peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/25/89)
In article <2526@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > In article <6615@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > # If this was the case then the Macintosh would be the computer everyone > # feels disdain for. Making effective use of a DOS machine is much, much > Missed all the nasty remarks about the "Macintoy" a while back? See any from me? I tried to talk my own brother into buying one of the things. > # Largely because where the Mac is limited by its origins, DOS is limited > # by deliberate malice on the part of IBM and Microsoft. > I think a more accurate statement is that DOS is limited by its > age. Fiddlesticks, again. It's younger than UNIX, OS/9, MP/M, and a dozen other operating systems that ran on the same or similar hardware. > (Of course, Microsoft's approach to software doesn't excite > me much either, but comparing DOS -- still largely limited by > hardware compatibility problems from 1979 design requirements) to > the Mac (five very fast years later) isn't particularly fair. Right. Single-tasking was forced by a hardware design requirement. The lack of ANY support for serial I/O was a hardware design requirement. The original system was a poor copy of CP/M, chosen only because it was cheap and IBM was pissed at Digital Research (thanks to some stupidity on the part of Gary Kildall). -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of 'U` mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (10/25/89)
In article <6661@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) wrote: >The original system was a poor copy of CP/M, chosen only because it >was cheap and IBM was pissed at Digital Research (thanks to some stupidity >on the part of Gary Kildall). What few people seem to remember is that IBM originally offered a choice of THREE operating systems: MSDOS, CPM-86, and UCSD p-System. Of these, MSDOS was not only the cheapest, but also quite compatible with CPM-80, allowing mechanical translation of 8080 programs (in fact, MSDOS still supports the CP/M entry point and calling convention). -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 FAX: available on request Disclaimer? I claimed something? "How to Prove It" by Dana Angluin 6. proof by omission: "The reader may easily supply the details." "The other 253 cases are analogous."
las) (10/26/89)
In article <6661@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }In article <2526@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: }} In article <6615@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }} # Largely because where the Mac is limited by its origins, DOS is limited }} # by deliberate malice on the part of IBM and Microsoft. }} I think a more accurate statement is that DOS is limited by its }} age. }Fiddlesticks, again. It's younger than UNIX, OS/9, MP/M, and a dozen other }operating systems that ran on the same or similar hardware. }Right. Single-tasking was forced by a hardware design requirement. The }lack of ANY support for serial I/O was a hardware design requirement. }The original system was a poor copy of CP/M, chosen only because it }was cheap and IBM was pissed at Digital Research (thanks to some stupidity }on the part of Gary Kildall). "Cheap" is probably the true operative word here. I don't attribute "malice" to IBM & MicroSoft, that's a little too strong - I might agree to "attitude problem." Everything about the PC design was cheap and that is certainly consistant with DOS which began life a cheap CP/M rehash. I don't agree that single-tasking is forced by a hardware design requirement, though I suppose that you could make a case that a small base memory configuration and the use of a slow 8088 processor are hardware design limitations for a truly useful multi-tasking system, so maybe I do agree after all. Of course, anybody who remembers what it originally cost to buy PC or XT back then might balk at the "cheap" characterization, but I'm talking about cheap design, not cheap end-user price. regards, Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (cbema!las@att.ATT.COM or att!cbema!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. The above represents my views only.) (Please note my mailing address. Mail sent directly to cbnews doesn't make it.)
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (10/26/89)
In article <254532d1@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > >What few people seem to remember is that IBM originally offered a choice >of THREE operating systems: MSDOS, CPM-86, and UCSD p-System. Of these, >MSDOS was not only the cheapest, but also quite compatible with CPM-80, Yes, I remember. I ordered the original PC in September of 1981. I ordered both CPM-86 and MSDOS with the hardware. But it took about 6 months before my system was delivered. By that time, the market had already decided on MSDOS, probably because of the $40 price, and I cancelled the CPM-86 (about $195?). Later, in December of 1983, I dropped MSDOS altogether and switched to Venix/86 ($995, I think, but I traded a Maynard disk driver for the software). By then, I had a 10MB hard disk and a 5MB removable Syquest drive. -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ?????? mention PC Research,Inc.| WE'RE SHIPPING your uunet!pcrat!rick| Ask about FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # (201) 389-8963 | Or JetRoff - troff postprocessor for the HP {Laser,Desk}Jet
jmp@asihub.UUCP (John Pantone) (10/29/89)
"Never attribute to conspiracy (or malice) that which is adequately
explained by stupidity" - unknown author (comment mine)
Microsoft and IBM simply blew it when designing MSDOS and the PC. They
certainly didn't WANT to produce a weak, overpriced, under-powered computer
with a toy operating system which was behind the times before its time.
