paul@imsvax.UUCP (09/01/87)
The following is from my buddy Ted Holden, now with HT
Enterprises, concerning the recent INTEL/MOTOROLA/PS2
discussions. The views expressed do not necessarily coincide
with mine and in no way represent IMS.
.................................................................
Several of the "history lessions" seen here lately don't
quite ring true. The reality is that by 1981, INTEL had
basically been left for dead by EVERYBODY who knew anything about
or had anything to do with micro-computers. They had come out
with a 16 bit micro-chip two years ahead of everybody else and
the design was so pitiful that the entire world had said "Thanks
but no thanks, we'll wait the two years". Had INTEL been a
Japanese firm, the CEO, president, all vice presidents and
members of the board would have committed sepuku; that would
have been more shame than they could have lived with.
IBM reversed this basic market decision in a move somehow
reminiscent of America's reversing the entire outcome of WWI, and
got away with it for a number of reasons: they advertised to the
lowest common denominator ("Gollee, Jake, did you see thet com-
pyuter thet Al-vin bought fer hisself to keep track o his
cows?"), they managed to sell the thing for $3500 when all of the
68000 machines were going for $10,000, and the thing actually did
have a couple of saving graces, mainly being an OPEN system and
the potential to run large memory usage programs such as 123.
The PC succeeded in part due to screw-ups by two firms which
were well placed to provide superior alternatives. If the Fortune
32/16 had been marketed as an open system at the time, things
might have turned out differently; the Fortune was a
considerably better business oriented machine at the time and was
cheaper on a per-user basis. Apple was clearly in a position to
challenge IBM by doing something with the 68000 at the time, and
produced two machines, the Lisa and Mac, which were so pitiful
due to factors not involving the 68000 chip, that they convinced
much of the world that the 68000 itself must be a bad idea.
The PC represented a wrong technical direction at the time
and every body knew it. Magazine editors called it a joke
hardware-wise. What about the software, you say? What about it?
CP/M was simply the best anybody could do with 64K, nothing more,
and after CP/M software had been machine-converted to run on PCs,
it ran slower on them then on 2mz Trash-80's. Common sense said
that the best thing anyone could do with CP/M software at the
time was to forget about it. At about the same time the PC came
out, I was using a 68000 based machine with 1/2 meg of memory and
a 20 meg disk running IDRIS, and using SVS's Fortran to compile
the Commerce Dept's X11 program (America's main routine for
seasonal adjustment of economic time series) and run it faster
than it ever ran on Univac 1180's. The machine cost about $10000
at the time, and it is only within the last year that similar
capabilities have come to exist in the AT/DOS world.
IBM is good at leading the world in wrong directions. In
the case of the PC and AT, we at least got something out of it
i.e. the good hardware and software standards which we now enjoy
and the low priced AT clones. I simply don't see any such silver
lining in the case of the PS family. PS2 owners will be locked
into a world of incompatibility, inferior disk technology,
inferior graphics (800x600 boards for the multisync are out now
for $500 and the Number9 SGT Pepper board for about $1000 totally
blows VGA graphics into the weeds. The overall price of an AT
clone, Multisync, and SGT Pepper is less than that of the cheaper
PS2's).
OS2/, one of the main selling points of the PS2 is turning
out to be a case study in vapor-ware. Basically, protected mode
on the 286 chip is an abortion and should be avoided. Since the
286 uses registers in altogether different manners going from
real to protected mode, you would end up giving up the entire DOS
software world even if they could get it to work, which is
unlikely. Protected mode on the 386 is another story, and there
already are a couple of GOOD multi-everything OSs for 386
machines, particularly Micro-Port's 386 UNIX, but guess what?
IBM fears the 386 so greatly (they know it can kill their 36's,
38's etc) that they are trying to discourage its use by pricing
their own 386 based PS2 at $10000. Meanwhile, we see Tom-Dick-
and-Harry brand 386 machines in all the magazine ads for $2000.
In fact, the situation of four years ago has been reversed.
IBM is again trying to lead the world in wrong directions, but
this time the $10000/$2000 factor works AGAINST them. I can't
picture anyone other than a total idiot or someone who really
needs the PS2's IBM mainframe interfacing capability (5 % of the
PC market) buying a PS2. The old saying goes "fool me once,
shame on you.... fool me twice, shame on me!" seems to apply
here. Buying a PS2 strikes me as not unlike voting for Nixon the
second time around in 1972.
The following unsigned article has been circulating on D.C.
area BBSs. It contains further commentary on IBM and the PS
series.
...............................................................
Systems by Any Other Name May Be Better Than an IBM
Now that I've had a chance to meditate about the PS/2, I have
come to a conclusion: All that wears an IBM logo is not state-of-
the-art computing power. The PS/2,in other words, is not what
it's cracked up to be. When you closely analyze what IBM is
offering, you may be disappointed.
Four models were announced, the 30, 50, 60 and 80. (That
number scheme has inspired speculation about the imminent release
of Models 40 and 70). Model 80 isn't due until the end of the
year. That leaves three models that you could buy today. How do
they stack up?
