ned@SCINEWS.UUCP (Ned Robie) (06/07/85)
When IBM comes out with their 370 on a chip(s), the future of the 8086 family is, I believe, in serious question. Granted, IBM will continue to provide strong support for the 8086 family for the forseeable future, but once the 370 microchip is ready and 32 bit microprocessors are the standard, the 8086 fam. may well be on its deathbed. The 370 has virtual memory(!), a well-proven architecture, and gobs of software. What would be the point in dragging the 8086 along over the LONG HAUL? Perhaps the 8086 was a stop-gap for IBM. They needed to get into the micro market in a hurry or they would have risked being too late. The 370 micro wasn't near ready, so the 8086 was a convenient (and relatively cheap) interim solution. As for 8086 segmentation... IBM needs to give its customers some reason to switch to the 370 when it's ready. Segmentation is simply planned obsolescence. They're not idiots. These are most assuredly MY opinions and do not reflect the opinions of my employer. Any comments? (Need I ask?) -- Ned Robie
geoffs@brl-tgr.ARPA (Geoffrey Sauerborn ) (06/12/85)
In article <120@SCINEWS.UUCP> ned@SCINEWS.UUCP writes: . . . >Perhaps the 8086 was a stop-gap for IBM. They needed to get into the >micro market in a hurry or they would have risked being too late.... I wonder if there is such a thing as too late for IBM. If they had waited until today to come out with a micro, and it used the 4040 (4004?) and their own propriety operating system, I think it would still be an overnight success. People would buy it because it would have three letters on the cover. Most computer owners (like Exxon, GM, Joe's Dinner,...) don't know or care about things like segmentation, virtual memory, bla-bla-bla. All they want is something that will balance their books, or bill their cumstomers, or.... They don't know what makes a "good" computer so they buy the big name. This will also assure them (they think) of product support. (Just like the Jr. right? :-> ). That's my opinion. And I do see the merits of a computer buyer having this attitude. (By the way, would anyone out there be interested in my Coleco ADAM - used little, good condition. :-> ) Geoff S.
hall@ittral.UUCP (Doug Hall) (06/12/85)
In article <120@SCINEWS.UUCP> ned@SCINEWS.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: >When IBM comes out with their 370 on a chip(s), the future of the 8086 >family is, I believe, in serious question. Granted, IBM will continue >to provide strong support for the 8086 family for the forseeable future, >but once the 370 microchip is ready and 32 bit microprocessors are >the standard, the 8086 fam. may well be on its deathbed. The 370 has virtual >memory(!), a well-proven architecture, and gobs of software. > ^^^^^^^^^^^ <- (to whom?) ^^^^^^^^^^^ <- for what? Bullcrap!!!!! Do you really think IBM produces all the software that runs on all of these 8086/8 machines? Not even close. And how many people would trade their 8088 based PC's with all the *useful* software they have for a machine with very little software relevant to the business world? Have you even stopped to think what kind of hardware support you'd have to have to get the kind of performance you're thinking about? We're definitely not talking about a $3000 machine here. You mention virtual memory. Now you need mega-disk space (fast disks, too) to get decent performance from it. A well-proven architecture does not necessarily mean a clean, elegant architecture. The 370 is nearly 20 years old. It doesn't lend itself well to small systems. It never will. And if Itty-Bitty-Machines is silly enough to market a 370-on-a-chip, it won't present any threat to the Intel family. The base is already too solid. Doug Hall ittvax!ittral!hall
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (06/13/85)
[] > From: ned@SCINEWS.UUCP (Ned Robie) > When IBM comes out with their 370 on a chip(s), the future of the 8086 > family is, I believe, in serious question. Too late. The XT/370 has been around for at least 6 months, and clearly hasn't done the Intel chips any damage. > What would be the point in dragging the 8086 along over the LONG HAUL? While MS-DOS isn't perfect, it sure makes more sense on a desktop computer than CMS does. Do you really want the CMS file system on a PC? (Gak!) Also, some people like graphics and color. Neither is available on the XT/370 running in either 370 or terminal mode. > As for 8086 segmentation... IBM needs to give its customers some reason > to switch to the 370 when it's ready. Segmentation is simply planned > obsolescence. I dunno about that -- I have nothing against segmentation per se. 64K fixed-size segments, though ... What, by the way, would be the point of dragging the 370 architecture over the long haul? Is this something we really want, given newer architectures (National Semi 32K chips, RISC, etc.)? The Intel family has its problems, but there are alternatives other than the 370. There's been lots of progress in machine architectures -- let's take advantage of them. -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Bitnet: shor%sphinx@uchicago.bitnet
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (06/13/85)
