dragheb@isis.UUCP (04/03/87)
"No," I say, "NO!" Let the community of computer users stop worshiping their false god, IBM. I just read the announcement in Mod.computers.ibm-pc and have seen the press releases on IBM's new line of machines (the PS/2 etc.). What's the matter, Big Blue? Can't compete? Never could. By accident (mainly, you put your name on it) you helped create a standard (albeit a shitty one) with your PC. Now that you see you no longer lead in the races, you decide to switch! HAHAHA I laugh. Maybe the 3.5" disks were destined to become the new standard, but making that change with these new machines was really rotten. 80386 computers. Again, look at it: two models at 2 speeds, with minimum memory configurations, small drives, and high prices ... maybe you could learn something from Kaypro and Compaq. Totally new bus architecture. Why? Definitely NOT to improve the field ... it was to try and confuse the competitors. New Video adapters ... try and get it right this time ..... New operating system .... lets wait and see. I sincerly hope you don't make it on this one! With your last machine you got every business man in America to buy the machine because it had your name on it. This time, I hope these people realize that it is a cheap trick. If you had set out to do something useful (like improve the state of technology) that is one thing, but you are effectively a monopoly: you don't compete, you crush your opponent with the weight of your name! Well, we live in a capitalistic society, and since you are not legally a monoply, I guess you can do what you want. Well, heck, so can Oral Roberts ... its the people who send him (and you) money that I feel sorry for. Poor suckers. Maybe you can back up your new machines with some decent documentation ... whats that you say? You don't know what the word means ... maybe I will buy you a dictionary and send it to you ... no, on second thoughts, I won't. You see, you once suckered me into buying an IBM PC (yeah, you remember, the one with belt driven disk drives (at the time the rest of the world was busy moving forward in technology)) and whenever I had a hardware question, you acted like i didn't exist ... it's too bad that I can't ignore you: you STINK. Oh, hey, IBM, maybe you will release a brand spanking new language with your new computers: maybe Cobol, or PL/1... yeah, that's it. PL/1. That's a great idea. -- Do it in C. If you can't do it in C, do it in Assembly. If you can't do it in Assembly, it's not worth doing!!! Darius Ragheb isis!dragheb | dragheb@isis.cs.du.edu
authorplaceholder@gorgo.UUCP.UUCP (04/06/87)
>HAHAHA I laugh. I'm not laughing. Compatibility issues aside these are a definate improvement on what they were making before. >Maybe the 3.5" disks were destined to become the new standard, >but making that change with these new machines was really rotten. I could take issue with this statement too. The smaller disks are faster and offer 2 to 10 times as much storage. >Totally new bus architecture. Why? Definitely NOT to improve the >field ... it was to try and confuse the competitors. This is flat wrong. The old bus was too slow for multiuser applications with a 1 MB/second bandwidth and no pipeline. The new one is designed with multitasking OS's in mind and is said to support much higher disk transfer rates. >New Video adapters ... try and get it right this time ..... This is an important step forward, supporting a software independent interface for a variety of video hardware interfaces. >New operating system .... lets wait and see. Guess what? UNIX! So you can teach an old dog new tricks :-) I know that I shouldn't honor this diatribe with commentary, but IBM is made of people just like us. They work hard to make a product that will make them a buck just like everybody else. I work for another vendor and this is (of course) my own opinion. Each of us makes a difference in the quality of technology that we produce. We do not promulgate quality through hatred of anyone. Let's serve to be part of the solution to our industry's problems or we are just another problem ourselves. Steve Blasingame (AT&T Oklahoma City) bsteve@gorgo.att.com (Company affiliation provided for identification purposes only) (Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not represent opinions of AT&T)
car@lcuxlm.UUCP (04/06/87)
