chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) (03/19/87)
Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple
made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine
the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs,
that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything
about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be
undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple
has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now
that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried
they're loosing touch.
I'm baffled. Anybody else? Or maybe you've got some insight
as to the why's of IBM product development policy?
Dave Chassin
PS: You can be sure I'll never buy one of those. What for? So
I can throw $3000 of AutoCAD software, and $nK of random other
stuff? Forget it!!!
_____________________
David P. Chassin
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
School of Architecture __+__
Troy, NY 12181 / _ \
USA | | | |
/=======/ = \=======\
(518) 266-6461 | _ | _ | _ |
| | | | | | | | | |
chassin@csv.rpi.edu | = | | | | = |
=======================================================================zrm@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (03/19/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine I think they are trying to make the same smart move as Apple has. However, IBM's move out of the vanilla MS-DOS arena faces many more pitfalls than the Macintosh ever did. IBM could come out with a clunker of a user interface. IBM faces entrenched competition from the Macintosh at the low and middle range, and from Sun and Apollo at the high end. IBM might find that they have completely overloaded software developers' ability to cope with the MS-DOS, Windows, Top-View, 286, 386 and New-DOS induced Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) factor. IBM also has a poor track record on recent product introductions, with the failure of the PC/RT to make even the smallest dent in the workstation competition. Apple had the luxury of selling a huge number of machines with no direct competition, and enough of a market window to establish a standard with a closed machine, then make a high-end open machine. Even if IBM does everything right, they face tough sledding. Anyone out there betting that IBM has done everything right? Not the stock market, with Apple trading within close range of its recent historic high, and Sun as zoomy as ever. The really interesting thing is that with the impending breakdown of MS-DOS/8086 hegomony, will anyone else, e.g. NeXT, make a move to establish yet another personal-computer/workstation standard? It looks like the near future could be a window of opportunity for someone, perhaps Xerox, or NeXT, or Wang or all of them. They key is that the contenders will have to have comitted at least the resources Apple has to developing a powerful new environment. Apple has built a formidable defense for their market by spending a lot on software technology such as extensions to the Toolbox and MacApp. I would be very, very suprised to see IBM come out with something truely competitive, not because they are incapable of it, but simply because there is no advance sign of it, no leaks from developers, no clues in existing products, etc. We live in interesting times. -Zigurd "Every year I get older and go faster. It's a helluva deal." -A.J. Foyt
klein%gravity@Sun.COM (Mike Klein) (03/19/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine >the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs, >that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything >about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? You're making an unstated assumption that a closed system is a mistake. A mistake for whom? There was a flurry of articles a few months ago in Fortune, Business Week, and a number of other magazines bemoaning IBM's unprecedented ill health. One important cause was the poor profit margins on PCs. It's not hard to guess why... clones cost less, are usually faster, and some are even higher quality. Some corporate purchasers are now even specifying IBM *compatibles* only. That's a big problem for IBM. All these articles said that IBM, after an initial wild success with the PC, was moving toward a closed, proprietary system. <My opinion: This will reduce competition and increase profits for IBM. IBM, true to its history, can absorb initial low sales if it means eventually locking many customers in to its hardware and software. It is a big pain for users... but then that's not really what IBM is interested in --- another story of course, and a problem that IBM is also working on. End my opinion.> >This seems to me to be >undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple >has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now >that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried >they're loosing touch. Apple has not been blown away by any means. In fact, Apple is in great financial shape today. Much of the reason is that there are *no* Macintosh clones that have forced Apple's prices down and confused consumers. -- Mike Klein klein@sun.{arpa,com} Sun Microsystems, Inc. {ucbvax,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!sun!klein Mountain View, CA
cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (03/19/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >[...] In other words why are they making a machine >the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs ... "Despite the proprietary changes, most existing software, including that written to take advantage of IBM's Enhanced Graphics Adapter standard, will run on the new machines, [unnamed] sources said. "However, software that is written to take advantage of the capabilities of the new computers will not run on their older siblings." _Computerworld_, 16 March 1987.-- "... ain't nobody's business if I do." ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!cjdb -- Billie Holiday PMRCJDB@UCHIMVS1.Bitnet
mwhulls@watlion.UUCP (03/21/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? [...] >This seems to me to be >undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Shhh! Don't say it too loud, IBM's peabrains might notice and do something approaching intelligence. Give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves eventually! IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING!IBM IS DYING! -steve rapaport, not michael hulls.
gary@percival.UUCP (03/21/87)
I believe the thinking is similar to that done by the person who "invented" Military Intelligence! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wudda yeah mean, I'm gonna get in trouble? I AM in trouble! ________________________________________________________________________________
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (03/22/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine >the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs, >that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything >about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be >undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple >has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now >that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried >they're loosing touch. > >I'm baffled. Anybody else? Or maybe you've got some insight >as to the why's of IBM product development policy? This is not a new IBM policy. For proof, I ask you to look at IBM System/3x computers, and IBM System/23 computers. These are the lower end computers that IBM has been manufacturing for awhile (except for the /23, which was IBM's first [sad] attempt at a PC). No program is portable in object code format between any of these machines, even though the assembler code is pretty close between the System/3x machines. Often, the compilers on the upper machines will not accept unaltered source from the others. Also, there are no REAL language compilers for these machines that are offered by IBM. IBM likes COBOL, RPG, and assembler. Take it or leave it. If you take it, pay an ungodly amount for it. (This is not completely true, but I'm speaking of their lower-end lines, not their huge machines). IBM larger machines need to have this thing called maintenance. They're closed box alright. Open it and be shot. This of course means more money for IBM, in both upgrades and simple servicing. It's a fact that IBM makes more money on the maintenance than they do on the actual machine in many cases. Provided they give you a reliable machine, they seldom have to show up at all. The maintenance works out to be pure profit. It almost never costs IBM more to service the equipment than it charges the customer, and on the average they make thousands per year on even the smallest systems. IBM likes closed boxes. The only difference between these machines and the current PC's is cost and competition. The PC was always the low end of the IBM line. IBM didn't care about it so much before the PC's became powerful enough to take hunks out of their System/36 line, which is very profitable right now. Now the masses have the 80386, which performs at roughly the same speed as the System/36 lower ends (and better than the /36 PC) with the potential to be much more powerful (HOW many meg can the 386 address?) The gist of all this is that IBM is about to loose their most profitable line to the cheap PC's. Solution: create a new PC that nobody can clone. Problem: it won't run anything. So what. Neither could their System/3x's when they first came out. People trust IBM. They'll suffer. (You think I'm wrong? How many people are saying "we'll wait 'till we see what IBM does"?) Also, while people wait for an IBM move in the PC market, they're not buying clones. Even if the new IBM PC flops, they've hurt the competition. Odds are good that people will go buy some other IBM product if they don't like the new PC. IBM makes out either way, since the next best thing is a System/36. Either the PC replaces the /36, or it hurts the /36's competition. Personally, I hope IBM loses their shirt. If they come out with a new PC, they'll make it a workalike to their other machines. You'll need to by IBM software. Is there anyone out there who is pleased with IBM-made applications? I've used several. I am pleased with none of them. Look at the IBM-made applications for the PC -- their accounting packages are horrid. Their wordprocessor is a workalike to the one on their mainframes, and it is by far the most difficult to use wordprocessor I've come across on a PC (note: not editor -- there are much worse editors out there). The only packages worth anything were produced by other people and IBM bought the rights. If this sounds like I don't like IBM, you got it. I fail to see why anyone would by IBM, whose PC (not AT) failure rate is one of the highest among PC manufacturers; whose keyboards leave much to be desired, even though they created the standard typewriter keyboard; whose software is terrible and often bug-ridden; whose service personnel can takes weeks to respond; whose products are always drastically overpriced; etc. It is contrary to the spirit of competition. Well, we'll see. >Dave Chassin > >PS: You can be sure I'll never buy one of those. What for? So >I can throw $3000 of AutoCAD software, and $nK of random other >stuff? Forget it!!! My sentiments exactly. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker | UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd H H | ARPA: madd@bucsb.bu.edu H-C-C-OH <- heehee +---------+---------------------------------- H H | "We are strangers in a world we never made"