In article shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) writes: >> From: ned@SCINEWS.UUCP (Ned Robie) >> When IBM comes out with their 370 on a chip(s), the future of the 8086 >> family is, I believe, in serious question. > >Too late. The XT/370 has been around for at least 6 months, and clearly >hasn't done the Intel chips any damage. it's been around closer to 16 months. i was at demo in february last year. it uses the 8068 as a fileserver and first interrupt handler and a 68000 for most of the other work. the AT/370 does something similar with the 286. it was announced about 6 months ago. i also might mention that IBM has had a real 370 on a chip for at least two years. the word is that IBM doesn't think anybody will need a micro with the power of a 4341 (that's about 1.5 780's) in a package the size of a PC. with the success of the DEC microvax I and probable success of the microvax II, they may change their mind. something that powerful will be I/O bound most of the time given current small hard disk technology. >> As for 8086 segmentation... IBM needs to give its customers some reason >> to switch to the 370 when it's ready. Segmentation is simply planned >> obsolescence. > >I dunno about that -- I have nothing against segmentation per se. 64K >fixed-size segments, though ... just to clarify a little, the 370 is a segmented architecture from two different points of view. the operating system references data in segments of 1M or 64K, depending on the hardware facilties enabled. the virtual storage management instructions must deal with the appropriate segment sizes. of course, no-one writes their own operating system for 370's much anymore, so there's not much need for people to worry about it. handling data areas larger than one segment size becomes a real excercise. code must handle units of 4K in code size. the base-displacement scheme of handling instruction addressing requires that a base register be pointing to the start of a 4K page containing the code to be executed. if the code is larger than 4K, either another base register needs to be allocated or the current base register changed to point to the appropriate location. fortuantely, data can be viewed as residing in a flat address space, so that a compiler doesn't have to worry about changing registers for addressing data as much. the pdp-11 is essentially a segmented machine (when you consider split I and D). a LOT of software gets by with the limited segment size. the amount of system software available to make this transition as painless as possible allows the user to ignore this most of the time. >What, by the way, would be the point of dragging the 370 architecture over >the long haul? Is this something we really want, given newer >architectures (National Semi 32K chips, RISC, etc.)? The Intel family has >its problems, but there are alternatives other than the 370. There's been >lots of progress in machine architectures -- let's take advantage of them. there is one advantage, and IBM is using it, compatibility. IBM has already made a statement of direction implicitly by the existence of the XT/370 and AT/370. they want to have an integrated system of micros, minis, and mainframes running the same software on the same architecture. DEC appears to be thinking the same with the microvax. software development costs are reduced, training of people is reduced, and a system can grow with the user as more power is required without losing the use of software developed earlier. face it, IBM is in the market of selling to corporate customers. it's almost coincidence that the average consumer is capable of affording a PC. right now, no-one else can offer an object code compatible system of hardware spanning almost a 1000 to 1 range on CPU speed. whatever, or whoever, you are in the computer industry, you have to watch IBM. with their research and development facilities, marketing force, and sheer size, they can strongly influence the industry almost whenever they chose to. this can be a good thing, and it can be a bad thing. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
g-frank@gumby.UUCP (06/14/85)
> When IBM comes out with their 370 on a chip(s), the future of the 8086 > family is, I believe, in serious question. Granted, IBM will continue > to provide strong support for the 8086 family for the forseeable future, > but once the 370 microchip is ready and 32 bit microprocessors are > the standard, the 8086 fam. may well be on its deathbed. The 370 has virtual > memory(!), a well-proven architecture, and gobs of software. What > would be the point in dragging the 8086 along over the LONG HAUL? Fascinating. Can I see a show of hands from everyone who thinks that: 1) The 370 architecture is a miracle of modern computer design. (Dig those addressing modes!). 2) VM is a great operating system. 3) The 370 PC is a great success. 4) All that wonderful 370 software out there is a) inexpensive b) user-friendly. 5) IBM bought 30% of Intel so it can stop using its products. Where did you get this news? From your hairdresser? -- Dan Frank Q: What's the difference between an Apple MacIntosh and an Etch-A-Sketch? A: You don't have to shake the Mac to clear the screen.
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (06/15/85)
[] I wasn't aware that the 370 actually had been put on a chip or that there was a 370/AT. Pretty interesting. (BTW yes, I'm familiar with both the implementation of the XT/370 and the architecture of the "real" 370.) Your point about compatibility is well taken, except ... Large mainframe packages are being moved to the PC, but to MS-DOS, not the XT/370. PC-FOCUS and PC-204 are already available, and they don't run under CMS. I have yet to see any mention of any software being available for the XT/370. I also haven't seen any discussion of using or programming the thing in any of the major micro magazines (with the exception of the Byte special issue on IBM PCs), or on the net. So here are some questions: Does anybody out there use an XT/370 or an AT/370? What sorts of applications are you running? Did you buy the software commercially, or did you move it yourself? -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Bitnet: shor%sphinx@uchicago.bitnet
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (06/16/85)
In article <396@gumby.UUCP> g-frank@gumby.UUCP writes: > 2) VM is a great operating system. Here's one person who thinks VM is pretty neat. CMS, on the other hand, rivals CP/M in power... -- A man could get elected President by promising to put the phone company back together. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
JCA@psuvm.BITNET (06/18/85)
Here is another person how thinks VM is real neat. (Only problem is
you really need a mainframe to run it.)
Jeff Almoney
The Pennsylvania State University
Computation Center
University Park, PA 16802
(814)863-0422
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (06/18/85)
> I wonder if there is such a thing as too late for IBM. If they > had waited until today to come out with a micro, and it used the 4040 > (4004?) and their own propriety operating system, I think it would still > be an overnight success. Right. Just like the PC Jr. and the PC Portable (the Compaq clone). -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
jimi@SCINEWS.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (06/19/85)
> In article <120@SCINEWS.UUCP> ned@SCINEWS.UUCP (Ned Robie) writes: > >SUMMARY: > > IBM will replace the 8086 family with a u/370 in the not-so-distant > > future.... The 370 has virtual memory(!), a well-proven architecture, > > and gobs of software. > > > > Mr. Hall asks: is the S/370 well proven? are there gobs of software? The best way for me to respond is to take this on a point-by-point basis. My only regret is that I will sound like an IBM defender. I only respond because Mr. Hall seems to have totally missed the point of the original posting, along with others on the net. The orig. posting is NOT about the xT/370, but about a chip (set?) under development at various IBM sites that replicates the S/370 architecture. I recently listened to Nick Treddenick of IBM describe some work in this area and saw a preliminary, high-level chip layout. > Bullcrap!!!!! Do you really think IBM produces all the software that > runs on all of these 8086/8 machines? Not even close. And how many > people would trade their 8088 based PC's with all the *useful* > software they have for a machine with very little software relevant to > the business world? > This paragraph leads one to believe the original posting's reference to software was to 8086 family software. How Mr. Hall misconstrued this I don't know. The original reference was to the large amount of S/370 software out in the world. Even an ardent IBM-hater must admit that $3.2 billion 1984 software revenues indicates acceptance in the business world. > Have you even stopped to think what kind of hardware support you'd > have to have to get the kind of performance you're thinking about? > We're definitely not talking about a $3000 machine here. You mention > virtual memory. Now you need mega-disk space (fast disks, too) to get > decent performance from it. > Mr. Hall asking anyone if he or she has stopped to think is ironic, be- cause he apparently has never had that experience. Whether or not this approach