They just DID!
--
John M. Pantone jmp@asihub.uucp {uunet|ncr-sd}!asihub!jmp
Objectech Corporation, P.O.Box 27168, San Diego CA, 92128 (619)679-8646
All opinions are my own as this is a guest account.dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (10/29/89)
>In article <6661@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >} Single-tasking was forced by a hardware design requirement. I'm not sure this is quite accurate. See below. >}The lack of ANY support for serial I/O was a hardware design requirement. Are you sure it's a requirement that there be no support, or are you saying that there were no strong requirements for support? (It IS true that the support supplied, INT 14 of the BIOS, was totally useless.) >}The original system was a poor copy of CP/M, chosen only because it >}was cheap and IBM was pissed at Digital Research (thanks to some stupidity >}on the part of Gary Kildall). In article <10609@cbnews.ATT.COM> cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr,20650,cb,9a110,6148605851) writes: >"Cheap" is probably the true operative word here. >Everything about the PC design was cheap and >that is certainly consistant with DOS which began life a cheap CP/M >rehash. I agree with Larry and Peter in this regard. However, a CP/M ripoff (er, knockoff) may have seemed like a good idea at the time. The markets were VERY confused at what a PC actually WAS, and CP/M meshed with the then-current (though non-productive) view. >I don't agree that single-tasking is forced by a hardware >design requirement I don't either. But there was a real economic design requirement. A CP/M knockoff has no need for multi-tasking, and multi-tasking would have cost money. (I.e.- it would have cost Microsoft more to develop, and they beat out DR on price.) >...though I suppose that you could make a case that a >small base memory configuration and the use of a slow 8088 processor >are hardware design limitations for a truly useful multi-tasking system, Maybe there's a confusion that takes over when talking about this. There are useful multitasking OSs that work on a slow 8088 CPU. In my opinion, the REAL problem with multitasking the PC came LATER. There was no pressure in 1981-82 (when the PC OS decision was made) for multitasking. But when people wanted it later, the following "hardware problems" made it tough: - Clearly, a multitasking OS would NOT achieve market success (at least from an independent vendor, not IBM) unless it ran the existing DOS applications. So it had to be a "multitasking MSDOS", if you can imagine such a beast. (I can; I even worked on one.) - BUT, the developers of the existing applications had NOT written MS-DOS applications; they had written IBM-PC applcations. What's the difference? Well, they circumvented inadequacies in the OS support of the hardware by going directly to the hardware. The best examples of this are: 1. The serial port support, as Peter notes above. 2. Screen support; the BIOS was slow, and many application programmers went straight to the video memory. 3. Memory management; why not go straight to the real memory address space when you're not sharing it? Or allocate yourself ALL of memory, rather than take the trouble (and the performance hit) to allocate only what you'll need. - NOW, JUST TRY TO BUILD AN OS that runs ill-behaved programs (in the sense that they think they know about, and even own, the hardware). It will require a lot of hardware support, in the sense of trapping I/O, replacing the interrupt vector, hardware memory management, etc. Of course, all of this is useful in a REAL multitasking OS, but it is ESSENTIAL in retrofitting DOS to be multitasking. In my experience (and that includes the exploratory development of a multitasking DOS), - The 286 has some of what's needed. - Enhanced expanded memory (i.e.- not limited to mapping above 620K or even above 0K) adds some more. - Add special hardware on a 286 motherboards for most of what's needed. - There's enough in the 386 to do the job in software. This includes the job of trapping I/O, memory use, and interrupts. Products like DesqView, while far from perfect, do remarkably well at a fundamentally impossible job. And, let's not forget that there are multitasking OSs that ran on the original XT, that were: Technical successes (reasonable multitasking performance). Market failures (couldn't run existing popular PC applications). Summarizing my point: 1. DOS was inadequate from the start, even as a single-tasking OS, driving application developers to go straight to the hardware. 2. The market dominance of "standard" hardware (IBM & clones) allowed the developers to do this with no thought to portability. 3. The resulting ill-behaved applications could not be run on any feasible multitasking OS, without extensive hardware crutches to override the ill behavior. 4. The market dominance of these ill-behaved applications made that impossible criterion a prerequisite for commercial success of an OS. You couldn't introduce a [perfectly feasible] multitasking PC OS that only ran its own (or well-behaved) applications. Note: I was there, and my company was there. Let me make it clear that I speak for myself. My employer may have other opinions (or none at all). +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...att!pegasus!dmt | | Audible - (201) 576 2194 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/29/89)
In article <143@asihub.UUCP> jmp@asihub.UUCP (John Pantone) explains that IBM is not guilty of deliberate malice, but rather stupidity: > Microsoft and IBM simply blew it when designing MSDOS and the PC. They > certainly didn't WANT to produce a weak, overpriced, under-powered computer > with a toy operating system which was behind the times before its time. > They just DID! Then how do you explain OS/2? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) (10/30/89)