Since when did this news group become comp.sys.ibm.pc.flame? I had the distinct impression that this group was meant for the discussion of the pc and clones. This means hardware options, software options, and rumors of the future. There are millions of PC users, many of whom do not consider themselves suckers. If you are not going to contribute constructively, keep your comments in another group. Christopher Rath -- Christopher A. Rath ************************* vax135!lcuxlm!car@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU * A Minnesotan in Exile * AT&T Bell Laboratories *************************
rhubbs@watdcsu.UUCP (04/06/87)
In article <1741@isis.UUCP> dragheb@isis.UUCP (Darius "OPRDRT" Ragheb) writes: >"No," I say, "NO!" > >Let the community of computer users stop worshiping their false god, IBM. >I just read the announcement in Mod.computers.ibm-pc and have seen >the press releases on IBM's new line of machines (the PS/2 etc.). > >What's the matter, Big Blue? Can't compete? Never could. >By accident (mainly, you put your name on it) you helped create >a standard (albeit a shitty one) with your PC. Now that you >see you no longer lead in the races, you decide to switch! > > Oh I get it IBM is not allowed to do any marketing or product development.!! I agree the PC standard is not the greatest, but before that there was nothing, now there is very little but not nothing. If you are going to flame IBM for changing tack to keep sales and profits up, you might as well flame Apple too, as the reason they built the Macintosh was the apple IIe/c etc. weren't cutting it. Marketing and new products are inevitable(sp) and if we stop letting compines market we would have no new products. AND NO UNIX as this was once a new product for AT&T too you know. If you don't like em don't buy em but don't complaine about any one company doing product development or trying to make money. ****flames*flames*flames*flames*flames*flames*flames*flames*flames*flames*flames ================================================================================: only a guest in this brain :================================================================================
dragheb@isis.UUCP (04/08/87)
In article <1180@lcuxlm.UUCP> car@lcuxlm.UUCP writes: > >Since when did this news group become comp.sys.ibm.pc.flame? > >I had the distinct impression that this group was meant for >the discussion of the pc and clones. This means hardware >options, software options, and rumors of the future. There Oh dear me. I thought that I did exactly that (I guess not): I thought I talked about a) pc's (how poor the ibm pc is) b) clones (Kaypro and Compaq) c) hardware (new bus and disk drives) d) software (operating systems and languages) e) rumors of the future (i.e. lets see what happens with all this) If you had included any portion of my original article, you would have seen that I mentioned EVERY damn thing you wanted me to mention. >are millions of PC users, many of whom do not consider themselves >suckers. If you are not going to contribute constructively, >keep your comments in another group. > I am so sorry. Let me get this straight: if my opinion is different than yours and I am fed up with rotten technology, then my comments are not constructive? My whole point (which you obviously missed) is that the PC generation could have been better if IBM had cared about the product a little more in my opinion. (so, i guess you are telling me that wanting computers to be more advanced is not a constructive idea? would you want me to be like you? content with owning a PC that could be MUCH better? sorry, man, I am not a sheep). How about rereading your own article: you do not mention one of the things that you consider essential to a comp.sys.ibm.pc article. Anyway, back to talking about the essentials (according to Mr. Rath): I heard that IBM pulled out of the Infocom conference (here in Denver). Any ideas as to why they would do this right after announcing a new machine? (oh, Mr. Rath, according to your rules of posting, you may not respond to this article unless you talk about pc's, clones, hardware, software, rumors .... which you failed to do in your last posting). -- Do it in C. If you can't do it in C, do it in Assembly. If you can't do it in Assembly, it's not worth doing!!! Darius Ragheb isis!dragheb | dragheb@isis.cs.du.edu
jag2@nvuxk.UUCP (04/08/87)