ted@imsvax.UUCP (03/23/87)
Mike Klein, Sun Microsystems: >There was a flurry of articles a few months ago in Fortune, Business Week, >and a number of other magazines bemoaning IBM's unprecedented ill health. >One important cause was the poor profit margins on PCs. It's not hard >to guess why... clones cost less, are usually faster, and some are even >higher quality. Some corporate purchasers are now even specifying IBM >*compatibles* only. That's a big problem for IBM. All these articles said >that IBM, after an initial wild success with the PC, was moving toward >a closed, proprietary system. > <My opinion: This will reduce competition and increase profits for IBM. > IBM, true to its history, can absorb initial low sales if it means > eventually locking many customers in to its hardware and software. > It is a big pain for users... but then that's not really what IBM > is interested in --- another story of course, and a problem that > IBM is also working on. End my opinion.> Abraham Lincoln said it best: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time......." IBM's future happiness seems to be dependant on fooling too many of the people too much of the time; especially as the generation of managers who never heard of anyone being fired for buying IBM all start to retire. I'm glad I don't own any of their stock these days. Today's generation of cheap XT and AT clones are meeting the needs of most computer users far better than they have ever been met before, with hardware and software add-ons to do just about any kind of thing imaginable doing nothing but getting cheaper and better by the day and, while I see some areas of applicability for entirely new kinds of machines, I believe most users would do best to stay right where they are software-wise, perhaps migrating to stronger 386 based single-user machines as they become available and inexpensive. What I mean is this: that over the next couple of years, numerous slick-talking people are going to be coming up with all kinds of reasons for abandoning our happy single-user DOS world and I, for one, intend to tell all of them to go **** themselves. The reasons for replying thusly to anyone trying to foist a closed-architecture system on us should be obvious even to the blind. Then, there will be the people who claim that DOS isn't a real operating system. Operating systems are the fruits of poverty, a necessary evil for computers which have to serve many masters. Owning your own computer obviates any need for real OSs even as acquiring great wealth obviates any need for techniques of scrimping. Multi-TASKING can be achieved in software on a single-user basis quite well without re-designing your operating system e.g. Mystic Pascal e.g. the article on concurrency using Turbo Pascal in the 3-86 issue of Dobb's, etc. and you don't even need an AT or protected modes to do it. Such things as transferring data and spread-sheeting at the same time can be handled by these and other kinds of software which are cheap and available NOW. The April 14 issue of PC Magazine contains an article on the new DOS, known generally as ADOS, which they refer to as ADOG, claiming that it is quite slow and that a great deal of ordinary DOS software won't work under it, particularly memory resident items such as sicekick or the Mother Jones package. In fact, such items will only function as device drivers, with all sorts of fun commencing with any attempt to install two or more of them at once. And all so that I can allow other people to use my conputer? Maybe IBM and Microsoft haven't gotten the message of the PC revolution: NOBODY uses my computer except me, and THAT is what the micro revolution is about. What about virtual memory and the other wonders of protected mode? Virtual memory was also an accomodation to poverty on multi-user machines for which there was never enough memory. In 15 years of programming, including applications in Cobol, statistics, maximum likelihood modeling, software design and all sorts of things, I have never actually SEEN any application which could not be programmed in 640K, the standard for PC and AT clones these days. Probably 70% of all programs I have ever seen which do anything worthwhile and were well written take less than 64K. True fanatics in need of really BIG arrays will likely find more happiness using the Turbo Extender package with its LIM and virtual arrays than they will looking elsewhere Then there is the possibility of running UNIX on 286 and 386 machines. Unix is my OS of choice for machines which for some legitimate reason HAVE to be multi-user; I can't think of any reason why any sane person should wish to run it on a single user computer, unless they like slow performance, clunky and fragile file systems, lack of standardization, and generally prefer 1976 software, such rubbish as TROFF, VI, ED, YACC etc. to the software of the present. Make no mistake, the DOS software world is casting a giant shadow right now, and UNIX is standing IN that shadow. When the biggest and most critical selling point of all UNIX systems is "runs DOS software", the conclusion to be drawn is obvious. Finally, there will be people telling us we need new kinds of machines to keep up with the Macs, SUNS etc. vis a vis graphics applications. Bullshit! All such things can be outperformed with DOS/PC compatible components AT THE PRESENT, and at a fraction of the cost. EGA graphics blow the MAC away right now, Metheus and several other people have 1024x1024 and 1280x1024 color boards now for which Autocad and DrHalo drivers exist etc. If you can live with black and white, Megascan (412 443-5820) is now marketing a 4096x3300 screen and controller which work with ordinary ATs. And, finally, for people who need to be able to REALLY crunch numbers, do color rendering, ray-drawing etc., or simply always secretely wished to have a personal computer with some reasonable fraction of Cray power, there is the Fairchild Clipper set, 5-8 mips sustained average, 30 mips peak, 2 megaflops etc., with at least one organization selling a complete AT converted this way for less than $8000 right now. Any way I look at it, it appears that the ultimate computer for most people, the inexpensive AT clone, is already here, now, and I think most users know this. Ted Holden HT Enterprises
evan@ndcheg.UUCP (03/23/87)
In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: > Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple > made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine > the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs, > that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything > about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be > undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple > has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now > that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried > they're loosing touch. Actually, I find it very ironic that IBM is now developing a closed system and Apple is releasing slotted versions of their Macs. Evan Bauman Chemical Engineering Univ. of Notre Dame ihnp4!iuvax!ndmath!ndcheg!evan
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (03/23/87)
In article <701@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >Today's generation of cheap XT and AT clones are meeting the needs of >most computer users far better than they have ever been met before, with >hardware and software add-ons to do just about any kind of thing >imaginable doing nothing but getting cheaper and better by the day >and, while I see some areas of applicability for entirely new kinds of >machines, I believe most users would do best to stay right where they >are software-wise, perhaps migrating to stronger 386 based single-user >machines as they become available and inexpensive. > >What I mean is this: that over the next couple of years, numerous >slick-talking people are going to be coming up with all kinds >of reasons for abandoning our happy single-user DOS world and I, for >one, intend to tell all of them to go **** themselves. I can think of many, many reasons why we should switch to a multitasking DOS. Note that I did not say multi-user DOS -- there is no difference between the two. If you have a multitasking DOS, you immediately have multi-user DOS, although you might need to play with it a little bit to put two users on it. >The reasons for >replying thusly to anyone trying to foist a closed-architecture system >on us should be obvious even to the blind. Sure, but who's talking about closed architecture systems? I thought you were talking about operating systems. They're not the same, you know. >Then, there will be the people who claim that DOS isn't a real operating >system. Operating systems are the fruits of poverty, a necessary evil >for computers which have to serve many masters. Owning your own >computer obviates any need for real OSs even as acquiring great wealth >obviates any need for techniques of scrimping. Multi-TASKING can be >achieved in software on a single-user basis quite well without >re-designing your operating system e.g. Mystic Pascal e.g. the article >on concurrency using Turbo Pascal in the 3-86 issue of Dobb's, etc. and >you don't even need an AT or protected modes to do it. All this is true. However, IT IS NOT CONVENIENT TO DO IT THIS WAY. In fact, it's not even easy. Wouldn't life be easier on the developer if he could just fork tasks instead of having to do all the task switching himself? I've done it both ways. I like forking better. Also, the operating system method is usually faster than doing it in the application. >[..] >The April 14 issue of PC Magazine contains an article on the new DOS, >known generally as ADOS, which they refer to as ADOG, claiming that it >is quite slow and that a great deal of ordinary DOS software won't work >under it, particularly memory resident items such as sicekick or the >Mother Jones package. In fact, such items will only function as device >drivers, with all sorts of fun commencing with any attempt to install >two or more of them at once. And all so that I can allow other people >to use my conputer? Maybe IBM and Microsoft haven't gotten the message >of the PC revolution: NOBODY uses my computer except me, and THAT is >what the micro revolution is about. ADOS has to run slow. It's running on a terribly slow machine. Give them a break -- they cannot do miracles. You'll notice that those programs that perform multitasking ALL perform slowly. This is necessary, since you no longer have all of the CPU. As for memory resident software, who cares? The point being: with a multitasking operating system, you no longer need resident software. In BSD UNIX, you can just