In article <143@asihub.UUCP>, jmp@asihub.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: > Microsoft and IBM simply blew it when designing MSDOS and the PC... 1. It takes a long lead-time to identify what's wanted, to "paper" design it, to staff up, and to do it. 2. The pace of microcomputer technology advancement is rather fast. This means that in many cases by the time you get a product out to the market, it's obsolete (or close to it). 3. IBM put it's tail on the line in introducing the IBM PC. No one knew it would take off like a rocket. It was a huge gamble. 4. A compromise was made. IBM could have waited longer, spent more time and money for developement, and come out with a product that was more sophisticated. But they did what they did when they did it. 5. Compared to the 8 bit stuff available at the time, the IBM PC (and MS-DOS) was a step forward. 6. The market determines (and funds) what's done next. Our dollars spent on those original PC's and MS-DOS funded what we see available today. 7. Look at consumer VHS video technology. It's in a parllel situation to IBM-PCs and MS-DOS. It started as breakthrough technology. We went out and bought tons of the stuff. We demanded higher performance. The original design has been enhanced to meet market demands. It now seems ordinary, commonplace, and almost obsolete. Again, at the time of introduction, this was breakthrough stuff. 8. The point to all this: companies take massive gambles with new products. If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS, we would not even have what we have today. -- Gary Korenek (korenek@ficc.uu.net) | This space Ferranti International Controls Corp. | intentionally Sugar Land, Texas (713)274-5357 | left blank
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/31/89)
In article <6723@ficc.uu.net> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: > 8. The point to all this: companies take massive gambles with new > products. If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS, > we would not even have what we have today. No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) (10/31/89)
In article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <6723@ficc.uu.net> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: > > 8. The point to all this: companies take massive gambles with new > > products. If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS, > > we would not even have what we have today. > > No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other > decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. So why hasn't something better than MS-DOS been developed despite MS-DOS? I say it's because other companies waited to see if the IBM-PC and MS-DOS would live or die (thus letting IBM and MS take the big risk). Lo-and behold, it lived! By the the time MS-DOS took hold it was too late to go against it. BTW I'd like a multi-tasking O.S. (like UNIX), a VGA-quality color display, a 100-meg. hard disk, a user interface like the Apple Macintosh, a throughput of a 33-MHz memory-and-disk cached 386 system, at a price that an "ordinary guy" can afford ($2000 is my threshold of pain). Also there must be an infinite ;^) supply of software available. I should not have to hold degrees in Electrical and Software Engineering to be able to configure and use the machine. I should not have to spend hours showing my wife "the ropes" so she can enter a letter, format it, and print it. If I run a Flight Simulator game it should be like I'm flying the plane, not like I'm sitting at a PC playing a game. The next breakthrough in personal computers (hardware, o.s.es, and applications software) will be the introduction of systems like I describe above at a price that is more reasonable than 5 or 10K. I'm waiting... -- Gary Korenek (korenek@ficc.uu.net) | This space Ferranti International Controls Corp. | intentionally Sugar Land, Texas (713)274-5357 | left blank
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/31/89)
In article <6731@ficc.uu.net> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: > So why hasn't something better than MS-DOS been developed despite > MS-DOS? It has. I listed three alternatives: Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, and SOS. Also a whole bunch of UNIX lookalikes for the hardware (Lanetix, QNX, etc), plus real UNIX (I used Version 7 based Xenix on an XT for some time). Apple's O/S for the Mac has a number of advantages. And how about the Amiga Exec? That's a real-time O/S with a fast windowing front-end for novices. The only one of these that's caught on has been the Mac. Why? Only Apple had a big enough marketing budget to compete with Big Blue. > I say it's because other companies waited to see if the IBM-PC > and MS-DOS would live or die (thus letting IBM and MS take the big risk). What? IBM was a latecomer on the scene. What about Apple, Altos, Tandy, Commodore, Cromemco, etc, etc, etc...? They were all doing well enough back in the '70s. IBM didn't enter the market until 1981. (description of ideal computer that sounds like a 68030-based Amiga skipped into email) -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
gary@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Gary Barrett) (10/31/89)
> > Microsoft and IBM simply blew it when designing MSDOS and the PC. They > certainly didn't WANT to produce a weak, overpriced, under-powered computer > with a toy operating system which was behind the times before its time. > > They just DID! It is easy to forget that the first PCs were targeted to compete with such rivals as the TRS80 and APPLE. They even came with a built-in audio cassette interface for I/O, not floppies (a luxury addon) or hard-disk (even more wondrous yet). This was the days when personal computers were truly personal. I would bet that even IBM never foresaw the PC taking over the office-place. But they wanted to forestall Tandy and Apple from gaining a monopoly in that sector, just in case. I remember a PC looking darn good to me. To say that Microsoft and IBM blew it, at least as far as the DOS PC, seems to be a bit of 20/20 hindsight. They must have done something right, because that same DOS/PC "standard" (hardware combined with software) has held up fairly well, from the earliest PC to the 386-based machines of today. It may be time to evolve that standard, but I take my hat off to Microsoft and IBM for a job well done. They got us where we are. In a way, it is the PC's success that has held it back . Of course, people like Jobs can be revolutionary with NeXT machines and the like. They don't have to worry about a huge user base OR tons of software which must migrate to each new level of software and hardware. -- ======================================================================== Gary L. Barrett My employer may or may not agree with my opinions. And I may or may not agree with my employer's opinions. ========================================================================
wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) (10/31/89)
From article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): > No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other > decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. > > IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and > it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. > What thriving industry? At the point that the IBM PC came out there was little going on in the Home/Desktop PC market. Yes there were CP/M based machines that could be purchased for a small fortune, but I would not call it a thriving industry. IBM went out on a limb and the gamble paid off. -- Let sleeping dragons lie........ | The Bit Chaser ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wilson (Bitnet: ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax) Northern AZ Univ Flagstaff, AZ 86011
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (11/01/89)
In article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <6723@ficc.uu.net> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: > > 8. The point to all this: companies take massive gambles with new > > products. If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS, > > we would not even have what we have today. > > No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other > decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. > > IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and > it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. > -- > `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Short memory, Mr. da Silva? Before the IBM PC came out, there were Apple IIs, and CP/M boxes, and Radio Shack computers, but it was still a hobbyist market. There were some businesses adventuresome enough to trust their accounts to these computers, but not many, and for the most part, with good reason. (TRSDOS for the TRS-80 Model 3, for example. I wrote a service station accounting system on it at the time the PC came out, and by comparision, the PC was a paragon of modernity, performance, and robustness). IBM didn't create the PC industry -- but it did take it out of the hobbyist area, and made it into something that the non-computer literate would trust their accounts to -- and not just because of the IBM name. (Of course, removing the high priests of micro- computing from their exalted positions seems to be much of the real objection to the PC). -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Drugs are destroying the moral fiber of America...Another beer, please. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (11/01/89)
In article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <6723@ficc.uu.net> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: > > 8. The point to all this: companies take massive gambles with new > > products. If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS, > > we would not even have what we have today. > > No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other > decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. We have exactly that, Peter, and a lot more. What we would have had we have now: 6809s with OS/9, Amigas with Tripos->AmigaDOS, embedded systems hither and yon based on efficient message passing kernels or call based kernels (as the environment required), and Unix on larger systems. All these systems were available then, they are still available, and they have one major deficit, as I have mentioned before: NONE WERE CHEAP ENOUGH (forget the argument that things are all cheaper now, that's true, and so is MSDOS hardware) and NONE WERE COMMON ENOUGH TO BUILD A MARKET FOR GOOD SOFTWARE. IBM may not have created a crippled DOS on purpose, but the one the did create has been exactly what almost everyone wants (or thinks he wants). So whine if you want, but until there are as many systems running your pet OS please quit talking about your peers (or betters) as if they were misinformed or incompetent when they decided to use EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED (or want, or can afford, or ...). > IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and > it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. Yes, Peter, a thriving industry of perhaps 1 million "personal" computers, with sales to support Apple, 20% of Radio Shack, Atari's computer division and perhaps 100 garage shop operations selling a few systems a month. The gross receipts of the entire personal computer industry in 1982 was probably comparable to the price of the mainframes IBM sold to a single large university. IBM took the industry because those who "owned" it in 1982 failed to realize that price was important (IBM was much cheaper than any but the very cheapest when they entered the market), and they also failed to recognize a major technical advance that we now consider obvious: IBM supported hard disks, tape backups, and all those other neat things you get from having an open slot architecture (and having enough resources in the design that you can take advantage of them). Contrary to your assertion, Apple did it almost right, and IBM really did do it right. So I say that IBM did create the industry (even if it no longer has enough of it under its control to "own" it, if it ever really did, that does not alter the fact that we would still be playing in a totally different world without IBM). > -- > `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. > 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. > "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes > left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) Charles =============================================================================== "Those who would sacrifice ** Charles Marslett liberty for security, ** STB Systems, Inc. <-- apply all std. disclaimers deserve neither." ** Wordmark Systems <-- that's just me -- Benjamin Franklin ** chasm\@attctc.dallas.tx.us -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) (11/01/89)