In article <1180@lcuxlm.UUCP>, car@lcuxlm.UUCP writes: > > Since when did this news group become comp.sys.ibm.pc.flame? > > I had the distinct impression that this group was meant for > the discussion of the pc and clones. This means hardware > options, software options, and rumors of the future. There > are millions of PC users, many of whom do not consider themselves > suckers. If you are not going to contribute constructively, > keep your comments in another group. > > Christopher Rath Gosh Chris, are you flaming about someone flaming? You might argue about the constructiveness of the article in question but there is no reason in the world why it shouldn't be posted here nor is there any better place to post the comments. My own views tend to lean towards agreement with most of Mr. Ragheb's remarks. IBM has left it's costomers high and dry on several occassions and probably will again. For those who bought the screaming PC's, the "advanced technology" PC-AT, PC-RT or the astounding XT286 should feel slighted at best, ripped off at worst. The clones generally have been a superior product at far better prices. I believe that IBM will continue to produce mediocre to poor products at high to outrageous prices. And you can tune in here to hear the complaints. Joe Gardina ...ihnp4!wbux2!jag or ...ihnp4!nvuxk!jag2 -- Joe Gardina @ Bell Communications Research (Red Bank, NJ) UUCP: (ihnp4,bellcore,allegra)!nvuxj!jag2 or preferably (ihnp4,bellcore,allegra)!wbux2!jag
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (04/08/87)
I have to agree that relative to clones, the new computers from IBM aren't particularly price/performance leaders, but the higher end products are significant improvements in performance, if not price. A couple of fast new machines from IBM ought to inspire the other guys to out-gun IBM in price and or performance which will result in better mahcines for us. The "micro channel" connectors in the new up scale models are a good idea, becuase the "normal" PeeCee buss doesn't do very well at speeds above 10-12 MHz. Unfortunately, there aren't many cards around for it, but that's technology for you. At least, if you've just got to use some "normal" option card, you can still buy a pretty nice clone to interface with it. Unfortunately, IBM is MAC-ing the PC/II models by indulging in ASICs and proprietary code for the O/S in ROM. This will probably wall off the new models from the mainstream PeeCee market, but then the MacIntosh survives on its own. I do have a feeling that IBM isn't going to sell as many PC/IIs as it would like to, at least at first. Overall, I can't say that I really like the new PC/IIs, but I do think they're a good thing because they will provide impetus to goad the clone makers into producing better machines. I'm sure that if IBM sells enough PC/IIs, that lots of companies will make goodies for the micro channel. --Bill Bill Mayhew Division of Basic Medical Sciences Northeastern Ohio Universites' College of Medicine Rootstown, OH 44272 USA phone: 216-325-2511 (wtm@neoucom.UUCP ...!cbatt!neoucom!wtm)
perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (04/09/87)
> >Maybe the 3.5" disks were destined to become the new standard, > >but making that change with these new machines was really rotten. > > I could take issue with this statement too. The smaller disks are faster > and offer 2 to 10 times as much storage. > > Steve Blasingame (AT&T Oklahoma City) bsteve@gorgo.att.com Please don't exaggerate. The new 3.5" disks offer 0.6 to 4.0 times as much storage, not 2 to 10. (Comparison between existing 5.25" disks in 360K and 1.2M capacities, and new 3.5" disks in 720K and 1.44M capacities: 720/1200 = 0.6; 1440/360 = 4.0.) -- {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? One in a million, perhaps.
mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) (04/09/87)
In article <174@nvuxk.UUCP>, jag2@nvuxk.UUCP writes: > In article <1180@lcuxlm.UUCP>, car@lcuxlm.UUCP writes: > > > > Since when did this news group become comp.sys.ibm.pc.flame? If you don't like someone's opinion/information content/mode of presentation, etc, it's entirely YOUR problem, unless you are able to somehow stop him from making more postings. Has anyone out there actually worked with a PCII ? Any comments from someone KNOWLEDGEABLE ? --mjr() -- Copyright, 1987 - Anarchist Software Foundation - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED In reproducing this document in any form, the licensee (you) agrees to pay the ASF 5$/copy distributed, and to admit that software law is a subject better left for lawyers and slimy nerds. Live Free or die !
brown@nicmad.UUCP (04/11/87)
In article <1593@bnrmtv.UUCP> perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) writes:
<> I could take issue with this statement too. The smaller disks are faster
<> and offer 2 to 10 times as much storage.
<Please don't exaggerate. The new 3.5" disks offer 0.6 to 4.0 times
<as much storage, not 2 to 10. (Comparison between existing 5.25"
<disks in 360K and 1.2M capacities, and new 3.5" disks in 720K and
<1.44M capacities: 720/1200 = 0.6; 1440/360 = 4.0.)
I do not count the 1.2MB floppies that IBM added to the AT as a standard.
It was a real bastard, making exchanging of data a real bummer.
So the 2 times, I believe, should stand. Besides, it was real easy adding
3.5" drives to my XT then it would have been trying to add the 1.2MB drive.
A little more standard, wouldn't you say?
--
harvard-\ ihnp4--\
Mr. Video seismo!uwvax.......!nicmad!brown (How I hate 4 line .sigs!)
rutgers-/ decvax--/
terminus-/authorplaceholder@gorgo.UUCP.UUCP (04/16/87)
>> >Maybe the 3.5" disks were destined to become the new standard, >> >but making that change with these new machines was really rotten. >> >> I could take issue with this statement too. The smaller disks are faster >> and offer 2 to 10 times as much storage. >> >> Steve Blasingame (AT&T Oklahoma City) bsteve@gorgo.att.com > A nit-picker writes: >Please don't exaggerate. The new 3.5" disks offer 0.6 to 4.0 times >as much storage, not 2 to 10. I stand corrected... Perhaps I should have said 2-4 times as much storage. The comparison is with a standard 360K 5 1/4 inch floppy. I think that the more significant point was that the folks at the product announcement told me that the new drives are ESDI-based, significantly faster and are linked to a SCSI bus interface. That alone CAN mean transfer rates in excess of 1 MB/Sec.[unexaggerated] (even on single-ended SCSI). This is (of course) quite dependent upon the PS implementation. It is certainly significantly better than the hardware limitation of ST412/506 to about 625K/Sec. and may make these more worthy of multitasking applications. Steve Blasingame (AT&T Oklahoma City) bsteve@gorgo.att.com ihnp4!gorgo!bsteve "HiYa Folks!, I would say ladies and gentlemen, but you know what you are." Moe Howard
connery@bnrmtv.UUCP (04/23/87)
Steve Blasingame writes: > I think that the more significant point was that the folks at the product > announcement told me that the new drives are ESDI-based, significantly > faster and are linked to a SCSI bus interface. That alone CAN mean transfer > rates in excess of 1 MB/Sec.[unexaggerated] (even on single-ended SCSI). This > is (of course) quite dependent upon the PS implementation. It is certainly > significantly better than the hardware limitation of ST412/506 to about > 625K/Sec. and may make these more worthy of multitasking applications. It was my impression that the only ESDI drives in the line were the really big ones (the 70 and 115Mb disks available on the Models 60 and 80). I thought the regular drives (the one built in to the Model 50 and the 44Mb drives on the 60 and 80) were the same old stuff. Of course they all run at a 1:1 interleave, so is that a hint? -- Glenn Connery, Bell Northern Research, Mountain View, CA {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!connery
braun@m10ux.UUCP (04/27/87)
In article <1666@bnrmtv.UUCP>, connery@bnrmtv.UUCP (Glenn Connery) writes: > Steve Blasingame writes: > > I think that the more significant point was that the folks at the product > > announcement told me that the new drives are ESDI-based, significantly > > faster and are linked to a SCSI bus interface. That alone CAN mean transfer > > rates in excess of 1 MB/Sec.[unexaggerated] (even on single-ended SCSI). This > > is (of course) quite dependent upon the PS implementation. It is certainly > > significantly better than the hardware limitation of ST412/506 to about > > 625K/Sec. and may make these more worthy of multitasking applications. > What is forgotten is that the ST506 data rate is exactly as fast as the data comes in from the heads on the drive. Nothing can be faster for a significant length of time. A SCSI interface cannot cause a disk transaction to be completed any more quickly. However, if the data is buffered on the controller and transmitted in bursts to the computer, less time will be stolen from the computer bus for DMA transactions. Assuming that the computer has something else to do while waiting for a disk transaction to complete (unlike current implementations of MS-DOS), things will be speeded up. However, for speeding up curent PC applications, you must reduce the seek times and rotational latency for the drive if you want your applications to run faster. -- Doug Braun AT+T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ m10ux!braun 201 582-7039