requires extensive hardware support at present is irrelevant. By the time a u/370 is available, large fast disks, etc. should be readily available. A 10MB disk is inadequate for serious business applications. An 8086 family CPU is inadequate for large serious applications due to its retarded architecture (64KB segments). Everything about the IBM PC and XT shouts "toy." A $3000 IBM PC or clone, despite what "power users" and "spreadsheet jockeys" think, is not a business machine without a lot of bags hanging off it. Single user systems may make some sense, but single tasking is brain-dead (yes I know CMS is single-tasking). > A well-proven architecture does not necessarily mean a clean, elegant > architecture. The 370 is nearly 20 years old. It doesn't lend itself > well to small systems. It never will. And if Itty-Bitty-Machines is > silly enough to market a 370-on-a-chip, it won't present any threat to > the Intel family. The base is already too solid. > > Doug Hall > ittvax!ittral!hall > > Whether the S/370 architecture is "clean" or "elegant" is irrelevant in light of its huge commercial success. Its age is also not important. The IBM 43xx family has some very small systems, so the third point is demonstrably wrong, and there is nothing inherent in the architecture that restricts its use in small systems. Assume there are a couple of million 3270 terminals installed, all connected to IBM mainframes, running applications under CICS, IMS, etc. It seems plausible that all the MIS managers of IBM shops would buy machines that beat the IBM 327x terminals on bang/buck (absurdly easy) and don't pose the data comm and architectural problems inherent in the PC. These same managers control DP activities in companies with hundreds of thousands of PCs. They could kill two birds with one stone with a box like this, and they're asking for them now. (Those who think that MIS managers have lost a significant amount of control are hopelessly naive, or have never really requested serious corporate data from a corporate MIS department for their PC.) Since IBM caters to MIS, and MIS caters to IBM, a scenario that preserves the installed S/370 software base (worth about $200 billion world-wide) and makes more mega-bucks for IBM seems very plausible. To conclude, Mr. Hall, I would appreciate it if you (could) would understand what you reply to. Jim Ingram SCI Systems, Inc. 919 549 8334 {akgua, decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi P.O 12557, RTP, NC 27709
rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.) (06/20/85)
In article <11271@brl-tgr.ARPA> geoffs@brl-tgr.ARPA (Geoffrey Sauerborn (TANK) <geoffs>) writes: >In article <120@SCINEWS.UUCP> ned@SCINEWS.UUCP writes: >. >. >. >>Perhaps the 8086 was a stop-gap for IBM. They needed to get into the >>micro market in a hurry or they would have risked being too late.... > > I wonder if there is such a thing as too late for IBM. If they >had waited until today to come out with a micro, and it used the 4040 >(4004?) and their own propriety operating system, I think it would still >be an overnight success. > > People would buy it because it would have three letters on the >cover. I disagree. Even IBM has to provide a reasonable level of utility in its products in order to sell them. Despite its flaws, the PC can run nice word processing, BIG spreadsheets and reasonable database systems. This is all that the average user wants. Also, you must consider the timeframe. When I bought my PC three years ago (it had been out for about 8 months) it was the most advanced *commercial* machine available. The only other choices in the computer stores in Calgary were the Apples II and III, and CP/M machines like the Osbourne. It was possible then to buy an IBM PC strictly on merit, and I think it is still possible now. If you don't need amazing speed, then the incredible library of software makes the PC very attractive. Disclaimer: Don't misinterpret the above. What *I* really want is a 68020 or 32032 box with an FPU and gobs of memory, running a decent multitasking OS. My point is that there are still applications where an IBM PC makes sense, even if you ignore those three little letters. Rick Sellens UUCP: watmath!watdcsu!rsellens CSNET: rsellens%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: rsellens%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