Two of the models are not forward-looking computers. They
have been called crippled computers, reminiscent of the IBM's
failed PCjr. Each in its own way has been or will be left behind
by the ever-advancing personal computer market.
Take the model 30. It is the lowest priced of the bunch, but
it bears little relation to its siblings. With its 8086
processor, it will not be able to run the new operating system,
OS/2, when the operating system is released next year. Its disk
will have a different format from the others, and its drives will
not be able to read disks from the more powerful machines.
It is faster than other machines in its class, and its new
graphics standard is said to be worthwhile. But the competition,
the Leading Edge Model D and others, is cheaper.
Okay, you might say, the Model 30 is not a business machine;
it's a home machine. The real power is in the higher-end models.
So let's look at the Model 50. At $3,500, the Model 50 has an AT
chip, the 80286, running at 10 MHz. That sounds impressive until
you recall that AT-compatibles running at 12 MHz are commonplace
and the 16-MHz AT clones are coming along.
But that's not the worst. When you buy a model 50 you are
stuck with the slowest hard disk this side of Hong Kong. Hard
disk speed is rated in milli-seconds. Though we are seeing more
and more 28-millisecond hard disks, IBM put an 80-millisecond
snail in the Model 50.
And just when hard disks are standardizing at 30 megabytes,
IBM makes the Model 50's disk a 20M one. It offeres no larger
disk and you can't buy the machine diskless. So even if third
parties fill this gap, you will have to buy the IBM disk anyway.
But the third-party disk won't be able to coexist with the
original, since the chassis has no room for an extra disk. It's
just as well, though, because IBM's tiny, 94-watt power supply
would be sorely taxed by two hard idsks. By the way, the Model
50 has only three expansion slots.
When you look at the specifications of the Model 60, you get a
clue to what happened with the Model 50. IBM didn't want it
competing too vigorously. The Model 60 has two hard disk
choices, a 41M, 40-millisecond disk and a 70M, 30-millisecond
disk. It has seven expansion slots and its power supply is 207
watts.
But with a $5,300 base price, the Model 60 ain't cheap. You
can get compar-able power for under $4,000. What you may not get
is IBM's proprietary features. How important those are remains
to be seen.
To be fair, I should point out the virtues of the PS/2. Its
construction is of high quality and innovative. For example, you
no longer need tools to open the box. IBM's advances in very
large-scale integration are noteworthy. You will find many fewer
components inside.
IBM has broken with its practice of making nearly every
feature a la carte. The new models come standard with serial and
parallel ports built in. The new graphics standards are said to
produce dazzling colors.
But I can't help feel that glitz is getting the better of us.
Two of the available models are backward-looking and virtually
unexpandable. The third is uncompetitively priced. The last,
the 80386-based Model 80, won't be here for seven months, and I'm
certain it won't be aggressively priced.
The upshot is that if you need a computer today, you can do
better than IBM.
..............................................................
Ted Holden
--
Paul Knight
Disclaimer: Invaders from another sphere may be using my account.
Look for multiple signatures before you flame. Thanks.phil@amdcad.UUCP (09/01/87)
In article <768@imsvax.UUCP> paul@imsvax.UUCP (Paul Knight) writes: > Four models were announced, the 30, 50, 60 and 80. (That >number scheme has inspired speculation about the imminent release >of Models 40 and 70). Model 80 isn't due until the end of the >year. It must be January here in California because every day for the last month I've walked by an office with a Model 80 in it. I always knew California was ahead of the rest of the nation. Obviously IBM is afraid of what the 386 will do to the rest of their product line and is holding the Model 80 back. (this is sarcasm) Here's a question for you people who like to second guess IBM's choice of the 8088 for the first PC. When did Motorola come out with the equivalent of the 8251, 8253, 8259, and 8237? (this assumes you know what they are and their importance) -- I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
aeusesef@csun.UUCP (Sean Eric Fagan) (09/02/87)
In article <18166@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <768@imsvax.UUCP> paul@imsvax.UUCP (Paul Knight) writes: [some brief info about the new IBM's] > >It must be January here in California because every day for the last >month I've walked by an office with a Model 80 in it. I always knew >California was ahead of the rest of the nation. Um, Phil, is you company a software/hardware developer of IBM products? If so, then IBM is real nice and lets you have them earlier. I will admit, however, that IBM did (will?) release the 80 before their original estimate. I don't believe I've ever seen a Model 80, and this school tends to get IBM's equipment really quick at times (why, once we got an IBM AT with only 6 months delay 8-)). >Here's a question for you people who like to second guess IBM's choice >of the 8088 for the first PC. When did Motorola come out with the >equivalent of the 8251, 8253, 8259, and 8237? (this assumes you >know what they are and their importance) Uh, oh, I'm more out of it than I though: I thought these were Zilog chips! (really! I need to start reading data-parts books again, I guess, right after I finish OS:DaI) >Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com ----- Sean Eric Fagan Office of Computing/Communications Resources (213) 852 5742 Suite 2600 1GTLSEF@CALSTATE.BITNET 5670 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90036 {litvax, rdlvax, psivax, hplabs, ihnp4}!csun!{aeusesef,titan!eectrsef} My employers do not agree with my views and opinions. They are currently seeking help.