suspend the job you're working on and run someting else. If you want to go back to the first thing, you can suspend the new thing you started and pop back to the first. This is the essence of resident software, isn't it? To be able to switch between some tasks easily. But with this new twist, ANYTHING can become "resident" software. You might argue that "well, that's fine for BSD UNIX, but what if they don't build in a suspend function?" The answer to that is that it is possible to create a program that will simulate a suspend function, such as the "layers" program in System V UNIX. Any operating system that operates similar to UNIX will be able to have the same functions. If you look at MS-DOS, you can see the UNIX base to it, although they goofed in many areas. I would be surprised if they abandon the UNIX base, because much software depends on it. Therefore, it will be possible to make a suspend function if one is not originally implemented. (in fact, it is possible to kludge one now -- look at microsoft windows, for example, although this is far from optimal and doesn't always work) I thought that the micro revolution put the power of computers in the hands of the masses, not that it made people switch to single user systems. I can't afford a mainframe, but I can afford a PC. Hence I can get a computer now, when I couldn't just a few years ago. This, in my mind, is the result of the micro revolution. >What about virtual memory and the other wonders of protected mode? >Virtual memory was also an accomodation to poverty on multi-user >machines for which there was never enough memory. In 15 years of >programming, including applications in Cobol, statistics, maximum >likelihood modeling, software design and all sorts of things, I have >never actually SEEN any application which could not be programmed in >640K, the standard for PC and AT clones these days. Probably 70% of all >programs I have ever seen which do anything worthwhile and were well >written take less than 64K. True fanatics in need of really BIG arrays >will likely find more happiness using the Turbo Extender package with its >LIM and virtual arrays than they will looking elsewhere I can think of many things that require more than 640K to operate well. Wordprocessors with built-in spell checkers, for example. It's a pain to have to do disk look ups. Much faster to have it in RAM. But you need lots of RAM when your dictionary gets big enough, even using digitally-linked trees like they usually do. Notice that I said "operate well". Again, you can kludge a solution, using disk-swapping and the like, but it's far from optimal. Anything that needs to deal with large amounts of information will eventually need more than 640k. >Then there is the possibility of running UNIX on 286 and 386 machines. >Unix is my OS of choice for machines which for some legitimate reason >HAVE to be multi-user; I can't think of any reason why any sane person >should wish to run it on a single user computer, unless they like slow >performance, clunky and fragile file systems, lack of standardization, >and generally prefer 1976 software, such rubbish as TROFF, VI, ED, YACC >etc. to the software of the present. Make no mistake, the DOS software >world is casting a giant shadow right now, and UNIX is standing IN that >shadow. When the biggest and most critical selling point of all UNIX >systems is "runs DOS software", the conclusion to be drawn is obvious. What? WHAT? You've lost your mind here. [sorry, but this infuriates me] First, no machine is single-user. Only the operating system. It is true that many systems are designed with one user in mind, but you can make it have more than one with the right operating system. While many UNIX things are not new, they work fine. But you fail to see that there are always new programs being developed. Emacs, for example. Graphics stuff. You name it, it exists under UNIX, or could be made if you really wanted to. UNIX does not have a fragile file system. If you think so, you haven't looked closely. MS-DOS, on the other hand, DOES have a fragile file system. If your file system is munched on UNIX, it is possible to partially or completely recover it because of the way the file system is built. If you blow up a part of an MS-DOS file system, you're most likely out of luck. There is little redundancy in MS-DOS, so you'd have trouble rebuilding your filesystem (although CHKDSK does do a pretty good job, considering). My biggest objection here is that UNIX systems advertise that they run DOS software. Maybe so, but who said this is the biggest selling point? I wouldn't consider it to be. The biggest selling point would be that it runs UNIX software, with tens of thousands of programs available, debugged, supported, and even with source code. Be serious. PC's don't shadow UNIX systems. They just haven't been around enough, nor are they powerful enough. >Finally, there will be people telling us we need new kinds of machines >to keep up with the Macs, SUNS etc. vis a vis graphics applications. >Bullshit! All such things can be outperformed with DOS/PC compatible >components AT THE PRESENT, and at a fraction of the cost. EGA graphics >blow the MAC away right now, Metheus and several other people have >1024x1024 and 1280x1024 color boards now for which Autocad and DrHalo >drivers exist etc. If you can live with black and white, Megascan >(412 443-5820) is now marketing a 4096x3300 screen and controller which >work with ordinary ATs. Have you ever seen a Sun workstation? I have yet to see graphics on any PC match that. ANY PC. You might beat it in resolution, but you'll lose out on speed in generating the graphics. More on this later. >And, finally, for people who need to be able to >REALLY crunch numbers, do color rendering, ray-drawing etc., or simply >always secretely wished to have a personal computer with some reasonable >fraction of Cray power, there is the Fairchild Clipper set, 5-8 mips >sustained average, 30 mips peak, 2 megaflops etc., with at least one >organization selling a complete AT converted this way for less than >$8000 right now. OK. Now run something on your supersystem. You have described a $20,000 system (a couple of grand for the machine, a couple of grand for the graphics, 8 grand for the coprocessor, and of course you need a good hard disk). Now is it PC compatible? Bet not. Not 1/100th of the software available will run on it at anything better than normal performance. Your system is no longer in conformance with PC standards. Notice that an enhanced UNIX machine will generally take advantage of enhancements. Usually the compiler or the compiler's library have routines to test for these enhancements and take advantage of them, regardless of how nonstandard they are, and they are used when you compile the program. There is no demand for software that looks for your $8k coprocessor, so nobody makes it, so what good is the coprocessor. >Any way I look at it, it appears that the ultimate computer for most >people, the inexpensive AT clone, is already here, now, and I think most >users know this. True. They're certainly nice. But we really need a nicer operating system -- one which can make software ignore hardware differences and take full advantage of your system. Right now, UNIX is a good choice. I'm not saying it's the best choice, only that it's available. Personally, I would like a Mac-like interface, but with less mouse usage, with multitasking. Note that this, too, can be implemented under any UNIX-like operating system, in the same manner as software that would enable program suspension. >Ted Holden >HT Enterprises Sorry if I upset you with my flame, but it is my feeling that as machines become powerful enough to use better (yes, better!) operating systems, they should do so. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker | UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd H H | ARPA: madd@bucsb.bu.edu H-C-C-OH <- heehee +---------+---------------------------------- H H | "We are strangers in a world we never made"
martyl@rocksvax.UUCP (03/24/87)
In article <701@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >What I mean is this: that over the next couple of years, numerous >slick-talking people are going to be coming up with all kinds >of reasons for abandoning our happy single-user DOS world and I, for >one, intend to tell all of them to go **** themselves. The reasons for >replying thusly to anyone trying to foist a closed-architecture system >on us should be obvious even to the blind. Interesting, the debate of single versus multi user systems comes up again! I agree with a lot of your points, Ted, but you're a little too emphatic to suit me. Giving 1 cpu to everyone is fine, but what about peripherals? I am using a PC AT on the ethernet as a compiling engine, doing all my text editing on a Xerox 6085 (a windowed workstation). I'm currently running MS-DOS, but that will probably change in the near future. In fact, I'm trying to convince my manager and the people I work with to go multi-user in order to get better peripherals (i.e. more RAM, more disks, tape backup, etc.). I figure I use perhaps 1% of the processor cycles available on my PCAT -- on MS/DOS, running with a RAM disk, I just can't believe how fast the machine compiles C programs. 386? (Yeah, it has 32 bit pointers and paged VM). But to run MS/DOS? I don't see why it's necessary. Running multi-user also provides certain economies of scale. People I work with have used Unix Machines in college for coursework. They logon, learn vi and can compile their C programs without problem. The search paths for binaryies, include files, libraries, etc. are already set up in their account. It's a good idea for people to learn about these things, but it takes initiative. Also, to some extent, I'd rather not know about these assorted things which are necessary to use a system. It's often easier and more productive to get help from someone responsible for system maintainance. After all, I'm not really paid to learn how to use my operating system/envir- onment. Single user systems force every one to become expert in system administration tasks. In organizations, it gotta be more efficient to have only a few people good at system administration, the rest can concentrate on their mainline activities. It is also far easier to update system software on multi-user systems than walking around to everyone's machine with the update disk or expecting everyone to do their own updates. When I got my PC it was a painful process to get up to speed on how everything works. Also MS/Dos comes with essentially no software support. All these vendors sell MS/DOS packages which work like unix -- who's in the shadow of who???. At least if I buy and install a Unix system, it comes with a set of utilities which do most of the things I'm gonna wanna do. marty leisner xerox corporation leisner.henr@xerox.com
campbell@maynard.UUCP (03/24/87)
[Ted Holden writes a load of rubbish about how nobody will ever need more
than 640K, and even if they did some random turbo extender crock with
extended memory would suffice... and how operating systems are obsolete...
