vita@sunbarney.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) (04/27/88)
In article <5823@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: >> P.S. Ever notice any similarities? : > >> Apple II - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, >> drive, 1979 >> IBM PC - 8-bit machine, open architecture, slots, keyboard, video, >> drive, 1982 > >8-bit machine? News to me. If you're going to call the Mac a 32-bit machine, >you durn well ought to call the PC a 16-bit one. Fair enough. >> Macintosh - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, 3 1/2 inch disks, >> circa 1984 > >You forgot: Closed architecture, True, but as a former 128K Mac owner, I think that this was less of a disadvantage than you might think. Note that most of so-called "expansion slots" in a PC are not used for "expansion" at all, but rather for basic necessities such as a video controller, disk drive controllers, clock chips, serial/parallel ports, etc. -- all of which were *built in* to even the 128K Macintosh (along with the AppleTalk networking capability). I found that the only really important thing that the lack of a bus made difficult was memory expansion. (Although note that on later, busless Macs such as the Mac Plus, memory expansion was made much easier by the use of SIMM technology. Opening a Mac Plus and dropping in a couple of SIMMs is about as easy as opening a PC and dropping in a memory card.) > only 128K RAM, This situation existed only for a short time. As of 1986, the standard Mac came with 1 megabyte of memory. Right now, I can stick up to 4 meg into my Mac, and have all of it fully addressable by the operating system. Whereas the typical PC is still saddled with the 640K limit (and don't even talk to me about this LIM expanded memory bank-switching bogosity.) >slowest floppy disk drives in creation, This is a common misconception. If you look at the benchmarks, you will find that the original Mac drives are as fast as typical PC 5-1/4 drives. >no hard disk from Apple for YEARS, Yes, but hard disks were available. Personally, it doesn't make much difference to me whether my drive is from Apple or not. Even now that Apple sells hard disks, I wouldn't consider buying one -- they're just too bloody expensive. For the same reason, if I owned a PC, I would probably not buy a hard disk from IBM. >no multitasking until 1988, Which is a lot sooner than multitasking will be available from IBM... >(and then only with some applications). Actually, ANY Mac application which is written to Apple's guidelines should run fine under MultiFinder. Of course, to take full advantage of the multitasking, most programs need to be modified. However, I feel that this is a small price to pay in order to get the benefit of multitasking, *now*. Clearly, MultiFinder is a short-term solution, but it gets the job done. >> IBM PS/2's with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, >> 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988 > >You forgot: Full 32-bit bus, You mean, like in the Mac II? >open architecture, Ah yes, as in the Mac II. >multitasking OS, Uh huh, Real Soon Now. (By the way, MultiFinder is here *now*, it works, and it IS multitasking.) > runs existing software base. This is a joke, right? >Sounds like IBM might have made some strides after all. Yep, they sure have. They're striding right along in Apple's footsteps. :-) Let's just make up a little score card: Things Apple did before IBM --------------------------- Graphical user interface Mouse 32-bit architecture 3-1/2 disk drives Built-in video, disk drive controllers, clock chip, etc. OS capable of addressing large amounts of memory Multitasking Things IBM did before Apple: ---------------------------- Open architecture (not even this if you count the Apple II...) > ><rogue> Note: Since this discussion is not really relevant to comp.windows.misc, and has all the makings of a "PC x vs. PC y" holy war, I have redirected followups to some more appropriate newsgroups. ---- Mark Vita ARPA: vita@ge-crd.ARPA General Electric Company UUCP: vita@desdemona.steinmetz.UUCP Corporate R & D vita@desdemona.steinmetz.ge.com Schenectady, NY desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP
mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) (04/28/88)
In article <10600@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: the way, MultiFinder is here *now*, it >works, and it IS multitasking.) > >> runs existing software base. > >This is a joke, right? > >>Sounds like IBM might have made some strides after all. > >Yep, they sure have. They're striding right along in Apple's >footsteps. :-) > >Let's just make up a little score card: > >Things Apple did before IBM >--------------------------- >Graphical user interface >Mouse >32-bit architecture >3-1/2 disk drives >Built-in video, disk drive controllers, clock chip, etc. >OS capable of addressing large amounts of memory >Multitasking Im not so sure about the multitasking since there are many multitasking OSs for the PC, now to add to your list: postscript drivers full windowing system networking hardware and software as standard equipment square pixels? Apple desktop bus (a standard interface for all input devices ie. mouse, keyboard, graphics tablets, trackballs, etc.) SCSI port >Things IBM did before Apple: >---------------------------- >Open architecture (not even this if you count the Apple II...) floating point processor capabilities on every machine ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) | Mark Interrante CIS Department | | University of Florida | | Internet: mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu Gainesville, FL 32611 | | (904) 335-8047 | ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) (04/29/88)
In article <10600@steinmetz.ge.com> vita@sunbarney.steinmetz (Mark F. Vita) writes: >...as a former 128K Mac owner, I think that this [closed architecture] >was less of a disadvantage than you might think. Note that most >of so-called "expansion slots" in a PC are not used for >"expansion" at all, but rather for basic necessities such as a >video controller, disk drive controllers, clock chips, >serial/parallel ports, etc. -- all of which were *built in* to >even the 128K Macintosh (along with the AppleTalk networking >capability). Which the IBM owner had a choice of which to add. He could add a color monitor (and, later, an EGA) without throwing out the whole machine (It took Apple until 1987 to come out with a color Mac at all). He could add memory and a hard disk without modifying the motherboard and potentially voiding your warranty. Too many 128K Mac users were left in the dust by newer models, frustrated to find that they had to pay the price of another machine to upgrade to the new hardware standard. An original IBM XT, however, can still run all the best state-of-the-art software as-is -- and can be expanded or upgraded simply by plugging in a new board.. Which sounds like a better investment? >and don't even talk to me about this LIM expanded memory >bank-switching bogosity. Why not? I'm using it right now to multitask multiple applications under DESQview -- a multitasking environment that was available YEARS before MultiFinder. >>slowest floppy disk drives in creation, > >This is a common misconception. If you look at the benchmarks, you >will find that the original Mac drives are as fast as typical PC 5-1/4 >drives. > Oh? Then why did one wait for (seemingly) hours while the disk drive in a 128K Mac ground away like a sawmill trying to get at files? >>no multitasking until 1988, > >Which is a lot sooner than multitasking will be available from IBM... > Not so. As I mentioned above, I'm doing multitasking right now. And utilities to do so have been available for years. >>(and then only with some applications). > >Actually, ANY Mac application which is written to Apple's guidelines >should run fine under MultiFinder. Unfortunately, many of Apple's "guidelines" are stated post-hoc, after developers have already written their applications differently. Were I an Apple developer, I would not be pleased that Apple has broken my software. >Of course, to take full advantage >of the multitasking, most programs need to be modified. None of the programs I'm using under DESQview needed to be modified. >Clearly, MultiFinder is a short-term solution, but it gets the job done. Oh? Then what is the long-term solution? A MultiFinder that requires a mapper (and therefore a Mac II) to run? >>> IBM PS/2's with OS/2 - 32-bit, Mouse, Graphical User Interface, >>> 3 1/2 inch disks,circa 1988 >> >>You forgot: Full 32-bit bus, > >You mean, like in the Mac II? > Which came out at roughly the same time.... > >>open architecture, > >Ah yes, as in the Mac II. > In other words, only for users who are willing to pay a premium price. And it might not have been available at all had customers not preferred IBM because of its open architecture. > >>multitasking OS, > >Uh huh, Real Soon Now. (By the way, MultiFinder is here *now*, it >works, and it IS multitasking.) > No, right now. I also have a machine running OS/2, which has true pre-emptive multitasking and real multitasking features. MultiFinder has cooperative multitasking (if one program hangs or crashes, that's it), no facilities for interprocess communication (though I hear you can use AppleTalk in cases of dire need), no memory protection, no virtual memory, no shared code segments, no record locking.... > >> runs existing software base. > >This is a joke, right? > Hardly. Virtually all PC programs from as far back as DOS 1.0 run in the Compatibility Box. Many original Mac applications, including some put out by Apple, don't run with MultiFinder. > >Let's just make up a little score card: > >Things Apple did before IBM >--------------------------- >Graphical user interface >Mouse OK. >32-bit architecture Nope; both got there at about the same time. >3-1/2 disk drives Not a significant advantage. I, like many, still prefer 5.25" drives; the media is cheaper and they're faster. >Built-in video, disk drive controllers, clock chip, etc. This