hugh@hcrvx1.UUCP (Hugh Redelmeier) (11/08/85)
In article <8511052150.AA19797@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu> D-ROGERS@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA writes: >> IBM coined the term personal computer. > I hope to shout! How about the PDP-1, PDP-8, & PDP-11 by Digital > Equipment Corp. The PDP stood for "Personal Data Processor" and was > probably the first standalone interactive computer that didn't require > massive resources needed to support a mainframe. From an artifact on my wall, printed by DEC circa 1969: Programmed Data Processors 8/S, 8, 9, 10 and the LINC-8 are general purpose, stored program, digital computers capable of a wide variety of data processing and control functions. The PDP line spans the complete spectrum of on-line, real-time applications ranging from simple data acquisition on the "8/S" to a full-scale time sharing facility on the "10". Note "programmed", not "personal". There have been personal computers since the early days. Consider the Bendix G15 or the LGP-30. In fact, becoming "impersonal" was a definite sign of progress: it made bigger machines economical by allowing them to be used efficiently. The new personal computers are a sign of further progress: hardware is cheap enough that a useful configuration can be dedicated to serving one person. If I remember correctly, the term "personal computer" was used before IBM entered the market. But it was not the dominant term. People often called them "micros", "home computers", or "hobbyist machines". I think that the term "personal computer" is more apt now. By the way: there seems to be a lot of animosity towards (read: "unreasoning emotion against") IBM and it's PC. As a UNIX user, I regret that the marketplace has made the IBM PC such a success, almost smothering innovation. The effect is premature standardization. It will be very hard to wean the market from a very low level standard: 8086 machine language, BIOS calls, memory mapped video of specific capabilities at specific addresses, etc. Contrast this with my UNIX experience: over 10 years, I have often changed hardware (PDP-11, VAX, 8086, 68000, 32000, proprietary) and UNIX version (5th, 6th, 7th edition, 4.1, 4.2 BSD, System V, XENIX 2, 3) without leaving my programs behind; some transitions were painful, but none were fatal. But IBM did not make its PC the standard, the marketplace did. And remember that the IBM PC was technically advanced compared with what was available when it entered the market. Evidently a lot of people find the machine (along with third party hardware and software) sufficiently useful to buy it. Moreso than any other personal computer.
mikes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Shannon) (11/14/85)
Hugh Redelmeyer writes in the cited article: >...... > And > remember that the IBM PC was technically advanced compared with what was > available when it entered the market. Evidently a lot of people find > the machine (along with third party hardware and software) sufficiently > useful to buy it. Moreso than any other personal computer. While in general I agree with most of the things he said, I do take issue with the relatively 'technically advanced' comment. Olivetti produced a z8000-based micro which was 'technically superior' in my opinion. (Of course, I worked at Olivetti (in Cupertino, CA) so what do you expect? :-) The IBM PC was a hit in the marketplace because IBM made it a hit. Not because of any technical superiority. -- Michael Shannon {ihnp4,hplabs}!oliveb!3comvax!mikes
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (11/15/85)
> But IBM did not make its PC the standard, the marketplace did. Agreed. > And > remember that the IBM PC was technically advanced compared with what was > available when it entered the market. Whoa! I don't think that this is correct. The extra 4 bits of address was an advance, and the uniformity of having a keyboard/CRT standard made it relatively straightfoward for mass marketing - but what were the technical advances? --henry schaffer n c state univ