all omitted for brevity, and to help keep lunches down.]
What a bag of tripe. Ted's PC-brained thinking is a perfect example of the
way microcomputers have set computing BACK ten years. Gee, the PC people
are finally discovering "high level" languages (that is, C), fifteen years
after the computing industry discovered their value.
Operating systems serve two vital purposes. They prevent duplicated
work by providing services required by all applications, and they allow
applications to cooperate by coordinating access to machine resources.
Ted claims that all you need to do to multitask on a PC is to load
nine or ten terminate-and-stay-resident crocks... oh, except don't
forget you have to load Sidekick before Prokey, or is it the other way
around? And it seems like every time I activate my Sidekey Prokick
macro from inside a Frametalk Crosswork buffer my machine locks up and
trashes my FAT... dear me... sure would be nice if there were some
way for these applications to cooperate...
The problem here is that there are certain functions that the operating
system ought to provide, and MS-DOS doesn't. These include:
- reliable file system that scales up to large files well
- graphics
- communications
- multitasking (why force the user to WAIT while the database
index is reorganized?)
- interprocess communication
MS-DOS provides none of these. Not one. Consequently, several hundred
application software developers who NEEDED these facilities reinvented the
same stupid wheel several hundred different ways, and you CAN'T MIX THE
DAMN HACKS TOGETHER in any coherent way. The result is endless articles
and letters in the PC magazines about the forbidden combinations of TSR
programs, and revolting "carousel" hacks that let you load and unload
these gems to prevent collisions. Black magic to ward off the evil
effects of other black magic. Gag.
Folks, it's about time PC software developers stopped reinventing the
wheel, bumping into each other's faces, and stepping on each others
toes. Application writers and users both have the right to expect a
REAL LIVE OPERATING SYSTEM that provides REAL LIVE USEFUL SERVICES on
a PC. UNIX is the best example available today, not because UNIX is
so great, but because everything else STINKS.
Now, none of this means that I support IBM's effort to impose a proprietary
machine/OS standard on the world -- I don't. But it's about time people
realized that MS-DOS is a bad joke that was obsolete the day it was born,
and the sooner we're rid of it, the better.
Eagerly awaiting a decent application development environment on a PC...
but not holding my breath...
--
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 6846mlandau@Diamond.UUCP (03/24/87)
Enough is enough already. This whole discussion is a little premature
and speculative, don't you think? Or has IBM made some recent product
announcement to Usenet that all of the trade journals and newspapers
managed to miss? I find it amusing, to say the least, to see the amount
of time and network bandwidth expended on discussions and flames of
totally fictional products.
--
Matt Landau BBN Laboratories, Inc.
mlandau@diamond.bbn.com 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge MA 02238
...seismo!diamond.bbn.com!mlandau (617) 497-2429darrylo@hpsrlc.UUCP (03/24/87)
In article <855@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) writes: > As for memory resident software, who cares? The point being: with a > multitasking operating system, you no longer need resident software. > In BSD UNIX, you can just suspend the job you're working on and run > someting else. If you want to go back to the first thing, you can I think you're missing the point. One of the *BIG* uses of memory resident software, aside from notepads, calendars, etc. (which can be handled in a multitasking OS), is for programs like keyboard macro programs and programs like CED. I haven't seen any generic keyboard macro programs for UNIX (one which works in most, if not all, programs), and I've only seen VAX VMS with a CED-like feature. For those of you who don't know, CED is a memory resident program that gives the PC an alias and keyboard stack features. If you want to execute/edit a previous command, you simply use the up/down arrow keys to dynamically display the command and use the left/right arrow keys and the insert/delete keys to edit. The alias feature is just that: you can define aliases consisting of one or more commands. -- Darryl Okahata ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!hplabs!hpscda!hpsrla!darrylo <== best path hplabs!hpcea!hpsrla!darrylo <== alternative CompuServe: 75206,3074 Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men that have been following him all day.
chassin@rpics.UUCP (03/24/87)
In article <879@maynard.BSW.COM>, campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) writes: > [Ted Holden writes a load of rubbish about how nobody will ever need more > than 640K, and even if they did some random turbo extender crock with > extended memory would suffice... and how operating systems are obsolete... > all omitted for brevity, and to help keep lunches down.] > > What a bag of tripe. Ted's PC-brained thinking is a perfect example of the > way microcomputers have set computing BACK ten years. Gee, the PC people > are finally discovering "high level" languages (that is, C), fifteen years > after the computing industry discovered their value. I wouldn't be so quick to put down PCs and PC users. The reasons are as follows. First I time warp you back 10 years, and I see you trying to buy a computer for yourself. Yeegads... the prices are outragous, the machines are pityful, the OSs non existent. 3 years later, some nice stuff is beginning to appears, Apple has an innovation... shock waves thru the computing world as a new field is goudged out: PERSONAL COMPUTING!!! Wow, what a concept, a machine the I, and only I use. No more logging in, complicated OS, fabulously expensive machines available only the fabulously wealthy Corps and Research Insts. All of sudden MILLLLLIONS of people have access to something new. Then IBM announces a product: *THE* pc. And it's just that, a standard, that left all other attempts at setting a standard wimpering in the sewers. The PC is a very different concept from mainframe or even mini-computer technology. It serves a different group, purpose, and ideology. Then we (PC users) are told that we are being abandoned. Its not a good feeling... > > Operating systems serve two vital purposes. They prevent duplicated > work by providing services required by all applications, and they allow > applications to cooperate by coordinating access to machine resources. > Ted claims that all you need to do to multitask on a PC is to load > nine or ten terminate-and-stay-resident crocks... oh, except don't > forget you have to load Sidekick before Prokey, or is it the other way > around? And it seems like every time I activate my Sidekey Prokick > macro from inside a Frametalk Crosswork buffer my machine locks up and > trashes my FAT... dear me... sure would be nice if there were some > way for these applications to cooperate... > I use a Sun 2/120 for any intensive work I do. But the ATs we have serve an equally valuable purpose. Word processing on any mini or mainframe is a waste of valuable CPU time, and is an effort. No one needs more than an occasional side-track anyway. My view of the whole thing is that if I need a process intensive environment to hell with the PC/XT/AT type machines. So why is IBM abandoning a proven environment and telling us that this new one will do the same thing, only better? I say this is where we (dedicated PC users) are being dealt alot of excrement. > The problem here is that there are certain functions that the operating > system ought to provide, and MS-DOS doesn't. These include: > > - reliable file system that scales up to large files well > - graphics > - communications > - multitasking (why force the user to WAIT while the database > index is reorganized?) > - interprocess communication > > MS-DOS provides none of these. Not one. Consequently, several hundred > application software developers who NEEDED these facilities reinvented the > same stupid wheel several hundred different ways, and you CAN'T MIX THE > DAMN HACKS TOGETHER in any coherent way. The result is endless articles > and letters in the PC magazines about the forbidden combinations of TSR > programs, and revolting "carousel" hacks that let you load and unload > these gems to prevent collisions. Black magic to ward off the evil > effects of other black magic. Gag. > I disagree with the list in several ways, though indirectly. First the file system is suited to the type of use. If you want a larger environment get of the machine. Second, having ALOT of graphics work (architecture is the MOST demanding of fields in terms of graphics) in my repetoire on a wide variety of machines, I would say that graphics support of the type like MAC, and SunWindows and so on is no good. Its so generic it serves no function efficiently. I prefer grabing a previously designed system or database and using it for my own purposes. Graphics is just too broad a topic to be designed into a system. Third, communications; what? I don't know what you mean. My three AT are more reliable, more efficient, and more to the point over networks (Ethernet) then our Sun 2/120. I DON'T want my AT to work like my Sun, thank you. Fourth, multitasking. What I've got is good enough, although I agree it could be better. I don't think it is necessary to redesign DOS so radically just to plop a program into a background state. That has always mystified me. Fifth, in a limited multitasking environment like I think is