dragheb@isis.UUCP (04/08/87)
I guess my last couple of articles have been pretty harsh on IBM. I suppose they are not as bad as I make them out to be in those articles. But I have a question (I have received some mail on this subject): Am I the only one out here who is not 100% satisfied with the way the PC market has gone (a direct result of IBM) ? -- 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
rhubbs@watdcsu.UUCP (04/09/87)
In article <1750@isis.UUCP> dragheb@isis.UUCP (Darius "OPRDRT" Ragheb) writes: >I guess my last couple of articles have been pretty harsh on IBM. >I suppose they are not as bad as I make them out to be in those >articles. But I have a question (I have received some mail on >this subject): > >Am I the only one out here who is not 100% satisfied with the >way the PC market has gone (a direct result of IBM) ? >-- No you are not the only on not 100% satisfied with the direction of the PC market. But then again I am not 100% satisfied with the Macintosh market, nor even the mainframe market. We, all net users, are entitled to our opinions and are free to state them on the net. BUT lets all be considerate. IBM is ok, but I wish they would do it my way,is easy to say but they got the bucks and the jump on everyone. If good clones are available, buy them and don't worry about IBM. If you want a Mac buy it, if you can aford it. BTW does anyone ever wonder why there are no Mac clones on the market. I can't figure it out, except that Apple just loves to sue people, but that might have nothing to do with it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ my terminal is going to get asbestos installed tommorrow as things are ++ starting to heat up around here ++ ++CHASTITY IS ITS OWN PUNISHMENT, AND CAN BE CURED, GIVE TILL IT HURTS! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rps@homxc.UUCP (04/09/87)
In article <1750@isis.UUCP>, dragheb@isis.UUCP writes: > I guess my last couple of articles have been pretty harsh on IBM. > I suppose they are not as bad as I make them out to be in those > articles. But I have a question (I have received some mail on > this subject): > > Am I the only one out here who is not 100% satisfied with the > way the PC market has gone (a direct result of IBM) ? I am continually amazed that IBM can continue to sell products to new customers. IBM is a company that has a publically known and discussed strategy of enticing a prospective customer with marketing into an initial purchase, and then LOCKING them into ONLY IBM maintainence, software and upgrades, and RAPING them for the next N years. Even though people discuss and write articles about the FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) policy IBM practices toward its customers, new customers still show up eagerly waiting for their turn to get screwed. Only with the PC has IBM been unable to practice FUD. Amazingly, there was a near rebellion over the unavailable, proprietary modem in the Convertible. Usual pracitice is for IBM to just shove that sort of thing down the customer's throat. Even with the PC market as it is IBM still gets away with outragous acts that even major magazines like PC Week complain about. For example, refusal to fix, or sometimes even acknowledge, bugs in their BASIC language. Who in their right mind would do business with these people. Buy from IBM and you are guaranteed to get: pluses minuses ----------- ------------- compatibility mediocre technology service for ever low reliability, short warranty high price Take-it-or-leave-it attitude Any one care to add to this list? You want compatibility? Buy a COMPAQ or a Kaypro! Epson gives a 1 year warranty. Don't worry about service for ever, the technology will be out of date in 10 years! Can anyone out there explain why an individual (not a corporation, they have all kinds of considerations that have nothing to do with sensible decisions) would buy an IBM PC anything? Masochistic answers are not valid. Russ Sharples homxc!rps NOTE: The diatribe above in NO WAY reflects the opinions of AT&T who sells the product being discussed. These opinions are my own and the results of un-scientific and highly irregular analysis methods.