In article <1774@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: > From article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): >> No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some >> other decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. >> IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked >> and it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. >> > What thriving industry? At the point that the IBM PC came out there > was little going on in the Home/Desktop PC market. Yes there were > CP/M based machines that could be purchased for a small fortune, but > I would not call it a thriving industry. IBM went out on a limb > and the gamble paid off. Hmm. I'm not sure everyone would agree absolutely with that statement. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (11/01/89)
In article <6723@ficc.uu.net-> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: ->In article <143@asihub.UUCP>, jmp@asihub.UUCP (John Pantone) writes: ->> Microsoft and IBM simply blew it when designing MSDOS and the PC... .... ->3. IBM put it's tail on the line in introducing the IBM PC. No one -> knew it would take off like a rocket. It was a huge gamble. This was IBM's THIRD attempt at a small-business computer. It was not a huge gamble, because they didn't put that much into it - particularly in comparison to their later units. They seem to hit about 1 in 3, but that's not too bad. ->5. Compared to the 8 bit stuff available at the time, the IBM PC (and -> MS-DOS) was a step forward. I didn't think so. After sitting at a PC in Aug/Sep 1981, I found that I had more power and faster operations in my Z80 based systems. It only had a SSDD 160k disk, while others out there had 360k AND 720k. - and 1.2 megs if you count the 8" systems. Maybe you and I were looking at different things then, but I stayed away until Dos 2.0 came out. That's when I made the move, and then after a year, I backed away. I just couldn't get used to a system that slow. Only when the AT architecture came out with the '286 did the machines become useable for my tastes. PC was my 4th or 5th machine (I think). ->7. Look at consumer VHS video technology. It's in a parllel situation -> to IBM-PCs and MS-DOS. It started as breakthrough technology. We -> went out and bought tons of the stuff. We demanded higher performance. -> The original design has been enhanced to meet market demands. It now -> seems ordinary, commonplace, and almost obsolete. Again, at the time -> of introduction, this was breakthrough stuff. My 1977 Beta I still outperforms most VHS machines, but that's another story. -> ->8. The point to all this: companies take massive gambles with new -> products. If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS, -> we would not even have what we have today. That's absolutely true. We probably would have had something much better. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/02/89)
In article <2564@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > In article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and > > it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. > Short memory, Mr. da Silva? Before the IBM PC came out, there were > Apple IIs, and CP/M boxes, and Radio Shack computers, but it was > still a hobbyist market. Short memory, Mr. Cramer? The IBM-PC was priced in the same range as Altos, Cromemco, and other low-end business computers running various advanced versions of CP/M. It was a LOT more expensive than the Apples and Radio Shacks. The only reason it sold was the percieved value of the IBM name. For quite some time the only way to do anything useful with an IBM was to stick a "Baby Blue" card (or equivalent) in and run CP/M software. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
compata@cup.portal.com (David H Close) (11/02/89)
Re all the comments on IBM and PCDOS: Yes, PCDOS is not a state-of-the-art OS. Yes, IBM has created a huge installe base and must continue to support it indefinitely. But all of us sound like this is something new for IBM... Does anybody remember OS/360? or the System/3 OCP? Neither are state-of-the- art and probably weren't when they came out. Has IBM stopped development and abandoned it installed base? No. The customers won't let them - though I'm not sure they want to anyway. From IBM's point-of-view, there are advantages to a kludgy OS. Customers must rely on the IBM guru for advice and must buy the required hardware. Account control is the name of their game, not technology. So why is anyone surprised by PCDOS or the PC itself? Dave Close, Compata, Arlington, Texas compata@cup.portal.com
shawn@marilyn.UUCP (Shawn P. Stanley) (11/02/89)
In article <1774@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: >What thriving industry? At the point that the IBM PC came out there >was little going on in the Home/Desktop PC market. Yes there were >CP/M based machines that could be purchased for a small fortune, but >I would not call it a thriving industry. I think you've forgotten about the Apple II, the Commodore 64, and the Radio Shack Color Computer. Also, Apple was invading the education market at quite a fast pace. >IBM went out on a limb and the gamble paid off. IBM does not go out on limbs. IBM wrote off the micro market a long time ago, saying nobody could make money at it. When they saw what was growing, though, they decided to get involved.