ned@SCINEWS.UUCP (Ned Robie) (06/20/85)
> > When IBM comes out with their 370 on a chip(s), the future of the 8086 > > family is, I believe, in serious question. Granted, IBM will continue > > to provide strong support for the 8086 family for the forseeable future, > > but once the 370 microchip is ready and 32 bit microprocessors are > > the standard, the 8086 fam. may well be on its deathbed. The 370 has virtual > > memory(!), a well-proven architecture, and gobs of software. What > > would be the point in dragging the 8086 along over the LONG HAUL? > > Fascinating. Can I see a show of hands from everyone who thinks that: > > 1) The 370 architecture is a miracle of modern computer design. > (Dig those addressing modes!). A moot point. > > 2) VM is a great operating system. > VM is not an operating system. It's a control program that emulates one or more 370s. Several stand-alone programs and operating systems can run on the same real machine under VM, such as MVS, CMS, mainframe DOS, UN*X (and maybe PC DOS someday). Personally, I think VM is an elegant way to provide *simultaneous* access to different operating systems on a single machine. With VM I can have what I want when I want it. I can also run stand-alone programs without having to stop the world. > 3) The 370 PC is a great success. The 370 PC and related software are just too expensive right now. Also, the hardware is not fast enough yet. IBM *IS* working on the hardware. The software will be more price competitive when IBM wants it to be (i.e. when the mass market wants it to be). I believe that IBM's recent endeavors to wean corporate customers from 370 source code is in anticipation of the PC market, among other reasons. The original posting stated clearly that this is not expected to happen over night. It will take some time for a responsive and competitively priced 370 PC to be a reality. But anyone who says it won't happen either hasn't been in this industry long enough or has blinders on. > > 4) All that wonderful 370 software out there is > a) inexpensive It will be when there is a big enough market. > b) user-friendly. There are plenty of examples of *user-friendly* software for the 370. Just a few... SPF PROFS VOLLIE/ROSCOE IDMS (Cullinet) SQL/System R Such software has been around for a long time and has been used by many. Companies have a huge amount of resources invested in them. Current PC software can't compete with it because it doesn't need to. But inevitably the day will come when that will change. 370 software has got a fairly big head-start and is always being improved (learning user-friendliness from PC software along the way). > > 5) IBM bought 30% of Intel so it can stop using its products. Of course IBM is going to invest in the company whose chips it will make a success. But the real question is, why only 30%? Some possible explanations... a) no antitrust problems, b) no long-term commitment, c) stock CAN be sold; gradually, of course (IBM wouldn't want to hurt its investment by sparking a mass exodus. Nor would it want to hurt too many others.), d) generally, to leave their options open. > > Where did you get this news? From your hairdresser? You know what they say, only they know! Seriously, the original posting was not intended to start rumours or antagonize. Rather, it was intended to provoke discussion about a possible, if not plausible, scenario. With all the current investment going into the 8086 family, possibilities such as these should not be ignored, no matter how seemingly absurd. Stranger (and more profound) things have occurred and taken the unsuspecting by surprise. It doesn't hurt to be at least aware. As always, the opinions expressed herein are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer. -- Ned Robie > > > -- > Dan Frank > > Q: What's the difference between an Apple MacIntosh > and an Etch-A-Sketch? > > A: You don't have to shake the Mac to clear the screen.