is an advantage? See comments above.... >OS capable of addressing large amounts of memory LIM was out before Apple made a Mac with more than 512K. >Multitasking Available on the IBM first. > >Things IBM did before Apple: >---------------------------- >Open architecture (not even this if you count the Apple II...) ^ IBM didn't regress after its first product; why did Apple? How about: Hard disk (before the Mac was even out!) Color graphics (It took the Mac 7 years to catch up!) Networking (IBM and others -- and even the first was an order of magnitude faster than AppleTalk) Micro-Mainframe interface, including 3270 Emulation (IBM and others) Large-format text/graphics displays (several vendors) UNIX (several vendors) Tape backup (hundreds of vendors) And on and on. But I have not the time to engage in endless PC-vs-Mac flame wars. For me, the important thing is that I have an architecture which is multiple-sourced, reasonably priced, able to run the largest base of professional software in the world, and not made by a company which uses litigation as a "competitive" tactic -- and thus hurts the microcomputer community as a whole) when it is no longer able to keep up with the pack through innovation. Nuff said. <rogue>
tim@ism780c.UUCP (T.W."Tim" Smith, Knowledgian) (04/29/88)
desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes:
< a Mac Plus and dropping in a couple of SIMMs is about as easy as
< opening a PC and dropping in a memory card.)
I can open a PC with tools I carry in my pocket ( a Swiss Army Knofe ).
This is rather hard for a Mac. My Swiss Army Knife lacks an extra long
torx #10 screwdriver.
--
Tim Smith tim@ism780c.isc.com
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the
kind of person I'm preaching to" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbstoma@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (04/29/88)
In article <15229@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> mfi@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mark Interrante) writes: >In article <10600@steinmetz.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: >>Things IBM did before Apple: >>---------------------------- >>Open architecture (not even this if you count the Apple II...) > >floating point processor capabilities on every machine Personal computers (IBM 5100, about 1974-5) (If we consider the IBM-PC before the Mac came out) Address space greater than 64k Detatched keyboard Built-in floppy disk drives, built-in hard disk drives (And most important of all) Major acceptance by Fortune 500 companies (And let us not forget some other things IBM gave us, and first:) Floppy disks (Sure Apple used 3.5" first, but IBM used floppies (8") first!) A good typewriter Punched Cards, and unit record equipment EBCDIC character code Fortran, PL/1, and APL OS/360 Lots of good jokes Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM disclaimer: Most of the above is either :-) or :-(. But the typewriter is nice. The only Apple product I use is the office Laserwriter. I don't have a Genuine IBM computer. In fact, I still occasionally use a CP/M machine.
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (04/30/88)
>Unfortunately, many of Apple's "guidelines" are stated post-hoc, >after developers have already written their applications >differently. Were I an Apple developer, I would not be pleased >that Apple has broken my software. AAAAAAH!!!!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO! I Hate this when people (ESPECIALLY APPLE DEVELOPERS) say--and Believe-- this sort of drivel. The Apple guidelines were stated a long time ago and ARE NOT post-hoc. I Am an Apple developer, and I can say for a fact that if you followed the rules as stated in the original two volume set that Apple released way back when the Mac first came out, and if the compiler developer followed the rules that they were supposed to follow as according to the Developers bible (Inside Macintosh, either the original two-volume set, the phone book edition, or the [now five volume set]), YOUR SOFTWARE WOULD STILL WORK! Remember the HFS fiasco? People who were converting the vRefNum to a volume name, and screaming at Apple that this didn't work? How 'bout those people who assumed that the screen would be a fixed size, and wonders why their software didn't work when Apple recommended that you get the Window Manager's grafPort size? Please don't say that Apple's rules are ad-hoc; they're not. It's just that many (most?) programmers believe that they can out-guess the operating system? (I know one guy who implemented the entire set of WindowManager routines because he didn't want to learn the WindowManger stuff himself, and he wonders why it doesn't work with Multifinder...) ARG! Hey, at least all of my software still works; even the stuff that I wrote in 1984! (And it all works well on my MacII!) - William Edward Woody woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (Mac>][n&&/|\)&&(MacII>AT) Disclamer: I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about...