ander@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael R. Primm) (11/03/89)
Re: IBM not shipping state-of-the-art
OS/360 DEFINED the state-of-the-art when it shipped back in 1965...what
operating systems were drifting around before then? not very much.
Also, OS/2 has been out for about 2 years now, has supported threads for all
that time (which most ALL UN*Xs still don't support), Dynamic Link Libraries
(wditto, although many are starting to support it), and, more recently,
installable file systems. For a single user networkable workstation, what
other "state of the art" do you want?
Also, funny thing about state-of-the-art.....nothing stays "state-of-the-art"
for more than a week or so.
Lastly, customers are a rather important factor when you're producing a product.
Staying state-of-the-art is all fine and good, except if you abandon all your
customers along the way....everyone wants new features and more power, but not
if 10+ years worth of software investment is getting tossed in the process.
--Mike Primmcs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (11/03/89)
In article <254532d1@ralf> Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
$What few people seem to remember is that IBM originally offered a choice
$of THREE operating systems: MSDOS, CPM-86, and UCSD p-System. Of these,
$MSDOS was not only the cheapest, but also quite compatible with CPM-80,
$allowing mechanical translation of 8080 programs (in fact, MSDOS still
$supports the CP/M entry point and calling convention).
CP/M-86 and p-System were indeed offered as alternative operating systems,
but they were slow to appear at dealers, cost more, and lacked software
to run under them. Also, IBM released all of its own software for the PC
to run under MS-DOS. Essentially, it's "You can use one of these three
operating systems ... but if you want to run our software (whic, of course,
you will, because we're IBM :-) you'd better buy this one."
If you look at the structure of the PSP (Program Segment Prefix) under
DOS, you will indeed find lots of things that don't need to be there but
were left in to allow for the mechanical translation of CP/M programs.
Also, the first seven (and 23 of the first 27) DOS calls are similar or
identical to CP/M's BDOS calls.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
They say the best in life is free // but if you don't pay then you don't eatdave@micropen (David F. Carlson) (11/03/89)
In article <2564@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > Short memory, Mr. da Silva? Before the IBM PC came out, there were > Apple IIs, and CP/M boxes, and Radio Shack computers, but it was > still a hobbyist market. There were some businesses adventuresome > enough to trust their accounts to these computers, but not many, > and for the most part, with good reason. > -- > Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Usually I find myself in agreement with Mr Cramer, however, in this case I think it is he that has tunnel vision. Many businesses were using CP/M, M/PM and, yes, even UNIX lookalikes by the time IBM decided to bless the microcomputer industry with its PC. I would put the hefty 300Watt power supply and 8 gauge steel case of my Cromemco Z-2 up against any PC as far as rugged durability. Although we worked in assembler or MBASIC or some such, these machines were used for commercial projects and I know of several still working for a living. This has absolutely nothing to do with Minix. How 'bout comp.sys.misc? -- David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc. micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu "The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (11/03/89)
In article <6773@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <2564@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > In article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: # # # IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and # # # it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. # # # Short memory, Mr. da Silva? Before the IBM PC came out, there were # # Apple IIs, and CP/M boxes, and Radio Shack computers, but it was # # still a hobbyist market. # # Short memory, Mr. Cramer? The IBM-PC was priced in the same range as Altos, # Cromemco, and other low-end business computers running various advanced # versions of CP/M. It was a LOT more expensive than the Apples and Radio # Shacks. The only reason it sold was the percieved value of the IBM name. # For quite some time the only way to do anything useful with an IBM was to # stick a "Baby Blue" card (or equivalent) in and run CP/M software. # -- # `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net# <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com#. How many businesses were using CP/M machines? How many were using PCs four years later? My experiences with the Radio Shack Model 3 were a chilling reminder of how untrustworthy some of the early microcomputer hardware really was -- and how slow it was, even compared to an IBM PC. The IBM PC didn't sell all that well initially, and largely because of a dearth of software for it. (In particular, there wasn't a useful word processor for the PC until Volkswriter came out -- the early releases of WordStar and the other package IBM was hyping for the PC were junk). But once business applications started to show up for it, PCs sold very, very well -- and at least part of that was not being stuck with the 48K and 64K RAM limits of the Apples and most Z80 systems. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer California: 2 years for mayhem; 4 years for an unregistered "assault rifle" in your home. Aren't liberals amazing? Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (11/03/89)
