes directly to the screen memory of the PC. Should IBM change their screen configuration, I don't expect any sympathy. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
shap@bunker.UUCP (Joseph D. Shapiro) (06/12/86)
In article <17600001@hpccc> pointer@hpccc.UUCP writes: ># Written 9:25 am Jun 9, 1986 by mc0!garyf in hpccc:net.micro.pc >> Why, why, why, why, why does ANYONE patronize IBM?????? > Because everyone else does. Disgusting, isn't it? > *dave@hplabs [standard disclaimer and whatnot] Reminds me of a common sentiment about shopping malls... Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Joseph D. Shapiro "He who hesitates Bunker Ramo Information Systems is lunch" ...ittatc!bunker!shap ...decvax!bunker!shap
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/12/86)
> The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, > 6/6/86, pg. 25: (reprinted without permission): > > [BEGINNING OF ARTICLE] > > IBM'S IMPROVED PC KEYBOARD IS SETBACK FOR SOME SOFTWARE > > For years, users have complained about the awkward keyboards > in the IBM Personal Computer family. Now International Business > Machines Corp. has introduced a new keyboard aimed at such > complaints-only to spur a new round of gripes. > > [...] > > [END OF ARTICLE] > > Why, why, why, why, why does ANYONE patronize IBM?????? > -- > Gary Friedman If a person writes a device driver or otherwise bypasses the operating system on any minicomputer system (VAX, DG, Pr1me, etc) and the system vendor subsequently adds to its previous offering of devices, causing the driver to become obsolete, this would be considered unfortunate for the writer and users of the device driver, but would otherwise be considered as business as usual and a necessary price to pay for progress. There are many costs and many more benefits to being number 1, as newly-elected presidents discover. Being judged by separate (double) standards is part of being number 1. is measured are part -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (06/13/86)
In article <284@mc0.UUCP> garyf@mc0.UUCP (gary friedman) writes: > > ....... A cardinal IBM rule dictates that software >should "talk" only to the PC's internal coding, known as the BIOS >(basic input-output system); then the BIOS acts as a translator >and tells the machine's chips what to do. But many programs >violate this rule, bypassing the translator and talking directly >to the chips to let screen images show up more quickly and to add >special commands.... Speaking of which- does anybody know the scan codes returned by the extra keys on the new keyboard, especially the extra two function keys? Are they the same as on some 12-function key compatables, such as the Tandy 1000? Thanks in advance...
mercury@ut-ngp.UUCP (Larry E. Baker) (06/22/86)
In article <11200002@ztivax.UUCP>, david@ztivax.UUCP writes: > Example: A small consulting company has three engineers, each of > which bills time to customers for PRODUCTIVE work at $150,000 per > year. One engineer has to waste half time keeping a small UNIX > machine going. The little machine (70% VAX performance for 7% cost, > tho not AT&T), cost the company the cost of a nice REAL VAX every two > years. That is alot of dough for a small company. And real money it > was, too. > > In business, you usually cannot AFFORD to fight the "system". Point concieded, with qualifications. Buying a "REAL" VAX does not necessarily imply that this engineer won't end up spending just as much time keeping *it* running. Admittedly, he has a much larger (user) base of experience from which to draw, but knowing Unix... he wouldn't end up saving *that* much more time. This company could have hired some far less expensive administrator to keep up their system; if they're blowing 75K a year by wasting one of their valuable engineers (read: resouces), then the money they lost is not due to the fact that the machine needs so much "more" time for upkeep, but that they are managing their time -- and their company -- badly. I think they could have bought a 35K/year system administrator; if they are actually bringing in 150K/engineer per year, they'd be about 35K ahead. And have a well-managed system, since their SA wouldn't be splitting up his time all over the place. With the money they save here, they could probably buy yet another no-name brand machine, if they needed the added resources. I might also point out that, if they're *not* bringing in 150K/year for all three engineers, that is, that engineer #3 is going to be idle half his time anyway, then they haven't lost anything. Unfortunately, you do have a point about fighting the system. I don't think that in this particurlar case your example holds up, but I agree that, for the most part, it's more cost-effective in the long run to buy a solution that a lot of people are using rather than one that only a few know about and may not be around forever. -- Larry -- Larry Baker Net/UUCP: mercury@ut-ngp.{ARPA, UUCP, UTEXAS.EDU} UT Austin ihnp4!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mercury Computer Science Local: baker@walt.UTEXAS.EDU -- Larry Baker Net/UUCP: mercury@ut-ngp.{ARPA, UUCP, UTEXAS.EDU} UT Austin ihnp4!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mercury Computer Science Local: baker@walt.UTEXAS.EDU