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (04/30/88)
Now, as the owner of both a Macintosh II and a PC-compatable clone, I
think I'm in the best position to say this:
CAN WE ALL STOP WHINING ABOUT WHINY MAC USERS AND WHINY PC USERS!
(I hate to think that I'm doubly whiny!! ;-) )
- William Edward Woody
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (Mac>][n&&/|\)&&(MacII>AT)
Disclamer: I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about...Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com (04/30/88)
inc
uh@bsiao.UUCP (Uul Haanstra) (05/02/88)
in article <5836@well.UUCP>, rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) says: > > And on and on. But I have not the time to engage in endless ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > PC-vs-Mac flame wars. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Seems to me that you do, at least 175 lines of time. Everybody, please stop this very UNintersting debate. Apple, IBM, who cares, as long as they do what you want them to do for the money and other things you are willing to invest in them. I would rather read about new software, problems and their solutions than about which machine is best, or worst, or whatever. I like both. They're both a lot better than the terminals and computers I used say 10 years ago. Or even 5 years ago. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uul Haanstra, Postbank N.V. Amsterdam ...!mcvax!bsiao!uh Pb 21009 1000 EX AMSTERDAM +31-20 584 3312
merchant@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Merchant) (05/02/88)
In article <5836@well.UUCP>, L. Brett Glass writes: > [...] For me, the important thing is that I have > an architecture which is multiple-sourced, reasonably priced, > able to run the largest base of professional software in the > world, and not made by a company which uses litigation as a > "competitive" tactic -- and thus hurts the microcomputer community > as a whole) when it is no longer able to keep up with the pack > through innovation. IBM doesn't use litigation as a competitive tactic. They use FEAR of litigation as a competitive tactic. Note that Dell and Tandy have LICENSED the use of Micro-Channel Architecture (MCA) from IBM, because IBM has threatened to sue anyone who sells one without getting it licensed. They've also threatened to sue anyone who creates as PS/2 clone without their permission. IBM is not famous for it's love of free market competition. --- "Grab it like you want it..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP)
rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K. Shull) (05/03/88)
In article <5836@well.UUCP> rogue@well.UUCP (L. Brett Glass) writes: >world, and not made by a company which uses litigation as a >"competitive" tactic -- and thus hurts the microcomputer community Ah, you prefer a company which steals its ideas from others, instead of spending the time, effort, and money to develop its own, thus stifling creativity - thus hurting the microcomputer community. :-) Now, before all of the IBM'ers start flaming: (1) Notice the smiley face. (2) Think. Are you so sure that your attitudes represent some sort of revelation to the world? Is there no room for any other point of view? (This applies to everybody, not just IBM'ers). What about IBM and the PS/2? They've announced their intention to "use litigation as a competitive tactic" to protect their design. Is this right? If so, what's the difference between this and Apple's suit? If not, how far is it right to go in duplicating someone else's design? How are we supposed to figure out the limits? Also, for write software authors: How much of your time do you spend designing your software as compared to coding? Would you feel happy if someone duplicated your design, thus eliminating that requirement for them? What would this do to the price of your competitors' software as compared to yours? Suppose I sat down and wrote a fully compatible MS-DOS, with extensions, guaranteed to remain compatible, and started selling it for five dollars. (Ignore the fact that I avoid MS-DOS like the plague, having had to work with it for a year or so). Would this be legal? Would this be right? Is there a difference between being legal and being right? Suppose Apple did it? Would this change your opinion? Not flames, just some things to think about. -- Robert K. Shull University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!rob CIS 73765,1254 Delphi RKSHULL Opinions contained herein in no way reflect those of the University of Oklahoma.
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (05/04/88)
In article <8807@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU> merchant@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Peter Merchant) writes: >In article <5836@well.UUCP>, L. Brett Glass writes: >> [...] For me, the important thing is that I have >> an architecture which is multiple-sourced, reasonably priced, >> able to run the largest base of professional software in the >> world, and not made by a company which uses litigation as a >> "competitive" tactic -- and thus hurts the microcomputer community >> as a whole) when it is no longer able to keep up with the pack >> through innovation. > >IBM doesn't use litigation as a competitive tactic. They use FEAR of >litigation as a competitive tactic. Note that Dell and Tandy have LICENSED >the use of Micro-Channel Architecture (MCA) from IBM, because IBM has >threatened to sue anyone who sells one without getting it licensed. They've >also threatened to sue anyone who creates as PS/2 clone without their >permission. They also used this tactic against the first round of PC clone makers, driving at least one (Eagle) out of business. The company I worked for at the time took a major hit and eventually went out of business because of the money lost from parts we sold to Eagle. So anyone who claims that IBM has never hurt the microcomputer community doesn't know anything about the history of the industry. Compaq was the only clone maker that survived of the original batch of clone makers, mostly due to IBM's threats of litigation. > >IBM is not famous for it's love of free market competition. Who do you think invented FUD (Fear, Uncerntainty and Doubt)? >"Grab it like you want it..." Peter Merchant (merchant@eleazar.UUCP) Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) (05/05/88)
Anyone who has used both of these products can certainly attest that
they are different and that the Mac interface is much more useful.
I personally prefer the MS-DOS command interface, I have never been
able to stomach the Mac or MS-Windows. But that is my choice.
Let's get real, Windows is not Mac!
--
Bill Wilson
Northern AZ Univ
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
{These views are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer}hrh@well.UUCP (Harry Henderson) (05/06/88)
In article <1252@uokmax.UUCP> rob@uokmax.UUCP (Robert K. Shull) writes: > > >What about IBM and the PS/2? They've announced their intention to "use >litigation as a competitive tactic" to protect their design. Is this right? >If so, what's the difference between this and Apple's suit? If not, how far >is it right to go in duplicating someone else's design? How are we supposed >to figure out the limits? IBM offers *licenses* for its PS/2 patents, and several companies such as Tandy will be producing PS/2 compatibles using these licenses. Try and get a license from Apple to manufacture Mac clones ... -- The opinions expressed are my own, but you're welcome to share them. Harry Henderson (freelance technical editor/writer). {pacbell,hplabs,lll-crg,hoptoad,apple}!well!hrh
Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com (05/07/88)
>IBM offers *licenses* for its PS/2 patents, and several companies such >as Tandy will be producing PS/2 compatibles using these licenses. >Try and get a license from Apple to manufacture Mac clones ... -- >Harry Henderson (freelance technical editor/writer). Rather sneaky of IBM, wouldn't you say? If they didn't offer the license, there would be a very good chance that the PC market would fragment around two standards, and IBM would lose control of PC technology. But with this license, they will be able to maintain control of the technology, and make a profit on sales of their competitors' products besides. It's a brilliant move toward closing PC architecture, and bringing clone vendors to their knees. First we had open hardware technology. Now we have IBM with a stranglehold on the hardware design, a shortage of 386 chips, (which, rather interestingly, IBM owns mask rights to, and has production ramping up). What do think might be next? Special versions of OS/2 that run only on IBM's? Hardware technology improving on MCA that they DON'T license? IBM becoming sole manufacturer of a "fixed" 386, or 486? IBM admits internally that the non-proprietary design of the original PC's was a big mistake for them, and are gradually moving toward taking back control. If the clone vendors were smart, they wouldn't have anything to do with this. Remember, IBM is the company that said "To us, open architecture means third party comapnies can write software that will run on our machines".
bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) (05/07/88)
hrh@well.UUCP (Harry Henderson) writes: >>If so, what's the difference between this and Apple's suit? If not, how far >>is it right to go in duplicating someone else's design? How are we supposed >>to figure out the limits? That's why you have law suits. Think of it as a "way" to let god sort it out since there doesn't seem to be enough room for everyone. The trick is to be patient and let the court figure it out. Bill UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo INET: bilbo@pnet02.cts.com * Sometimes The Dragon Wins! * Still looking for the best Amiga BBS software to resurrect Bilbo's Hideaway on - but not holding breath!
drs@bnlux0.bnl.gov (David R. Stampf) (05/10/88)
In article <5167@cup.portal.com> Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com writes: >>IBM offers *licenses* for its PS/2 patents, and several companies such >>as Tandy will be producing PS/2 compatibles using these licenses. >>Try and get a license from Apple to manufacture Mac clones ... >-- >>Harry Henderson (freelance technical editor/writer). > >Rather sneaky of IBM, wouldn't you say? If they didn't offer the >license, there would be a very good chance that the PC market >would fragment around two standards, and IBM would lose control >of PC technology. But with this license, they will be able to maintain >control of the technology, and make a profit on sales of their competitors' >products besides. It's a brilliant move toward closing PC architecture, >and bringing clone vendors to their knees. Am I missing some smiley faces here, or is this the most tortured logic ever seen. Clearly IBM is not going to do anything that will directly hurt themselves, but by licensing the PS/2 Technology, they have created a mainstream computer architecture that will not only provide clone manufacturers with a living, but keep IBM in some pin money for the forseeable future. The fact is, if IBM didn't license the PS/2 stuff, then a number of small third party manufactures of boards and software would never even try to address a fragmented market. I don't believe that 6 years ago that there were companies like Hercules, Lotus, AST etc. not to mention Compac, Leading edge etc. I may not be very fond of IBM, but in the PC market they have spread the wealth around pretty well I think. >First we had open hardware technology. Now we have IBM with a stranglehold >on the hardware design, a shortage of 386 chips, (which, rather interestingly, >IBM owns mask rights to, and has production ramping up). What do think >might be next? Special versions of OS/2 that run only on IBM's? Hardware >technology improving on MCA that they DON'T license? IBM becoming sole >manufacturer of a "fixed" 386, or 486? IBM admits internally that the >non-proprietary design of the original PC's was a big mistake for them, and >are gradually moving toward taking back control. Look around. The Compact is selling like never before. Sun 386/i looks like the best thing going and nobody is cashing in their chips on the clone market. I wonder what you expect IBM to do? Give things away for free? Maybe Apple should license the IWM disk interface chip to the world. Sure they will hold the masks and can change it whenver they wanted. That is far more likely than IBM comming out with a new 386 different from all of the others. IBM has also come out with a proprietary 68000 chip set that was micro-coded to run the 370 instruction set which has apparently slipped off into never never land and a proprietary RISC architecture that has not set the world on fire either. I doubt very much that IBM will now decide to turn their backs on the rest of the micro world again. They may test market new chips and architectures but they won't cripple the 386. > >If the clone vendors were smart, they wouldn't have anything to do with this. What would you have them do? Sell apples? (Thats with a lower case.) >Remember, IBM is the company that said "To us, open architecture means >third party comapnies can write software that will run on our machines". And Apple says the opposite? Cheeez. Apple bigots are worse than reformed smokers. Wake up - the world is large enough for several different kinds of computers (I use IBMs/Suns/Macs/ST/Vax etc) and there is little point in attacking other machines - even if you could find some valid points. < dave
Henry_A_Schade@cup.portal.com (05/17/88)
I may be wrong, but there *ARE* special versions of OS/2 that run on an IBM. Just as there are versions for Compaq, Tandy, etc...There are different versions for different machines, as I recall reading somewhere probably in InfoWorld.
Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com (05/17/88)
>Am I missing some smiley faces here, or is this the most tortured logic >ever seen. Clearly IBM is not going to do anything that will directly >hurt themselves, but by licensing the PS/2 Technology, they have created >a mainstream computer architecture that will not only provide clone >manufacturers with a living, but keep IBM in some pin money for the >forseeable future. The fact is, if IBM didn't license the PS/2 stuff, Actually, nodody has a formal, completed agrrement with IBM jsut yet for the PS/2 stuff, but it is true it may eventually come. And if I'm engaging in tortured logic, I am apparently not the only one. For example, you may want to read the column by Mr. Zachman in the May 16 1988 Infoworld, in which he states: Anybody who doubts that IBM means business about using "intellectual property rights" to aggresively eliminate or cripple competitors... and cites an aggressive campaign to hire intellectual property rights lawyers. Later in the same column: IBM is rolling out its legal guns to force us back to the semimonopoly, proprietary world of the fading era of traditional mainframe and minicomputer systems. Watch for an array of IBM products with proprietary twists covered by copyrights, patents and trade secrets. The MCA...is only the opening skirmish. And so on... The summary paragraph... The bottom line is that users who commit to buying PS/2 MCA machines and OS/2 Extended Edition are walking back into the proprietary corral of Rancho IBM. They shouldn't be surprised to find themselves branded and processed into hamburger to help feed IBM's $50-plus billion appetite for semi-monopoly revenue. In the same issue of Infoworld there is an Apple ad touting one of the advantages of the Mac II being that it has a bus with fully disclosed specifications. :-) :-) :-) (I happen to own both MS-DOS and Apple Macintosh Computers)
Eric_Shockwave-Rider_Larson@cup.portal.com (05/18/88)
Further support for "tortured" logic..... Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, May 17, 1988 Paul B. Carroll New York - International Business Machines is demanding retroactive payments for patents it says companies have used in selling IBM compatable personal computers over the past several years. The move has shocked the clone makers which had assumed that IBM's lack of objection had assured them of clear sailing, and could squeeze the more marginal clone companies. The decision could also delay the introduction of some clones of IBM's PS/2 line of personal computers. In addition, the move reintroduces the prospect of messy litigation in the personal computer market at a time when IBM's decision to license the patents for its PS/2 line had been quieting that talk. "IBM is saying, in effect, "Sure, we'll let you license our PS/2 patents, but let's make sure that we're all squared away on what you owe us for patents on the original PC, XT and AT.' " said one industry executive, who asked not to be identified. For many companies, that would involve payments of at least 1% of sales back to 1982 or 1983, in a business in which manufacturers profit margins total just a few percentage points. Clone makers have sold billions of dollars of these products, and it would be hard to say how much money would be involved in retroactive patent payments on them; IBM declined to estimate how much it could recieve from such payments. IBM, in confirming statements from industry executives about the patent payments, said clone companies shouldn't have been surprised. The Armonk NY office equipment maker has made no secret of its intention to protect it's computer patents. An IBM spokesman said the company would accept payments totalling 1% of sales for sales made through last April 1, assuming the clone companies settle up with IBM by year end. If a settlement isn't reached this year, the spokeman said, IBM could raise the rate. IBM also said that sales made after April 1 would be subject to the 5% maximum royalty that IBM recently said will apply to PS/2 patents. The spokesman said IBM would sue, if necessary, to protect it's patent rights. It wasn't immediately clear just how many companies would be affected by IBM's decision, but the effect is likely to be broad. In the rush to get clones into the marketplace, many companies proceeded without checking to be sure that they steered clear of IBM's patents. Big clone makers, however, are much less likely to be affected than the smaller ones, because they have patents that IBM uses and thus have cross licensing agreements that limit any payments they owe IBM. Patent lawyers also say that, in any case, clone makers would be able to invoke a legal principle called laches. In effect, that means that clone makers can say that they have managed their business on the assumption that because IBM hadn't challenged them by now it wasn't going to challenge them. The lawyers say that IBM would probably still be able to insist on some sort of payment, though IBM might have to mitigate it's demands. ----- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. or, Welcome to Rancho IBM. :-) :-) :-) :-)