desired on PC like machines, I see no need, or room for inter-process communications too be very fancy. Again it could be done without completely restructuring DOS. When you say you're eagerly awaiting a decent applications development environment, I would answer: if you're not satisfied with the product don't use it, and I mean PCs not DOS. I'm not saying that the PC and DOS are an inherently connected gruesome-twosome, I thing there is a great deal of room for improvement in DOSland, but I think it is major mistake to say DOS is trash so let's throw it out and start all over. Too much has been done in the environement, and for IBM to end the line altogether I think is a MAJOR MARKETING MALFUNCTION. As long as they continued to make PCs XTs and ATs there was some control over the quality of machine being made by the clone makers. Now I feel like I'm being thrown to the wolves, and I tells me that way deep down IBM doesn't give a shit (please excuse the language, I try to be civil, but once and while it helps to be explicit) about the millions of people they conned into believing they cared about really doing something for the computer industry. Let's not forget that IBM set the standard in the long run, whether it's hardware or attitude. And the attitude there new policy suggests is that PC users don't make us enough money so let's bag 'em. Frankly I'm scared that I'm about to buy a machine (I want an AT clone) which in two years nobody will be making anything for. Vision of TRS-80, Apple II, et al. Don't you think we deserve better consideration than that? Hopefully there'll be enough of a market to keep the competition between the clone marker up, and hopefully they won't try be suckered into trying to work there way into a non-existant market IBM is trying to make for there new 'baby'. These are my opinions, so flame as you see fit... Dave Chassin PS: for those of you who were wondering why we discuss this now, before the fact: I think it's a damn sight better than after the fact... maybe enough noise might change IBM mind about dropping the PC line. _____________________ David P. Chassin Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | School of Architecture __+__ Troy, NY 12181 / _ \ USA | | | | /=======/ = \=======\ (518) 266-6461 | _ | _ | _ | | | | | | | | | | | chassin@csv.rpi.edu | = | | | | = | =======================================================================
cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (03/25/87)
In article <105@ndcheg.UUCP>, evan@ndcheg.UUCP (Evan Bauman) writes: > Actually, I find it very ironic that IBM is now developing a closed > system and Apple is releasing slotted versions of their Macs. > > Evan Bauman I would speculate that IBM believes they can successfully sell a box with proprietary innards but a public bus, to millions of businesses out there. If you look at the Mac II and the rumored PC-III or whatever it is called (I vote for IBM PC/PT [proprietary technology]) they are exactly the same strategy arrived at by two giants in the PC world. Keep the foreign manufacturers in the Add-in board business and out of the main box business. -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
edwards@uwmacc.UUCP (03/25/87)
In article <1029@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
:Apple has an innovation... shock waves thru the computing world as a new
:field is goudged out: PERSONAL COMPUTING!!! Wow, what a concept, a machine the
:I, and only I use. No more logging in, complicated OS, fabulously expensive
:machines available only the fabulously wealthy Corps and Research Insts. All
:of sudden MILLLLLIONS of people have access to something new. Then IBM
:announces a product: *THE* pc. And it's just that, a standard, that left
:all other attempts at setting a standard wimpering in the sewers. The PC
:is a very different concept from mainframe or even mini-computer technology.
:It serves a different group, purpose, and ideology. Then we (PC users) are
:told that we are being abandoned. Its not a good feeling...
You are only partly right. Being able to buy your own computer
was certainly significant, but being single user with no logins
was not even an issue. Why? Because a multiuser/multitasking system
was not available. Only now are these systems becoming cheap enough
for the average person. I am sure if you gave these people the choice
between an Apple 2 and a computer with the power of an 8600 with a
decent operating system for the same price, they would not choose
the Apple 2. If I could have bought a 386 instead of the Apple I
did buy, I would be much happier now. I'm sure that this goes for
many people, if not all.
mark
--
edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706dmt@mtunb.UUCP (03/26/87)
There's been A LOT to comment on in this discussion, but I've seen more heat than light through most of it. But "Jack" tweaked a pet peeve of mine, so here goes.... In article <855@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) writes: > >OK. Now run something on your supersystem. You have described a >$20,000 system (a couple of grand for the machine, a couple of grand >for the graphics, 8 grand for the coprocessor, and of course you need >a good hard disk). Now is it PC compatible? Bet not. Not 1/100th of >the software available will run on it at anything better than normal >performance. Your system is no longer in conformance with PC >standards. Notice that an enhanced UNIX machine will generally take >advantage of enhancements. So true, but WHY? It isn't inherent in ALL of MSDOS, or even in its lack of multitasking. I maintain that it boils down to two things: 1. MSDOS depends for its I/O on a BIOS whose primitives are insufficiently powerful. 2. Ironically, the very popularity of one hardware implementation (the IBM "standard") doomed MSDOS to be "forever" single-tasking, non-portable, and all those other things we dislike. Here's the reasoning. Because the BIOS primitive are REALLY primitive, there was no way to get performance on an MSDOS machine. Prime examples live in the video portion of the BIOS; it requires a separate call for each character OR EACH PIXEL you want to touch. Each call requires (1) an interrupt with all its overhead, (2) determining the type of display and its current mode, (3) computing the address in the display map FROM SCRATCH, and (4) finally doing what the call is supposed to do. Can you imagine how your machine crawls when it has to go through this for each pixel? This presents application developers with a problem. They could write directly to the display map, and be non-portable; or they could use the DOS and/or BIOS calls and have rotten performance. If they had to sell 10 different non-portable versions to bypass the BIOS, this would have been a tough choice. But by 1983 or so, it became clear that one hardware implementation represented 95% of all MSDOS instances, and the percentage would only rise from there. This got the developers off the hook; THERE WAS NO MARKET NEED FOR PORTABILITY among MSDOS implementations -- they could ignore the <5% of not-quite-compatibles out there and go for speed. The result has been that many of the popular programs for DOS machines are "ill-behaved" in the sense that they go around the BIOS and use the hardware directly. (Examples: for performance [almost everybody's video], for copy protection, for "hot-key" multitasking.) This not only prevents portability, IT PREVENTS CLEAN MULTITASKING! I've written lots of low-level software for DOS machines (including a multitasker), and every one had its biggest problems running with applications that bypassed the BIOS. No, I'll go further -- there would have been no need for cleverness on my part to do ANY of those fun hacks if all applications had used the BIOS. They could have been homework problems for an undergraduate course in operating systems. Can what I'm saying be true? Isn't MSDOS about to get multitasking? Well, if you read the fine print from Microsoft, the new multitasking products will require recompiling and usually rewriting applications. They will not, in general, run .EXEs that ran under DOS 2.x or 3.x. They certainly won't run ill-behaved pre-existing applications (well, maybe one, given certain hardware aids). Why hasn't UNIX succumbed to this problem? In my opinion, its saving grace so far has been the failure of a single hardware implementation to take over the UNIX market. For UNIX, portability isn't so much a virtue as a necessity. Now my employer has announced the intent of setting a "binary standard" for 386-based UNIX. To the extent that we succeed, we MAY give application developers motivation to use the implementation rather than the interface (exactly the DOS problem, if my theory is right). We had better look to our interfaces, and make sure they're both powerful enough and sufficiently easy to use that application developers won't be too tempted. My personal view of where we may be vulnerable is in the display interface; I hope that curses for character screens and something (X-Windows? Something else?) for graphics screens do the trick. ---------------------- DISCLAIMER - These opinions are my own. I am not in a position to know my employer's opinion in this matter. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (03/27/87)