rps@homxc.UUCP (04/09/87)
In article <199@homxc.UUCP>, rps@homxc.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: > > Russ Sharples > homxc!rps > > NOTE: > > The diatribe above in NO WAY reflects the opinions of AT&T who sells the > product being discussed. These opinions are my own and the results of > un-scientific and highly irregular analysis methods. > Sorry, AT&T does not sell the products being discussed. The opinions are still my own. Russ Sharples homxc!rps
farren@hoptoad.UUCP (04/11/87)
In article <199@homxc.UUCP> rps@homxc.UUCP writes: [after a long diatribe about IBM predatory marketing practices] > >Only with the PC has IBM been unable to practice FUD. Amazingly, there >was a near rebellion over the unavailable, proprietary modem in the >Convertible. It's not like IBM is alone - any laptop manufacturer who wants to include a modem has to go to a proprietary model. It's just that IBM's was late to market. Well, I don't have time (or energy) enough to list all of the announced, but never available, equipment I've seen touted over the last ten years. It'd probably take 1000 pages. >IBM still gets away with outragous acts that even major magazines like >PC Week complain about. For example, refusal to fix, or sometimes even >acknowledge, bugs in their BASIC language. Who in their right mind would >do business with these people. Please. Not THEIR BASIC, MICROSOFT's BASIC. And if you think it's hard to get IBM to admit to an error, try Microsoft. I found a fundamental error in the random number generation in their Apple BASIC compiler, and when I called, their response was "There isn't any error", even when I offered to send them the proof. (BTW, the error was this: after about 100 iterations, it went into an infinite loop that returned the same 29 numbers over and over. Real random, eh? ) > pluses minuses > ----------- ------------- > compatibility mediocre technology > service for ever low reliability, short warranty > high price > Take-it-or-leave-it attitude Compatibility: I have never seen a clone that used the variable speed fan that IBM uses in the AT. Keeps it a lot quieter. Aside from that, compat- ibility is a null issue. It's too easy to be compatible. I do notice that aside from speed issues, few companies have cared to really improve on IBM's "mediocre technology". From my point of view, as a hardware and software engineer, I have seen NO clones that exhibit the amount of engineering care that IBM put into their products. Good, solid, conservative design, both in electronics and mechanics. I've heard damn few of the people I know who have bought IBM boxes complaining about problems, and have personally used my PC 24 hours a day for almost 4 years with NO problems. High price? Not really. Compaqs and other high-end name brand clones are almost as expensive. Taiwan clones are MUCH cheaper, but then they are much more cheaply built, as well. >Can anyone out there explain why an individual (not a corporation, they >have all kinds of considerations that have nothing to do with sensible >decisions) would buy an IBM PC anything? Masochistic answers are not >valid. Because I wanted a solid piece of equipment from a company I was sure would be around in five years. Because I wanted a company that wasn't afraid to release all of the schematics, technical documentation, and other stuff I can use to fix my own machine if necessary, and to add to it however I like. Because if I buy IBM stuff I get the latest, guaranteed compatible, equipment six to nine months ahead of the cloners. Because in five years of experience I have never found IBM to be anything other than helpful, which is amazing in a company that size. Because I can sell my IBM equipment in three years for a much larger percentage of the original selling price than any comparable machine. Shall I go on? -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
rhsu@topaz.UUCP (04/12/87)
> From: farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) > ... I do notice that > aside from speed issues, few companies have cared to really improve on IBM's > "mediocre technology". That's because the "technology" is mediocre to the point where it is virtually impossible to make any real improvements. > From my point of view, as a hardware and software > engineer, I have seen NO clones that exhibit the amount of engineering care > that IBM put into their products. Which doesn't say much for IBM. Most clones come from places like Korea and Taiwan, where there is no such thing as computer engineering. The fact that even these places can produce clones is a comment on how poorly built the IBM machines are. However, in the hands of real computer engineers, the design can be improved a little. I've worked with the AT&T 6300 and (briefly) the HP Vectra, which are both better than the IBM. > Good, solid, conservative design, both in > electronics and mechanics. For electronics, it's got an Intel chip. That ruins it right there. Then there's the mechanics: A keyboard that's made for people who consider reaching for the shift keys an adventure, and expansion slots that's so clumsy that you need to insert the board really carefully so you don't damage anything, then tighten ten screws to hold it in place. Yeah, really solid. > I've heard damn few of the people I know who > have bought IBM boxes complaining about problems. That's because most of the people using them are business managers who are computer illiterate and secretaries who are fired if they complain. The rest are IBM fans for whom the IBM name has a special ring to it, and whose love for Big Blue blinds them from discerning quality from mediocrity. > > [Why would any individual buy an IBM anything?] > Because I can sell my IBM equipment in three years for > a much larger percentage of the original selling price than any comparable > machine. Why wait three years to sell it? Do it tommorow! Besides, if you like it so much, why are you thinking about selling it? Maybe subconsciously you really don't like it. B-) > "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness > Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." > hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications ...!rutgers!topaz!rhsu that appeared in the preceding article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Vidi, Vici, Veni" -Caesar