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (06/21/85)
In article <1864JCA@psuvm> JCA@psuvm.BITNET writes: >Here is another person how thinks VM is real neat. (Only problem is >you really need a mainframe to run it.) the XT/370 and AT/370 run VM/PC. no RSCS or other networking features but it has all of CMS and most of the CP functions. pricey, but it allows attachment to, and running of software, of a VM/370 mainframe. i've used one a little bit and it's fast provided you don't do a lot of paging. normal configuration is 4M memory, the hard disk, and networking hardware. to the mainframe, the XT/370 and AT/370 appear as a 3278 terminal. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
hall@ittral.UUCP (Doug Hall) (06/22/85)
In article <159@SCINEWS.UUCP> jimi@SCINEWS.UUCP (Jim Ingram) writes: >This paragraph leads one to believe the original posting's reference to >software was to 8086 family software. How Mr. Hall misconstrued this I >don't know. The original reference was to the large amount of S/370 >software out in the world. Even an ardent IBM-hater must admit that >$3.2 billion 1984 software revenues indicates acceptance in the business world. > If anyone has misconstrued anything here, it is Mr. Ingram, who not only missed my point, but the point of the original posting as well. Certainly IBM has sold a lot of S/370 software, but that doesn't guarantee the acceptance or success of the 370 chip set in the PC market. If this chip set succeeds, it will be in a completely different market than the current 8088/6 market. Somebody has to prove to Joe User that an S/370 system offers more bang/buck than his IBM PC, and they won't do it by waving a "370" flag in front of him. He doesn't care what's in the box, as long as he can get nice integrated applications for it, do his spreadsheets, write his reports, and make his boss happy. Of that $3.2 billion in 370 software revenues, how much was for specific applications like this? > >A 10MB disk is inadequate for serious business applications. An 8086 >family CPU is inadequate for large serious applications due to its >retarded architecture (64KB segments). Everything about the IBM PC and >XT shouts "toy." A $3000 IBM PC or clone, despite what "power users" >and "spreadsheet jockeys" think, is not a business machine without a >lot of bags hanging off it. Single user systems may make some sense, >but single tasking is brain-dead (yes I know CMS is single-tasking). > Again, Mr. Ingram misses the point. The original posting predicted that this wonderful new 370-on-a-chip would mean the demise of Intel micros, namely the 8088/6. The problem is that "serious business applications" means two different things when you are comparing 370 systems and 8086 systems. The "spreadsheet jock" may find the 10 Mb hard disk completely adequate, and he certainly views his applications as serious. As far as "serious business applications" on a 370 scale are concerned, nobody ever said that 10 MB was enough. I won't argue about the retarded architecture of the 8086. A recent poll I took on the net showed that over 90% preferred anything but Intel, but many went on to admit that they still use the stuff because of the software available. And *that* was the intent of my posting. You can't win just by building a better mousetrap. I'll take my 68010 based Valid workstation over an IBM PC any day, but you'd never get a manager to buy them for his "spreadsheet jocks." > >Assume there are a couple of million 3270 terminals installed, all connected >to IBM mainframes, running applications under CICS, IMS, etc. It seems >plausible that all the MIS managers of IBM shops would buy machines that >beat the IBM 327x terminals on bang/buck (absurdly easy) and don't pose >the data comm and architectural problems inherent in the PC. These same >managers control DP activities in companies with hundreds of thousands of >PCs. They could kill two birds with one stone with a box like this, and >they're asking for them now. > While the 327x terminals may be attached to mainframes running applications under CICS, IMS, etc, the PC's scattered all over the building may not be. Why do you conclude that you can just substitute a 370 system for an IBM PC and everyone will be happy? And even if this did happen in all the "IBM shops" you'd still have a market for the PC, right? So the S/370-on-a-chip still hasn't killed the Intel (read PC) market, which was *my point to begin with*. I never said it wouldn't succeed. But it won't drive everyone else into the dust, either, no matter how much you'd like for it to. By the way, I wasn't referring to the XT/370 in my original posting. I know the XT/370 is a totally different beast. And I'm not pro-Intel or pro-IBM, even though I used some of their trademarks in this article. That should do for a disclaimer. Doug Hall ITT Telecom, Raleigh NC ittvax!ittral!hall
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (06/26/85)
> Also, you must consider the timeframe. When I bought my PC three years > ago (it had been out for about 8 months) it was the most advanced > *commercial* machine available. A fine example of the power of brand names. At that time, there was a 68000-based micro available from the company that (at that time) had sold more computers than all of the other computer manufacturers put together. But no self-respecting businessman is going to put his career on the line and recommend that his company buy a *Radio Shack* computer! -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp