brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/06/86)
In article <3921@sun.uucp> larryl@sun.UUCP writes: > >His first point is that the price of 16bit workstations would have remained >around the $10 000 range. I don't beleive that this is strictly true. >There are always companies like Apple who will reduce hardware to the >minimum to reduce price. Try again. Apple is a high margin company, not a price cutter. There is little difference in the hardware of the Atari ST and the MAC, but observe the price differences. >There is the 68008 with an 8bit bus to reduce >costs, etc. The price may not have come down quite as quickly, but I think >that today we would still have the Apple MacIntoshes, Atari STs, and >Commodore Amigas at about the same price that they are today. IBM's price has come down largely due to competition. IBM's open architecture and third party OS allowed cheap clones. AT Clones (I am posting from one running a very nice Unix) are now available for $1450! (US$) The Mac has a proprietary OS and Rom, and the Atari ST is too cheap to make money cloning. Only the combination of high cost and non-proprietary hardware/software created the highly competitive PC compatible market that drove the price down. > >(the 386) is recognized as a stop-gap measure until the 486 You are the first person I have heard this from. You want my prediction, the 386 will take over the world. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (06/12/86)
In article <567@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <3921@sun.uucp> larryl@sun.UUCP writes: >> >>There are always companies like Apple who will reduce hardware to the >>minimum to reduce price. > >Try again. Apple is a high margin company, not a price cutter. >There is little difference in the hardware of the Atari ST and the MAC, but >observe the price differences. Depends on "who's buying", students get substantial discounts. However, I would substitute Atari for Apple. >>There is the 68008 with an 8bit bus to reduce >>costs, etc. The price may not have come down quite as quickly, but I think >>that today we would still have the Apple MacIntoshes, Atari STs, and >>Commodore Amigas at about the same price that they are today. > >IBM's price has come down largely due to competition. IBM's open architecture >and third party OS allowed cheap clones. AT Clones (I am posting from one >running a very nice Unix) are now available for $1450! (US$) Quick question: It seems that there are much fewer problems producing a 100% AT compatible than a 100% PC compatible. Did IBM change 3.0 that much? Is "basic in rom" still included on the AT? Are graphics routines centrally vectored or something? >The Mac has a proprietary OS and Rom, and the Atari ST is too cheap to make >money cloning. Only the combination of high cost and non-proprietary >hardware/software created the highly competitive PC compatible market that >drove the price down. I would agree, to a point. Ultimately, the success of the 68K machines will depend on the emergence or creation of a Standard in OS, disk format, and peripherals. Strangely enough, this seems to be happening almost in spite of the producing companies. SCSI, OS-9, and "VDI" standards may eventually give the 68K machines an edge. >>(the 386) is recognized as a stop-gap measure until the 486 > >You are the first person I have heard this from. You want my prediction, the >386 will take over the world. > I don't like to make preditions about specific companies. I would say that the first company to come out with 1280x800 (mono) graphics, 1 meg memory, 1 MIPS, Virtual memory, and non-proprietary multi-tasking in a complete system for under $1000 will shake the market so badly, that the rest will have to follow. IBM's one weakness is it's soft "Underbelly". DEC beat them in the mini market with the PDP-11 and UNIX. Later the VAX moved in to capture some of what would have been the mainframe market. Come up with a machine that is FUNCTIONALLY better than the PC, non-proprietary at the periphs and OS level, and priced well below the IBM compatible market, and you could create and capture a new, untapped market. The 68K market hasn't matured, and may never do so, if the 6502 market is any indicator. On the other hand, some National, Intel, or even Inmos chip may "pull the rug" from under the 386 before the "fat lady sings". Right now, I like the looks of the 68070, but success depends on what is done with it, not the chip itself.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/14/86)
In article <472@ccird1.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: > >Quick question: It seems that there are much fewer problems producing >a 100% AT compatible than a 100% PC compatible. Did IBM change 3.0 >that much? Is "basic in rom" still included on the AT? Are graphics >routines centrally vectored or something? No, it's just that the world had more experience with making PC clones when the AT came out. It took a few years for PC clones to settle down. When the AT come out, clone makers knew exactly what to do, and had their clones ready to go right away. Odd as it may seem, other companies will probably beat IBM to the punch with 386 based AT compatibles! The clones will come out before the real machine. When IBM releases its 386 box, the clone makers will quickly make the appropriate changes and be in production within months before any serious 386 using software is ready. The fact that the 386 runs 286 programs faster is reason enough to make an AT clone using it. > > >I don't like to make preditions about specific companies. I would >say that the first company to come out with 1280x800 (mono) graphics, >1 meg memory, 1 MIPS, Virtual memory, and non-proprietary >multi-tasking in a complete system for under $1000 will shake the >market so badly, that the rest will have to follow. The Commodore 900 had all this for about $3K 2 years ago. They cancelled. > >The 68K market hasn't matured, and may never do so, if the 6502 >market is any indicator. On the other hand, some National, Intel, >or even Inmos chip may "pull the rug" from under the 386 before >the "fat lady sings". > >Right now, I like the looks of the 68070, but success depends >on what is done with it, not the chip itself. Actually, the 68000 family signs its own death warrant, not through its faults, but through its good points! The 68000 is such that almost nobody writes assembler for it. All major code is done in C or some other HLL. Programs done in HLLs have very little chip loyalty. They'll move to whatever computer sells well in a flash. Processers that are bad, and thus demand lots of assembler, gain loyalty. If you write for this chip, you must remain loyal to it. This is the cause of the long life of the Apple ][ and 6502. What might have happened if the 6502 had been expanded instead of the 6800? The same guy (Chuck Peddle) did both chips, and he did the 6502 second. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/25/86)
> >... the first company to come out with 1280x800 (mono) graphics, > >1 meg memory, 1 MIPS, Virtual memory, and non-proprietary > >multi-tasking in a complete system for under $1000 will shake the > >market so badly, that the rest will have to follow. > > The Commodore 900 had all this for about $3K 2 years ago. They cancelled. More significantly, the Atari ST comes close now, and is selling pretty well. The screen is too small, there is no virtual memory, and none of the software multi-tasks, but it's close and later ones will probably be closer. -- Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry