brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/14/88)
What I want to know is, why the big excitement about cloning the PS/2? Why all the rush? It's not the 3.5 inch disks. Anybody can make a regular clone with these, or put them in their old machine. It's not for software. No software vendor in his right mind is going to write software that runs on a PS/2 and doesn't run on an AT type machine. Cloning the bios isn't necessary. It's not for add-on boards. Add-on boards for the MCA are hard to find, expensive and don't fit in your old machine. It's not for customers. The kind of customers who buy PS/2s are the kind who buy IBM, and true blue all the way. PS/2 sales are so high because IBM cancelled the older machines, not because PS/2s are doing anything new for their owners. The only thing it could be fore is the potential advanced throughput of the MCA bus, and that mainly on an 80386 machine. Yet even IBM's PS/2 model 80 runs more slowly than many of the AT style clones, and there's currently nothing around to take advantage of MCA special features. Why the rush now? It's not for OS/2, which runs on ATs anyway. Besides, the OS/2 for the PS/2 probably won't run on your PS/2 clone! So why? All this for PR? Or are people convinced that they can be like Compaq if they are early enough cloning the PS/2? Why is PS/2 cloning the hot hardware topic these days? It's worth doing eventually, but I can't see the reason for the rush, unless you have a lot of money to burn now to get minimal market share that you hope will grow. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
vote@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (05/16/88)
In article <1642@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >What I want to know is, why the big excitement about cloning the PS/2? >Why all the rush? >[Not for any technical reasons, since AT's are better than PS/2's...] You are absolutely right that there aren't any technical reasons for cloning the PS/2. The main reason I can see is for Company Image: so clone company X can proudly go to a Fortune 500 company and say "we've got IBM-style beef". Once you realize that IBM looks at PC's from a completely different point of view than the rest of us, everything becomes a lot clearer... To IBM, a PC is simply a smart terminal connected to a mainframe. The PS/2 was introduced in order to: - improve connectivity with mainframes - give IBM shops a good reason to buy IBM PC terminals again (now there isn't pressure on them to buy cheap clone terminals) - improve IBM's profit margins They don't really care what the rest of us think about the PS/2! Their main goal is to protect their mainframe business, worldwide. PS/2 clone battles will be fought on IBM mainframe shop turf, not in MicroDataTech Taiwan Clone Inc. stores. It may be informative to know that of *all* stores selling IBM PS/2 computers, only 1/4 achieved their sales quotas for Q1 1988. And the quotas (set by IBM) were set extra low for the first quarter; they will rise very quickly during the year. Lots of chains will be dropping and/or de-emphasizing the PS/2 during 1988. At this point, it sure looks like the PS/2 will go the way of the PC-JR, XT-286, Convertible, etc, rather than the PC or AT. Ever notice how, even with all the hoopla, IBM is just as capable of producing a market dud as a market winner? They are already farming out the PS/2 in Europe to other companies. IBM wouldn't do that if it were making them a bundle of bucks. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
pmjc@ur-tut (Pam Arnold) (05/16/88)
In article <1642@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >What I want to know is, why the big excitement about cloning the PS/2? >Why all the rush? >-- People who are in the business of selling hardware or software have to worry about fads and buzzwords as much or more than the actual technical merit of their products. For example, in software, it will probably be important pretty soon to have an OS/2 version of your program(s), even if most of your customers don't run OS/2 now, and many of them may not for many moons, including the ones who are hassling you about an OS/2 version. The reason is that they have gotten it into their heads that OS/2 is important, and that your software must be rejected if it hasn't fallen in line with this important new trend. Same sort of thing with hardware. Even people who haven't bought PS/2's will want to see support for the PS/2 standard, because they've become convinced that this standard is or will be important. It is also a way they have of judging how technically aggressive your company is (although how cloning someone else's design can be considered 'aggressive' is certainly problematic). >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (05/16/88)
In article <221@octopus.UUCP> vote@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
.during 1988. At this point, it sure looks like the PS/2 will go the way of
.the PC-JR, XT-286, Convertible, etc, rather than the PC or AT. Ever notice
.how, even with all the hoopla, IBM is just as capable of producing a market
.dud as a market winner? They are already farming out the PS/2 in Europe to
I read the PS/2s had sold in the millions already. That doesn't sound
so bad.
--
Make Japan the 51st state!