In article <1774@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: > From article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): >> No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some >> other decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. >> IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked >> and it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. > What thriving industry? At the point that the IBM PC came out there > was little going on in the Home/Desktop PC market. Yes there were > CP/M based machines that could be purchased for a small fortune, but > I would not call it a thriving industry. HAH! When the IBM PC came out: 1. It came with 16k of ram, and a casette port. 2. (Optional) floppy disks had a capacity of 160k. 3. No hard disk drives were available 4. CP/M-86, MS-DOS 1.0 (a *poor* imitation of CP/M-80 IMHO), and UCSD P-System were the only available OS's, with essentually no software available to run under MS-DOS, and little under CP/M-86. On the other hand, I had a "Lobo MAX-80". This computer (built into the base of the keyboard) cost $1000 without drives or monitor but: 1. Had a 5Mhz, 0 wait state, Z-80, roughly the same CPU performance as the IBM PC. Came with 128k ram. Also had a battery backupped clock. 2. Builtin disk controller for SCSI hard drives (!), and up to 4 each of 8" and 5.25" floppies. I used DSDD 8" floppies for 1.2 meg capacity, and much faster seek and smaller latency times over the IBM's puny offerings. Today I could connect 5.25" HD floppies or 3.5" DSDD floppies with no problems, even though it was not designed for them. 3. MUCH faster display, even scrolls correctly. WordStar worked great on this box, but looked like a turkey on an IBM PC. 4. OS's included CP/M and later CP/M Plus, which supported thousands of application programs, produced by little companies that didn't put their money in glitzy packaging but *did* answer their phones. Also LDOS, a very nice OS that was an extension of TRS-80's TRSDOS, so the machine would also run all the available Radio Shack software (some of it was really nice). (LDOS suported TSRs, as well as device drivers that could be installed at any time, not just boot time). It took the PC/AT before IBM produced a machine that made my Lobo obsolete. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
jk0@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Jason Coughlin,,,) (11/03/89)
*PLEASE* get this strain out of COMP.OS.MINIX!! It doesn't belong here, and frankly, most of us don't care! And, if we DO (some may) we can read comp.sys.ibm.pc. But it doesn't really relate to Minix. AST probably isn't going to make changes to Minix based upon these observations of the past. Thank you. -- -- Jason Coughlin ( jk0@sun.soe.clarkson.edu , jk0@clutx ) "Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of." - They Might Be Giants
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (11/03/89)
In article <6773@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <2564@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > In article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and > > > it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. > > > Short memory, Mr. da Silva? Before the IBM PC came out, there were > > Apple IIs, and CP/M boxes, and Radio Shack computers, but it was > > still a hobbyist market. > > versions of CP/M. It was a LOT more expensive than the Apples and Radio > Shacks. The only reason it sold was the percieved value of the IBM name. > For quite some time the only way to do anything useful with an IBM was to > stick a "Baby Blue" card (or equivalent) in and run CP/M software. I worked with Apple IIs and TRS-80 model Is. I got a floppy only IBM PC in the fall of 1983, having to wait 3 months to get CGA. With twin floppies and CGA, there is no doubt in my mind that the IBM PC was a better machine than either the Apple IIe, the TRS-80, or the Kaypro. Now, of course, I feel that almost any clone is preferable to a PS/2, but I still hold that the IBM PC was indeed a good computer. If it wasn't, not even IBM could have sold it (witness all their flops in the years since) -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4.5 years down, 2.5 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "But I digress..."