connery@bnrmtv.UUCP (04/12/87)
> For electronics, it's got an Intel chip. That ruins it > right there. Then there's the mechanics: A keyboard that's made > for people who consider reaching for the shift keys an adventure, and > expansion slots that's so clumsy that you need to insert the board > really carefully so you don't damage anything, then tighten ten screws > to hold it in place. Yeah, really solid. > I'm as bored with the IBM-haters as the IBM-lovers. It would be nice if some of this stuff could discuss technical details rather than opinions. In fact the engineering on the new PCs is very good. The machines can be taken apart without any tools, and everything that comes apart is marked in blue plastic, with big fat knobs and handles on everything. If you haven't even seen one of the machines, you really can't comment. -- Glenn Connery, Bell Northern Research, Mountain View, CA {hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!connery
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (04/13/87)
In article <1619@bnrmtv.UUCP>, connery@bnrmtv.UUCP (Glenn Connery) writes: > In fact the engineering on the new PCs is very good. The machines can > be taken apart without any tools, and everything that comes apart is marked > in blue plastic, with big fat knobs and handles on everything. If you > haven't even seen one of the machines, you really can't comment. I agree. I don't love or hate IBM any more than any other company. Regardless of whether or not the PeeCee has/had any technical merit, IBM managed to use market clout to get enough people to notice personal computers enough to finally create a mass market. The result has been to get enough impetus in the industry to goad developers into putting out the effort to make some really neat hardware and software. Regardless of what Jerry Pournelle says about his faithfull Compupro, Pantagruel, (or whatever its name is) I enjoy my MS-DOS clone much more than my old CP/M machines. Well, to the point of this letter. The new IBM offerings sort of remind me of the DEC Rainbow. The new keyboard is a pretty close knock-off of DEC's VT series. The Rainbow could also be cut, stripped and gutted without lifting a screwdriver (if you had strong fingernails). The new IBM computers even have incompatible expansion board connectors as did/does? the Rainbow. The new IBMs even run MS-DOS that is *somewhat* usable with current software, just like the Rainbow. The Rainbow even offered stunning graphics: 800 * 480 in 16 colors, RGB analog. Only time will tell if IBMs new machines will set a new standard, or will sell to a specialized and limited niche as did the Rainbow. IBM's advertising seems to be pushing connectivity with their own mainframes, as did DEC's marketing for the Rainbow. --Bill
campbell@maynard.UUCP (04/14/87)
In article <547@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > ... The new IBMs >even run MS-DOS that is *somewhat* usable with current software, >just like the Rainbow. The Rainbow even offered stunning graphics: >800 * 480 in 16 colors, RGB analog. Not quite. The Rainbow has two graphics modes -- 384x240x16 and 800x240x4. It is analog RGB (this RGBI stuff is stupid) and the DEC monitor is of very high quality, so the effect is superb. However, there's one fatal flaw. Rainbow graphics aren't memory mapped, so they are s-l-o-w. OK for still pictures, useless for interactive graphics. (If you go back and look at the earliest pictures of Microsoft Windows published in magazines two years ago, you'll notice that they were all done on a Rainbow, since in those pre-EGA days that was the best PC graphics available...) -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. Internet: campbell@maynard.BSW.COM 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 uucp: {alliant,think,wjh12}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846
jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (04/14/87)
In article <3232@watdcsu.UUCP> rhubbs@watdcsu.UUCP (R.Hubbs - Independent Studies) writes: >BTW does anyone ever wonder why there are no Mac clones on the market. > I can't figure it out, except that Apple just loves to sue people, > but that might have nothing to do with it. > To clone a PC requires mostly hardware work and not that much of it. The PC also uses standard parts. The BIOS is a relativly small piece of code and so easy to duplicate. For the Mac, however, duplicating the ROM is the problem. To duplicate it is a major programming effort, with an upward moving target as well. Your looking at several person-years worth of effort. To clone the Mac is the equivalent of cloning not only the PC but Windows as well. Jerry Whitnell Communications Solutions, Inc.
iav1917@ritcv.UUCP (alan i. vymetalik) (04/15/87)
[...................................................................] In article <896@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >In article <547@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: >> ... The new IBMs >>even run MS-DOS that is *somewhat* usable with current software, >>just like the Rainbow. The Rainbow even offered stunning graphics: >>800 * 480 in 16 colors, RGB analog. > >Not quite. The Rainbow has two graphics modes -- 384x240x16 and >800x240x4. It is analog RGB (this RGBI stuff is stupid) and the DEC >monitor is of very high quality, so the effect is superb. However, >there's one fatal flaw. Rainbow graphics aren't memory mapped, so they >are s-l-o-w. OK for still pictures, useless for interactive graphics. > >(If you go back and look at the earliest pictures of Microsoft Windows >published in magazines two years ago, you'll notice that they were all ^^^^^^ TWO YEARS!!! >done on a Rainbow, since in those pre-EGA days that was the best PC >graphics available...) >-- >Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. >Internet: campbell@maynard.BSW.COM 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 >uucp: {alliant,think,wjh12}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846 A couple of points... Earlier postings of this article compared the Rainbow and the new PS/2s. Take a close look at all the ergonomic "improvements" that IBM has added. Including the thumbscrews, the lack of dip-switches on the motherboard, the VT-220-like keyboard, the well-designed system unit casings and monitor housings (however, I like DEC's VR241 monitor style better...picky), and the ease of access to the insides, they also moved the power switch to the front of the unit! Damned if I didn't think the low-end PS/2 units looked like improved Rainbows. So, I think IBM owes DEC either some royalities or at least a "thank you" or two. Right! Fat chance! The comment here is that it's nice to know that IBM is finally following some of the real standards DEC laid down back in 1983. IBM will win, however, with this design whereas DEC didn't simply beause of the marketing muscle and presence of IBM. Ok.. Graphics.. I have to disagree, in part, with Mr. Campbell's statement that Rainbow graphics are slow in interactive mode. True, if you try to make the graphics board do bit-mapped-like displays, yes, it's on the slow side. Still pictures look wonderful (See Chris LaRosa's DRAW V1.4 graphics editor and graphics pics for the Rainbow). However, if you treat the graphics board as it was designed (basically a vector graphics display), you can produce animation and interactive graphics that can be faster than what you can do on an IBM PC/XT (such examples are some of the DEC demos: DESK, COLORMAP, SCRAM and a not-public-domain-not-released editor called XPRESS, not to mention my own GALLERY demo I released to the FIDO world a-ways back). The DEC demos I mentioned may not be the fastest graphics ever seen but, remember, no one has released a "turbo" board for the Rainbow (yet) to help out the graphics chip. Also, DEC hasn't created another graphics board for the machine. That's a real shame! [BTW. I have seen GW-BASIC games and demos that aren't all that bad when placed next to IBM PC/XT machine.] [If anyone wants the GALLERY demo for their Rainbow, e-mail me.] Other thoughts... Why is DEC sitting on its hands regarding DOS 3.10 and Windows for the Rainbow? They exist. Why are they going to make us buy the Ethernet card and package just to get the software? I foresee a VERY BIG underground pirating problem if DEC doesn't afford another route for current Rainbow users. Recently, I came across a library of CI-C86/MASM source routines for doing MS-DOS graphics on the Rainbow. Called the MS-DOS Graphics Library Version 3.0, the routines allow a lot of functionality for producing decent graphics for the Rainbow. The aforementioned DESK and COLORMAP programs use this library to a nice effect. Why has DEC refused to release this as an 'unsupported' or otherwise product? (Why has DEC refused to release a lot of needed info for the Rainbow?!) (Do you know DEC has allowed GSX for MS-DOS to fly from the the caverns at Digital and that they are basically 'looking the other way'?) The library's authors are with DEC, Ltd. Hampshire, England. From the docs, it appears they wish to freely disseminate the routines. (Don't e-mail me for them... The ARCed sources come to about 130K... They're currently circulating around the FIDO network). There appears to be a lot of useful info in this package. [BTW. The code has revision dates going back to July, 1984! I have heard that the beta-test versions of MS-DOS 3.10/Windows date back to May, 1986 and earlier!!] This all bugs me. DEC had a wonderful piece of hardware on it's hands but it preferred to leave it with no support (PRO owners can sympathize). I still like using the Rainbow for something more than just a terminal. Oh well... I am glad I wasn't the marketing director for the DEC PC group. I would've gone somewhere and quietly disappeared. Alan ================================================= alan i. vymetalik uucp: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!iav1917 ================================================= Prism Software Designs, 44 Arborwood Crescent Rochester, New York, 14615-3807, (716)-458-4932 ------------------------------------------------- Vice-Chairman, Rainbow Special Interest Forum Greater Rochester Area Local Users Group (GRALUG) A DECUS Group ================================================= Std. Disc.: The above comments are my own and do not reflect the opinions, ideas, or goals of DECUS.
honzo@4gl.UUCP (04/15/87)
in article <199@homxc.UUCP>, rps@homxc.UUCP says: > Buy from IBM and you are guaranteed to get: > > pluses minuses > ----------- ------------- > compatibility mediocre technology > service for ever low reliability, short warranty > high price > Take-it-or-leave-it attitude I disagree on the compatibility. I've seen to many ports from one IBM system to another, or even one of their OS's to another. > Can anyone out there explain why an individual (not a corporation, they > have all kinds of considerations that have nothing to do with sensible > decisions) would buy an IBM PC anything? People believe in advertisement. That's why they buy and consume a whole load of useless things. IBM may be mediocre in electronics etc, they are the masters of marketing technology. I believe that some of the facts about the new PC that we complain about are put in there for marketing purposes. The only objective of IBM is to keep their stockholders happy (profit) and they are quite good at it. It is us the buyers who are the stupid guys. Better technology costs more money. With the current technology, IBM makes enough mony. They must think that investing into getting better technology, will not show up in more profit. -- I_I( _ UUCP: ..mcvax!honzo@4gl I I ) Honzo Svasek @ 4GL Consultants b.v. FIDO: Honzo Svasek @ 500/333