mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (09/15/88)
Has anyone heard the report (not confirmed) about Compac, Tandy, and about
4 other major IBM PC clone makers who have joined together to issue a
statement that they will no longer support IBM MicroChannel Architecture?
From what I heard, Compaq is leading the challenge. If this is the case,
this could be the start of the downfall of the PS/2 line. I guess it is
just a matter of time before some challenges the accepted leader.
If this is true, what does it mean? Does this mean the Apple should
stop trying to compete with IBM, instead to focus their attention on
Compaq? Will Compaq be the new IBM? (I hope not).
While I'm on the subject of rumors, has anyone heard that IBM is planning
to release a new PS/2 Model 35 that goes back to the old AT bus? Maybe
IBM has decided to abandon there own creation?
Enough rumors for now,
Michael Niehaus
Ball State University
p.s. I heard the first rumor from an Apple sales representative. He said
that it came to him from farther up the Apple chain of command. He
also confirmed the existance of the new Mac IIX which contains the
68030 processor. He could not, however, confirm that Apple has
given the go-ahead to Sony to begin producing small color monitors
(what could those be for?).rps@homxc.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (09/15/88)
In article <3959@bsu-cs.UUCP>, mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > Has anyone heard the report (not confirmed) about Compac, Tandy, and about > 4 other major IBM PC clone makers who have joined together to issue a > statement that they will no longer support IBM MicroChannel Architecture? Recalled from memory of a PC-Week article: A group of compatible makers have banded together to develop an enhanced AT bus that allows some of the "advanced" (e.g. multiprocessor) features of the microchannel. They are nearing an announcement of their strategic commitment to this new bus. IBM is trying to divide-and-conquer this group by giving some (maybe Compaq) cheap rights to the MC. About 3 weeks ago, PC-Week also ran an aritcle that stated that IBM was planning to introduce a "PS/2 model 35" which featured, among other things, an AT compatible bus. IBM was pretty upset about this article (PC Week mentioned in subsequent issues) and is probably now trying to decide should they swallow their pride and introduce the machine or scrap it. The announcement was scheduled for September. Russ Sharples homxc!rps NOTE: The above in NO WAY reflects the opinions of AT&T. These opinions are my own and the results of un-scientific and highly irregular analysis methods.
payne@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Andrew Payne) (09/16/88)
In article <3959@bsu-cs.UUCP> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >Has anyone heard the report (not confirmed) about Compac, Tandy, and about >4 other major IBM PC clone makers who have joined together to issue a >statement that they will no longer support IBM MicroChannel Architecture? I don't know if it's related, but my Sept 12 issue of _InfoWorld_ has a front page article about a bunch of vendors backing EISA (Extended Industry Standard Architecture). It seems that _40_ vendors, led by Compaq, are putting their weight behind EISA, "a 32-bit bus fully compatible w/ IBM's Personal Computer AT bus, and which will work with 8-bit and 16-bit XT and AT boards. The proposed specification offers not only AT-compatiblity but reportedly has performance values comperable to IBM's MCA" This doesn't seem like a rumor, it's a front page article! > >From what I heard, Compaq is leading the challenge. If this is the case, >this could be the start of the downfall of the PS/2 line. I guess it is >just a matter of time before some challenges the accepted leader. > I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is the start of the downfall of the PS/2 line, I would say that it is a *VERY VERY* interesting development. -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Andrew C. Payne UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu PHONE: +1 607 253 2776 USMAIL: 5428 Cls '26-UHall 5 Ithaca, NY 14853
rlb@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Robert Lee Bailey) (09/16/88)
In article <3959@bsu-cs.UUCP> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >Has anyone heard the report (not confirmed) about Compac, Tandy, and about >4 other major IBM PC clone makers who have joined together to issue a >statement that they will no longer support IBM MicroChannel Architecture? > I don't know about Compaq and the others, but, Tandy just released a PS/2 compatible and according to what I've read, Tandy was licensed by IBM to do so. Since its unlikely that Tandy would release a new micro-channel machine and then say they won't support its architecture, I wouldn't put too much faith in that rumor. Bob Bailey
mlinar@eve.usc.edu (Mitch Mlinar) (09/17/88)
In article <6281@xanth.cs.odu.edu> rlb@cs.odu.edu (Robert Lee Bailey) writes: > >I don't know about Compaq and the others, but, Tandy just released a >PS/2 compatible and according to what I've read, Tandy was licensed by >IBM to do so. Since its unlikely that Tandy would release a new >micro-channel machine and then say they won't support its architecture, >I wouldn't put too much faith in that rumor. > It is not a rumor. It is fact and has already happened with the bus standard signing up nearly 40 companies including AST Research, Compaq, Tandy, Intel, Zenith, etc. The standard is just that. It does not say what you can/cannot do with other machines you have (which in the case of Tandy was done long before this standard - why toss out an existing product?). It just says that this is a bus standard that you won't have to pay IBM to license and are assured that if you put something out in non-MCA, there is an predefined architecture that is supported by others. -Mitch
Howard_Reed_Johnson@cup.portal.com (09/17/88)
In a recent article, mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) states: > While I'm on the subject of rumors, has anyone heard that IBM is planning > to release a new PS/2 Model 35 that goes back to the old AT bus? Maybe > IBM has decided to abandon there own creation? My understanding is that the Model 35 corrects a deficiency in the Model 30 -- the 8086 in the Model 30 is replaced by an 80286 in the Model 35.