In article <1029@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >In article <879@maynard.BSW.COM>, campbell@maynard.BSW.COM (Larry Campbell) writes: >First I time warp you back 10 years, and I see you trying to buy a computer >for yourself. Yeegads... the prices are outragous, the machines are pityful, >the OSs non existent. 3 years later, some nice stuff is beginning to appears, >Apple has an innovation... shock waves thru the computing world as a new >field is goudged out: PERSONAL COMPUTING!!! Wow, what a concept, a machine the >I, and only I use. No more logging in, complicated OS, fabulously expensive >machines available only the fabulously wealthy Corps and Research Insts. All >of sudden MILLLLLIONS of people have access to something new. Then IBM >announces a product: *THE* pc. And it's just that, a standard, that left >all other attempts at setting a standard wimpering in the sewers. The PC >is a very different concept from mainframe or even mini-computer technology. >It serves a different group, purpose, and ideology. Then we (PC users) are >told that we are being abandoned. Its not a good feeling... It appears to me that few PC users have seen IBM marketing strategies. IBM does not care about the single PC user. It never has. If it did, the original PC would not have had such a high failure rate. If it did, it would not have abandoned the original PCjr owners. If it did, it would not have abandoned the System/23 owners. IBM saved face with the PCjr by giving away real keyboards -- a good idea for a company whose reputation (at least in part) was built around the Selectric. More recently, IBM failed to inform users that there was a high probability that the hard drive in their new AT would fail in six months or less. Nice work, IBM. Do not honor IBM for introducing the PC. They were looking for a low end market entry. The PC was wildly successful there, mostly, as has been pointed out, because there was nothing else. For the first time, users got to see a fraction of the power of computers. Then, as the PC was seen to be slow and out of date (other personal computers were being introduced that shamed the PC), IBM saw fit to introduce the AT. Fantastic. Another rush. But IBM faced two problems. The AT was potentially powerful enough to eat a chunk out of the System/36 line. So IBM, in its infinite wisdom, decided to be conservative and hold the AT's clock rate down to 6MHz. Don't flame me on this -- I have the original product announcements. The bus was specifically designed with 8MHz in mind. The chips could do it at the time. So why keep it slow? To save money somewhere. This slowed the impact on their other market. The second problem was clones. They were eating bigger and bigger chunks out of PC sales. The introduction of the AT started AT clones. In general, the clone makers did not conform to the conservatism of IBM. They used higher clock rates. They built in more functions. They gave away software for free. They outplayed IBM in everything but documentation, and some even did that. IBM cannot afford to introduce a PC-like model that uses the 80386, unless they substantially improve the state of their System/36 (which they have been trying, you might note). An 80386 machine with a decent operating system will easily outperform the basic System/36. Where would the advantage be then? Clone makers would step in and take over again. Therefore, when IBM announces it's "new" PC, you can expect several things. * closed architecture. It worked in the past. * proprietary operating system/chips. No clones. * expensive. It may replace the /36, so it will be at least half the cost, or about $10-15,000. Compare this to the cost of the Compaq 386. * initial problems. I know of no innovative IBM product that did not have serious problems when introduced. Some, like the /23, were never fixed -- they were just abandoned. * limited PC compatibility. IBM isn't stupid, but they cannot continue to use MS-DOS on powerful machines, for many reasons. The first is that the machine will be mostly redesigned. The second will be that the OS will be multitasking. Look for a VM-style introduction, so that you can run MS-DOS *and* IBM's proprietary OS. You may notice that I said "when". Not "if". I've been hearing an April 2 announcement date, and late 1987 production date. In a week we'll know for sure, won't we? I'm putting my money on it. >I use a Sun 2/120 for any intensive work I do. But the ATs we have serve >an equally valuable purpose. Word processing on any mini or mainframe >is a waste of valuable CPU time, and is an effort. No one needs more >than an occasional side-track anyway. My view of the whole thing is >that if I need a process intensive environment to hell with the PC/XT/AT >type machines. So why is IBM abandoning a proven environment and telling >us that this new one will do the same thing, only better? I say this >is where we (dedicated PC users) are being dealt alot of excrement. This I completely agree with. I also don't see the need for tying up a mainframe to type a simple paper. I also see that you noticed that IBM *is* striking a low blow to PC owners. Like I said before, what else is new? >> The problem here is that there are certain functions that the operating >> system ought to provide, and MS-DOS doesn't. These include: >> >> - reliable file system that scales up to large files well >> - graphics >> - communications >> - multitasking (why force the user to WAIT while the database >> index is reorganized?) >> - interprocess communication >> >> MS-DOS provides none of these. [...] >I disagree with the list in several ways, though indirectly. First the >file system is suited to the type of use. If you want a larger environment >get of the machine. Ah! True. The PC file structure is fine for a PC, with limited exceptions. If you want better, get a different OS. With AT class machines and better, you really don't need a better machine. Just get rid of MS-DOS with its poor i/o handling and file structure. >Second, having ALOT of graphics work (architecture is >the MOST demanding of fields in terms of graphics) in my repetoire on a >wide variety of machines, I would say that graphics support of the type >like MAC, and SunWindows and so on is no good. Its so generic it serves no >function efficiently. I prefer grabing a previously designed system or >database and using it for my own purposes. Graphics is just too broad a >topic to be designed into a system. True. If you really need graphics, the stuff already exists. Graphics is a difficult thing, anyway. When you need it, you need it bad. Otherwise, the better graphics are nice but not necessary. I like the PC method of buying a card to fit your needs. I notice the new Macs are doing that, too. Apple is a smart company. Expect to hear a lot more from them. >Fourth, multitasking. What I've got is >good enough, although I agree it could be better. I don't think it >is necessary to redesign DOS so radically just to plop a program into >a background state. That has always mystified me. Fifth, in a limited >multitasking environment like I think is desired on PC like machines, I see >no need, or room for inter-process communications too be very fancy. Again >it could be done without completely restructuring DOS. No. If you look at MS-DOS, you see that they were attempting to design a multitasking system. It "feels" to me like they decided it just wasn't worth the trouble. They were right, for a PC. Right now they are rewriting MS-DOS completely. Microsoft is not stupid. They know that the days of MS-DOS are numbered. There is VERY limited interprocess comunication on a PC. Pipes classify as "interprocess communication", right? Well, if you have multiple processes, you really need communication between them. The groundwork for this type of communication is very, very simple and could be written into DOS with few changes. The only problem is that you can't write multitasking into DOS without lots of changes. >When you say you're eagerly awaiting a decent applications development >environment, I would answer: if you're not satisfied with the product don't >use it, and I mean PCs not DOS. I'm not saying that the PC and DOS are an >inherently connected gruesome-twosome, I thing there is a great deal of >room for improvement in DOSland, but I think it is major mistake to say >DOS is trash so let's throw it out and start all over. Bravo! You're right on the money here. I really don't want to throw out my copy of PC-Write just yet. I don't say "abondon DOS". I say "improve it." >Too much has been >done in the environement, and for IBM to end the line altogether I think >is a MAJOR MARKETING MALFUNCTION. As long as they continued to make PCs >XTs and ATs there was some control over the quality of machine being made >by the clone makers. A minor point here. Almost all of the clones I have dealt with are of superior quality than IBM. The faults show up when you have a problem -- the PC may be a good product, but often the support is not. IBM can't hardly be given credit for a reliable machine -- theirs is average, no better. Sometime you should get hold of first-use failure rates for different brands of PC's. I won't tell you the results -- you can guess. My personal experience supports the statistics. >Now I feel like I'm being thrown to the wolves, and >I tells me that way deep down IBM doesn't give a shit (please excuse the >language, I try to be civil, but once and while it helps to be explicit) >about the millions of people they conned into believing they cared about >really doing something for the computer industry. Let's not forget that >IBM set the standard in the long run, whether it's hardware or attitude. And >the attitude there new policy suggests is that PC users don't make us enough >money so let's bag 'em. Frankly I'm scared that I'm about to buy a machine >(I want an AT clone) which in two years nobody will be making >anything for. This could be a problem. In the past, IBM continued to support dead machines for some time, at least in a limited sense. However, the PC is a different animal. IBM does not market much software for