I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.comwtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (05/16/88)
I felt that there really wasn't much reason to clone the PS/2s until we got an IBM PS/2 model 80 in our testing lab. We also have a Compaq 386. I was quite pleasantly surprised by the relative quality construction of the model 80 compared to the other IBM branded PCs. I never did like the original PCs and XTs. Even the new PS/2 30 and 50s seem like consumer grade fare. I would be reluctant to purchase a model 50 or 60 now that IBM has leaked there intent to realease P-9 and 80386 based machines in the latter part of 1988 and in 1989. There are lots of Asian imports that are better deals than the models 25 and 30, unless one needs to have VGA graphics. The microchannel bus really is a significant technical advancement over the orignal PC bus and should provide 5 to 10 years of expansion potential. Most significant is the inate ability to handle distributed processors. The bus is also electrically superior to the PC bus and should make it easier for vendors to design high performance peripheral devices. One qualitative test in our standard battery of trails and tribulations is to see if a 49 MHz cordless phone can be operated in the vicintiy of a given machine. The model 80 is the only machine that we've tested that shows virtually no RF leakage. We were even able to place the phone base unit directly on the cabinet of the model 80. Western Digital's chipset looks like it will be nice. One advantage is that WD's DMA channels are fully asynchonous and can operate up to full system clock speed. IBM's current microchannel implemtation according to Mini Microsystems has a DMA speed limit of 10 MHz, thus in the model 80, DMA occurs at 1/2 the system clock (8 MHz or 10 MHz for the newer model 80). Even more desirable than the microchannel (for the moment) is the manufacturing trend that IBM has set with the new machines. The highly modular design makes servicing a snap, and will ultimately lower costs in that department. Since one of the things I do here is fix machines, I like this. ... quite a contrast to Compaq and AT&T which appear to have been designed to be difficult to service :-). It is also much easier for the end user to add feature cards to the microchannel because the physical construction of the microchannel doesn't require special tools (Phillips screwdriver not needed) to install the cards. Vendors can also supply auto-install disks that will setup the cards (presumably) painlessly .. but we've alredy seen the fiasco with addressing 3rd party add-in memory. So much for that idea! I agree that there isn't much reason for buying into the microchannel at the moment (excep, perhaps for the model 80), but the quality of the design makes it likely to eventaully catch on, even if vendors have to pay tribute and tax to IBM to sell it. Since there is a big demand for comodity-priced low end PCs, I believe that the original PC bus will continue to live on in a parallel universe for quite some time to come. Just as one can still buy regular typewriters eventhough word processors seem to be everywhere. --Bill wtm@neoucom.UUCP
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (05/17/88)
I just tossed out last week's (5/8/88) issue of PC Week magazine, so I can't cite the precise figures any more (but you can look them up). It is true that the PS/2 is selling like hotcakes in Europe. I don't know what the economics are. Perhaps the fall of the dollar has something to do with it; perhaps some of the european governments have eased restrictions of late. The original IBM PC/XT/AT has been a historically slow seller in europe because several factors combined to make it quite expensive. Things like Commodore PC clones and Atari STs have been relatively good sellers in europe. I suppose the european popularity of the PS/2 is also somewhat due the the fact that there is not such a preponderance of PC/XT/AT machines there as there are here in the US, the the microchannel is probably not as much a compatibility issue. Viewed separately from their predecessors, the PS/2s are pretty nice machines -- they are compact, have reasonable graphics, are easy to service, and are less expensive. One interesting item from the figures-lie-liars-figure department is that IBM says that it has shipped n millon PCs in the US, but surveyors that track the industry speculate that up to 1/3 of that number is in inventory with dealers. The reslut is that dealers are being squeezed because IBM is requiring dealers to stock all machines in the PS/2 line, but some models are notriously slow sellers (the model 80 for instance) and dealers are building up big piles of unsold inventory. A local chain store dealer* recently quoted me $4750 for a 16 MHz model 80 with 2 meg RAM and 70 meg IBM disk, for example (monitor extra). -- and that is not an eduational discount. While not leading edge technology that still is a good price for a machine of that level of performance. --Bill wtm@neoucom.UUCP Note: dealer listed below, skip now to avoid viewing name, if desired. * CBM Computer Center, 3883A Medina Rd, Akron, OH 44313
mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael R. Volow) (05/18/88)
You use to hear: "Find the software you want to run, and then buy the machine it runs on." Apple seems to have learned this well; what sells the Mac is not so much the machine,is the excellent, bit-mapped, user interface, so hospitible to graphic applications. IBM releases a machine before the interface software is available. and makes the interface 1/3 as expensive as the machine (no flames - I'm just a jealous PC DOS user myself). IBM seems less interested than Apple in a total machine-interface product. -- Or maybe it's just more complicated. Michael Volow, M.D. Dept of Psychiatry, Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, N.C. 27705 919 286 0411 mvolo@ecsvax.UUCP
stank@orca.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski) (05/20/88)
In article <1180@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: >design high performance peripheral devices. One qualitative test >in our standard battery of trails and tribulations is to see if a >49 MHz cordless phone can be operated in the vicintiy of a given >machine. The model 80 is the only machine that we've tested that >shows virtually no RF leakage. We were even able to place the >phone base unit directly on the cabinet of the model 80. I think your test is a good idea, but I would go one step furthur. Use one of these new fangled portable "walkman" type FM receivers to measure RF leakage. The coordless phone only tests for leakage in its operating band, with the radio you can check a wider spectrum. Of course, these techniques are not a substitute for a formal EMI/RFI emissions test. But then again, only the larger companies can afford the cost of shielded cages and anechoic chambers to carry out such tests. Stank -- US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc. Information Display Group, Graphics Workstations Division PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070 Phone:(503)-685-2458 uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank
dts@cloud9.UUCP (Daniel Senie) (05/22/88)
[discussion of using 49MHz cordless phones and walkmans to measure interference from computers.] Here is an interesting thing to try: Remove the handset from your telephone (i.e. unclip the modular cord at the headset end). Hold your ear to the receiver, and position your head (with the receiver to the IBM PS/2 color display (and probably others). Listen to the nice buzzing coming from the handset. It's really neat that the telephone handset generates noise without being connected to anything! These monitors seem to pour out interference. I have a few televideo terminals on my desk next to the PS/2 display, and I find if I put the terminals within 16 inches of the PS/2 display, the characters on the terminal start to quiver. Does IBM (or anyone else) bother to shield monitors? -- Daniel Senie UUCP: ihnp4!cloud9!dts Stratus Computer, Inc. ARPA: anvil!cloud9!dts@harvard.harvard.edu 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 617 - 460 - 2686
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (05/23/88)
In article <1642@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: |What I want to know is, why the big excitement about cloning the PS/2? |[..] |The only thing it could be fore is the potential advanced throughput of |the MCA bus, and that mainly on an 80386 machine. The MCA bus allows much more than "advanced throughput". It allows real interrupt handling on a PC. A flurry of interrupts on either a PC or AT can cause lost interrupts, a serious problem in many cases (eg serial lines). The MCA bus would not loose them. While this doesn't mean anything to a normal user (just how many interrupts per second is a 1200 baud modem card going to create, anyway?), it means a LOT in a multitasking or multiuser system -- both increased throughput and increased reliability. |Yet even IBM's |PS/2 model 80 runs more slowly than many of the AT style clones, |[..]Why the rush now? Clone makers have historically made better, faster, cheaper equipment. If the PS/2 80 is slower than some AT machines, just think how much slower it will be than a PS/2 80 clone! People who are buying a PS/2 80 for networking (probably the best reason to buy one) would go for a faster machine; if it's cheaper, all the better. The answer to your question: There's money in it. That's why it's such a hot topic. jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
gtchen@tybalt.caltech.edu (George T. Chen) (05/24/88)
In article <1181@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > >It is true that the PS/2 is selling like hotcakes in Europe. I >don't know what the economics are. Perhaps the fall of the dollar >has something to do with it; perhaps some of the european >governments have eased restrictions of late. > I don't know about the performance of IBM in Europe but they seem to be doing fine in a much more local industry, Hollywood. Has anyone besides me noticed that IBM machines are lying on tables and desks in most of the recent features. On TV, I noticed that Head of the Class has an IBM PS/2 Model 50? This only a few weeks after the product came out. The previous machine was an AT.
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (05/24/88)
In article <6649@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> gtchen@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (George T. Chen) writes: >I don't know about the performance of IBM in Europe but they seem to >be doing fine in a much more local industry, Hollywood. Has anyone >besides me noticed that IBM machines are lying on tables and desks >in most of the recent features... Head of the Class >has an IBM PS/2 Model 50? This only a few weeks after the product >came out... Even without inside knowledge, you'll realize that if a product shows up in a TV production immediately after release, it isn't there as a prop bought off the shelf; the manufacturer WANTED it there. As a matter of fact, corporate marketing departments PAY to get their products into TV shows and movies. If I remember right, they even pay to get their products featured as giveaways on the popular game shows. The bucks depend on the exposure, just as with any advertising campaign. Spreading your product around on the right shows is not all that expensive, and gets the visuals burned into peoples' subconscious. This is similar to the reasons why drug companies pay hospitals to use their pain relievers, disposable diapers, etc etc. [You didn't think Pampers are most-used in hospitals 'cuz the nurses LIKE them, did you? :-)]. Hmmm... I'm way off in misc.consumers now. Anyway, seeing a brand name product on a TV show or movie is not so much a measure of product popularity as it is a measure of TV show/movie popularity. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (05/26/88)
>I don't know about the performance of IBM in Europe but they seem to >be doing fine in a much more local industry, Hollywood. Has anyone >besides me noticed that IBM machines are lying on tables and desks >in most of the recent features. On TV, I noticed that Head of the Class >has an IBM PS/2 Model 50? This only a few weeks after the product >came out. The previous machine was an AT. I once read an article that told about all of the companies that paid to have their products show up in television shows and movies as just part of the (ahem!) "background". Sometimes this can be really obvious (like the beer in Clint Eastwood's movie Sudden Impact) or more subtle like the quick appearance of the Dominoes Pizza driver in some flick recently. Ten to one IBM not only gave them the machine but is also paying to insure that it keeps their label on it and it faces the camera. BTW, have you noticed the Mac that Maddie Hayes has in her office in Moonlighting? You can tell it's never used because there isn't a pile of disks around it :-) John Munsch
rob@dhw68k.cts.com (Robert Kenyon) (06/12/88)
Maddie Hayes's Mac was < a Mac plus. It may still be. I haven't looked
closely in a while. At least the use the PS/2-50 in "Head Of The Class".
Rob
--
I once was here but now I'm not. And no one's gonna pin it on me...
Robert Kenyon - {trwrb,hplabs}!felix!dhw68k!rob - InterNet: rob@dhw68k.cts.com