rwa@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Ross Alexander) (11/04/89)
wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: >From article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): >> No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other >> decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. >> IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and >> it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. >What thriving industry? At the point that the IBM PC came out there >was little going on in the Home/Desktop PC market. Yes there were >CP/M based machines that could be purchased for a small fortune, but >I would not call it a thriving industry. IBM went out on a limb >and the gamble paid off. Foo. There was definitely a very active small-player industry going in the 198[12] time frame. IBM just walked in and took it over. No risk was involved; the typical Pavlovian attitude of non-computer types when confronted with the mystic trigrammaton (three-letter-word) and the fact that the biggest segment of the personal-computer market was people who didn't want to buy into anything but an utterly sure thing delivered the market to IBM on a plate. Period. It's called buying the business. If your pockets are deep enough, and Big Blue has very deep pockets, it's a dead certainty. The PC was no cheaper, no faster, and had a lot less software in 1981 than did my Heath H89. I benched the two, naturally I've discarded the data but the conclusions stay with me clearly enough ;-). But Heath had the wrong market image (they were seen as a hacker's vendor), and couldn't match IBMs sales/service/var network. Not that I'm a big fan of Heath - they could indeed be a royal canadian pain in the *ss to deal with. They took my money (over $4000.00) and sat on it for months before delivering... Ross
compata@cup.portal.com (David H Close) (11/06/89)
Mike Primm writes re: IBM not shipping state-of-the-art > OS/360 DEFINED the state-of-the-art when it shipped back in 1965...what > operating systems were drifting around before then? not very much. Well, the B5500 was around before then. Its OS (MCP) offered multi-tasking. I don't believe OS/360 was SOTA when released, though it had some good ideas. As usual, IBM's best ideas are the security blanket it offers its customers: stick with us and you'll be ok. Personally, I'd rather not pay the price. Dave Close, Compata, Arlington, Texas compata@cup.portal.com
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (11/06/89)
In article <4992@internal.Apple.COM>, desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes: > In article <1774@naucse.UUCP> wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: > > What thriving industry? At the point that the IBM PC came out there > > was little going on in the Home/Desktop PC market. Yes there were > > CP/M based machines that could be purchased for a small fortune, but > > I would not call it a thriving industry. IBM went out on a limb > > and the gamble paid off. > > Hmm. I'm not sure everyone would agree absolutely with that statement. You think anyone would disagree that the gamble paid off? PC's may not be all of IBM's business, but they are big enough to come up regularly in the strategy sessions, I am sure! And if you disagree that they went out on a limb, you probably were not there then. [There are lots of reasons that could have logically been advanced to point out why the IBM PC would be a flop -- the OS was not much better than CP/M, it cost more than an Apple II (by $35), and it had lots less software available than either!] And if the comment applied to the "small fortune" mention, I quote from a Playboy, May, 1982, article on personal computers: Manufacturer/Model Base Price Typical Price Sinclair ZX81 $150 $250+TV Commodore VIC 20 $300 $485+TV Atari 400 $399 $510+TV Osborne I $1795 $2095 Atari 800 $899 $2625+TV Apple II Plus $1530 $3130+TV Commodore CBM 8032 $1495 $4285 IBM PC $1565 $4445 Zenith Z90 $3195 $4790 Radio Shack TRS80-III $699 $5098 North Star Advantage $3999 $5500 Apple III $4690 $5760 If you allow for inflation, a nice Amiga, Mac or IBM clone can be had for the price of a cassette based 6502 machine of that day. The only machines on that list that had an OS to speak of at all are the Ataris, the CP/M boxes, and the Apple computers. And only the most expensive, the Apple III, had comparable memory. None had comparable expansion capabilities. By the way, the article concluded by pointing out that there were benefits to be gained from "standard" products available from multiple vendors if you want the computer you buy to have a "long and useful life", sugguesting a CP/M box. > Peter Desnoyers > Apple ATG > (408) 974-4469 Fortelling the future is risky, Charles Marslett chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us [of STB Systems, Inc, and Wordmark Systems]
frank@rsoft.bc.ca (Frank I. Reiter) (11/07/89)
In article <10038@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) writes: > >Manufacturer/Model Base Price Typical Price >Radio Shack TRS80-III $699 $5098 The price on the model III is a little wide of the mark. I bought a model III with 48K, RS232, and double sided drives for $3500 Canadian dollars in 1980 or 1981. With all the great features listed above this machine was fully loaded. <Grin> -- _____________________________________________________________________________ Frank I. Reiter UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!frank Reiter Software Inc. frank@rsoft.bc.ca, a2@mindlink.UUCP Langley, British Columbia BBS: Mind Link @ (604)533-2312, login as Guest
pcm@iwarpr0.intel.com (Phil Miller) (11/09/89)
Hey, folks, this debate is getting old. If you absolutely MUST continue this discussion, please remove comp.os.minix from your list of news groups. Phil Miller