the PC. It won't support much, then. So when the PC dies, the vendors are likely to move away. Expect software for awhile though, as I'll explain: >Vision of TRS-80, Apple II, et al. Don't you think we deserve better >consideration than that? I've used Apple II machines. They have a damn good support base. New software all the time. It's a matter of installed systems -- how many people have IBM PC's? Lots. Expect support for a long time. The TRS-80 line was different. TRS-80's were bad machines from start to finish. Take apart one sometime. Most of the older ones have cardboard for circuit boards. Not exactly good designing. Also, the operating system they offer(ed) is (was) not so good. >Hopefully there'll be enough of a market to keep >the competition between the clone marker up, and hopefully they won't >try be suckered into trying to work there way into a non-existant market >IBM is trying to make for there new 'baby'. > >These are my opinions, so flame as you see fit... I did :-) These too are my opinions [interspersed with some facts -- anyone caring to look at IBM's history of microcomputers will see that they haven't exactly been nice]. I welcome any discussions/flames. >Dave Chassin > >PS: for those of you who were wondering why we discuss this now, before >the fact: I think it's a damn sight better than after the fact... maybe >enough noise might change IBM mind about dropping the PC line. It probably won't (although I remember the PCjr...), but you're right. If some small business gets a new Mac instead of a new IBM and the new IBM flops, we've saved somebody a hard time. Let's keep this stuff out in the open, where it can do some good. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker | UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd H H | ARPA: madd@bucsb.bu.edu H-C-C-OH <- heehee +---------+---------------------------------- H H | "We are strangers in a world we never made"
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (03/27/87)
In article <701@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: >What about virtual memory and the other wonders of protected mode? >Virtual memory was also an accomodation to poverty on multi-user >machines for which there was never enough memory. In 15 years of >programming, including applications in Cobol, statistics, maximum >likelihood modeling, software design and all sorts of things, I have >never actually SEEN any application which could not be programmed in >640K, the standard for PC and AT clones these days. Probably 70% of all ^^^^^ Given enough time I could do anything on a 64k CP/M machine that I can do on a Cray. If you like simple, small computers, get a Turing machine! Putting big problems in small machines is an exercise, not the right way to do it. >programs I have ever seen which do anything worthwhile and were well >written take less than 64K. True fanatics in need of really BIG arrays >will likely find more happiness using the Turbo Extender package with its >LIM and virtual arrays than they will looking elsewhere > >Then there is the possibility of running UNIX on 286 and 386 machines. >Unix is my OS of choice for machines which for some legitimate reason >HAVE to be multi-user; I can't think of any reason why any sane person >should wish to run it on a single user computer, unless they like slow >performance, clunky and fragile file systems, lack of standardization, >and generally prefer 1976 software, such rubbish as TROFF, VI, ED, YACC >etc. to the software of the present. Make no mistake, the DOS software >world is casting a giant shadow right now, and UNIX is standing IN that >shadow. When the biggest and most critical selling point of all UNIX >systems is "runs DOS software", the conclusion to be drawn is obvious. There are a lot on nice applications for DOS. My opinion is that using DOS to run DOS software is like diving for pearls in a cesspool. It's rewarding, but unpleasant. (You may quote me on that). The major reason I got a 386 machine was to run DOS software under UNIX. Running software development under UNIX on an AT yields better tools, faster compile time, having editors not limited to 640k, and running things in the background. I do sometimes run CodeView to debug something really nasty, but that's one of the "pearls" I mentiond before. I can get good spreadsheets, good communications, good databases, and I can take them all with me. I run on machines ranging from an XT to a Cray2, and there is nothing better than portability. Having just done an evaluation of clone compatibility for my company, I can tell you that we found a total of one AT clone which was reasonably compatible. All others tested fell short by some measure. So much for compatibility and portability. -- bill davidsen sixhub \ ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz -> crdos1!davidsen chinet / ARPA: davidsen%crdos1.uucp@ge-crd.ARPA (or davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)
news@umnd-cs.UUCP (03/28/87)
In article <871@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) writes: >>Vision of TRS-80, Apple II, et al. Don't you think we deserve better >>consideration than that? > >I've used Apple II machines. They have a damn good support base. New >software all the time. It's a matter of installed systems -- how many ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ~700,000 TRS-80, Z-80, machines, not a bad market size for a GOOD program. >people have IBM PC's? Lots. Expect support for a long time. > >The TRS-80 line was different. TRS-80's were bad machines from start >to finish. Take apart one sometime. Most of the older ones have >cardboard for circuit boards. Not exactly good designing. Also, the ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Haven't seen this. Model's 3 & 4 are very good designs. >operating system they offer(ed) is (was) not so good. I'll take LS-DOS/TRSDOS over Apple's DOS any day; can you say UGLY,^D, file manipulation? I don't know what kind of TRS-80 Mr. Frost used/saw, if any. All the TRS-80's I've worked with had PC boards of equal or better quality than PC's. As far as the OS goes it is leaps and bounds better than the OS apple has/had. From 1979 on the Dos had I/O redirection and other features that weren't "discovered" till the MSDOS machines showed up. There is alot of TRS-80 software as well; the TRS-80 line has been around since August of 1977. One point missing in this article is the fact that most of the ideas in MS-DOS came from other systems that were available before the IBM PC. If I have a dime for everytime I heard someone say, "Oh, this xxx was first used by MS-DOS", when in fact it had been used in an earlier dos, I'd be a VERY rich man. Some more comments: 8 bit machines can do about 70% of what a PC can do. Because of the brain-damaged intel design of the 8088, segment memory addressing, alot of what you assume would need 16 bit power really doesn't. A good 8 bit programmer, using bankswitching, can usually achieve the same results as his 8088 16 bit counter-part. I'll admit that there are applications where 16 or more bits are nice to have, huge databases and such, but alot of the more common uses of PC's, like word processing, can be done just as well on VERY inexpensive 8 bit systems; 16 bits doesn't make a computer better, good programming makes a computer better. Take a look at the few remaining 8 bit machines, I think you'll be surprised at what you will find. -Rob Healey University of Minnesota, Duluth rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu #include <std/disclaimers.h>
sbanner1@uvicctr.UUCP (03/29/87)
In article <3320008@hpsrlc.HP.COM> darrylo@hpsrlc.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) writes: >In article <855@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP >(Jim "Jack" Frost) writes: > >> As for memory resident software, who cares? The point being: with a >> multitasking operating system, you no longer need resident software. >> In BSD UNIX, you can just suspend the job you're working on and run >> someting else. If you want to go back to the first thing, you can > >I think you're missing the point. One of the *BIG* uses of memory >resident software, aside from notepads, calendars, etc. (which can be >handled in a multitasking OS), is for programs like keyboard macro >programs and programs like CED. I haven't seen any generic keyboard >macro programs for UNIX (one which works in most, if not all, >programs), and I've only seen VAX VMS with a CED-like feature. > >For those of you who don't know, CED is a memory resident program >that gives the PC an alias and keyboard stack features. If you want >to execute/edit a previous command, you simply use the up/down arrow keys to >dynamically display the command and use the left/right arrow keys >and the insert/delete keys to edit. The alias feature is just that: >you can define aliases consisting of one or more commands. Funny, so far, I have had CED work at the DOS level... And well, I know that being able to use the arrow keys to edit my command line is just soooo Awsome, but some how I just keep wishing I had a csh for my PC clone. But I guess it is really just me that is brain dammaged, not my PC, and DOS. Well I guess it is nice to hear that I didn't spend so much money on a machine that is as brain dammaged as I have always considered it, but I would still like to run my compiles while reading the news... But I guess that is why we have newspapers now hey??? :-) S. John Banner UUCP ...!{uw-beaver,ubc-vision}!uvicctr!sol!sbanner1 BITNET ccsjb@uvvm ARPA sbanner1@sol.UVIC.CDN #1 1121 Fort St. Victoria BC. Canada V8V 3K9 PS. I do like my PC, and I don't want to give it up, I would just like to see it running a real OS.
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (03/30/87)
There have been several postings about "well behaved" and "ill behaved"
program. I would like to offer a suggestion for classifying these
programs, in order to clarify what problems are caused by each.
Class 1: "well behaved" - performs all i/o via calls to the BDOS and
assumes nothing about memory outside its own program space. Example:
Microsoft C.
Class 2: "Reasonably well behaved" - performs all its i/o via calls to
the BDOS or BIOS. Does not use memory outside its own program space.
Class 3: "direct screen writes" - performs all i/o except screen write
(or reads) by calls to the BDOS or BIOS. Does not issue any IN or OUT
instructions. Does not use any memory except the screen memory and its
own program space.
Class 4: "ill behaved" - issues any IN or OUT instructions, writes in
system memory, reads data from the tables at the start of the BDOS, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Having defined my terms, I believe that class 1, 2, and 3 programs will
run on IBM's new hardware, class 4 will not.
I have often wonderd why people diddle i/o ports directly. Going
directly to the screen memory is obviously a big performance win (as is
using int 29h to write to the screen driver), but hopefully no one is
changing the screen mode or the serial baudrates, etc, often enough to
need the performance of direct i/o.
--
bill davidsen sixhub \
ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz -> crdos1!davidsen
chinet /
ARPA: davidsen%crdos1.uucp@ge-crd.ARPA (or davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)chassin@rpics.UUCP (04/01/87)
In article <1353@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > > There have been several postings about "well behaved" and "ill behaved" > program. I would like to offer a suggestion for classifying these > programs, in order to clarify what problems are caused by each. > > Class 4: "ill behaved" - issues any IN or OUT instructions, writes in > system memory, reads data from the tables at the start of the BDOS, etc. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- The problem is that you have given the necessary conditions for any reasonably good graphics program. Every CAD system MUST bypass DOS functions because there are no DOS functions for graphics. What to do? Dave _____________________ David P. Chassin Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | School of Architecture __+__ Troy, NY 12181 / _ \ USA | | | | /=======/ = \=======\ (518) 266-6461 | _ | _ | _ | | | | | | | | | | | chassin@csv.rpi.edu | = | | | | = | ========================================================================= The above is my opinion, and mine alone. The organization I work for may refute these statements at any time. They are however more likely to take credit for them at any time. =========================================================================
jpn@teddy.UUCP (04/01/87)
>I have often wonderd why people diddle i/o ports directly. Going >directly to the screen memory is obviously a big performance win (as is >using int 29h to write to the screen driver), but hopefully no one is >changing the screen mode or the serial baudrates, etc, often enough to >need the performance of direct i/o. If IBM had provided a "write multiple characters to screen" entry point in the BIOS, there would be no reason for any program to access screen hardware directly! Because of this strange oversight, people started coding AROUND the bios. The same can be said of the RS232 - since the bios support is so minimal, any sophisticated program is FORCED to go around it. I'm not sure why anyone would want to write their program to diddle the screen hardware ports directly, but I have written communications software, and it is my opinion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to write any reasonable communications software WITHOUT doing INs and OUTs! The ROM bios entry points don't give you sufficient control over the rs232, and the standard BDOS support for STDAUX is a joke.
dmt@mtunb.UUCP (04/01/87)
In article <1353@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> davidsen@kbsvax.steinmetz.UUCP (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > >There have been several postings about "well behaved" and "ill behaved" >program. I would like to offer a suggestion for classifying these >programs, in order to clarify what problems are caused by each. >... [ definitions of 4 classes ] I like your classes. >I have often wonderd why people diddle i/o ports directly. Going >directly to the screen memory is obviously a big performance win (as is >using int 29h to write to the screen driver), but hopefully no one is >changing the screen mode or the serial baudrates, etc, often enough to >need the performance of direct i/o. OK, here are a few things that "Class 4 ill-behaved" programs (the ***REAL UGLIES*** in your classification) do all the time: - If you buy the performance need for writing to display RAM, then remember that moving the cursor requires I/O to a 6845 register. - The serial port BIOS calls are so brain-damaged as to be useless at more than 300 baud. Every communications program I've seen for MSDOS machines have their own I/O interface to the serial port. (Editorial comment - this is not a BIOS implementation problem; it's an architectural screw-up. There's no non-blocking READ in the BIOS.) - There is no BIOS or DOS function to access the speaker port. If you want to do anything more than a standard "beep" (putc (7) ), you've got to do explicit OUTs. There are others, but these are probably the most common. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2442 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
romero@mind.UUCP (04/03/87)
In article <3320008@hpsrlc.HP.COM>, darrylo@hpsrlc.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) writes: > In article <855@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP > (Jim "Jack" Frost) writes: > > ... and I've only seen VAX VMS with a CED-like feature. > > For those of you who don't know, CED is a memory resident program > that gives the PC an alias and keyboard stack features. If you want > to execute/edit a previous command, you simply use the up/down arrow keys to > dynamically display the command and use the left/right arrow keys > and the insert/delete keys to edit. The alias feature is just that: > you can define aliases consisting of one or more commands. Sounds like you've got ksh-envy. ksh, or the Korn-shell, is a version of the shell compatible with the Bourne shell and available on the majority of the System V machines I've seen, as well as some of the 4.2BSD machines. It includes functions like aliases and command history editing, with the full set of emacs or vi commands available for your editing pleasure. One of the nice things about Unix is that you get to put any shell you can come up with on it... if you so hate the features you're given, write a new one yourself... :-) (although wouldn't changing command.com on your PC's do same thing?) -Antonio Romero princeton!mind!romero Disclaimer: Blame only me.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/04/87)
> You're making an unstated assumption that a closed system is a mistake. > A mistake for whom? Actually, closed systems done right can be pretty good. Apple's mistake was not in making the original Mac a closed box, but in not making the box big enough. Give the original Mac a lot more memory, an internal hard disk, and maybe a SCSI port on the back, and the Mac would rival the IBM PC by now. (As it is, it's a significant force on a less exalted level.) The trick would have been doing that while keeping the price under control and meeting the same delivery date. Sun sells a whole lot of Sun-3/50's, which are very closed boxes. They really do not have quite enough memory to run Sun's elephantine Berklix- derivative system, but otherwise they are fine machines. I doubt that IBM's new boxes are going to be a tremendous success (the nameplate alone is enough to make them a modest success), but that's because from what I hear, they just aren't very impressive machines. In that sense, IBM *is* repeating Apple's mistake. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
catone@dsl.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (04/08/87)
In article <659@mind.UUCP> romero@mind.UUCP (Antonio Romero) writes: >In article <3320008@hpsrlc.HP.COM>, darrylo@hpsrlc.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) writes: > >One of the nice things about Unix is that you get to put any shell you >can come up with on it... if you so hate the features you're given, >write a new one yourself... :-) >(although wouldn't changing command.com on your PC's do same thing?) >-Antonio Romero princeton!mind!romero >Disclaimer: Blame only me. Indeed changing Command.com would do the same thing. Unfortunately, a great many of the "replacement" shells for DOS are merely extensions that sit on top of Command.com and let it do all the really grungy work. My objection to these is that they leave you saddled with all the Command.com internal defects, i.e. lots of things don't work quite the way they should because Command.com won't let it work this way. Be wary when shopping for other shells. - Tony catone@dsl.cis.upenn.edu catone@wharton.upenn.edu