jpm@quad1.UUCP (06/03/86)
> The PC manufactures choice to persist with the INTEL chips, was obviously > made due to the software base. I for one however don't see why the software > vendors continued to write for such a ridiculous architecture. Now, I am > not completely dumb, I know the mythical power of the big BLUE force, and > how everybodies tagging along for the ride has made it as big as it is > today. However, IBM is only now starting to discover that they are at the > fringe of a huge black hole, and need something to pull them away before they > disappear. IBM evidently believes that their new RT PC is just that. They > have now taken a hold of the end of the rope, and are trying to catch the > next generation of PC's. Note how the RT still runs the MS-DOOF software. I don't think IBM sees the RT as the next generation PC. They have aimed the RT directly at the workstation market. I also don't think the current PC design is on the edge of a black hole. A normal PC/XT is enough computer power for a whole lot of people. Not everybody needs virtual memory, 300 MB disks, etc. I'd say most people are happy with a PC/XT and Lotus 1-2-3. > In my opinion, the PC-XT-AT steps came too quick to be anything but a > 'Grab the business world by their check books' marketing ploy. At the time > of the release of the PC, the 80286 was available, and could have been used. > But, no there was too much money to be made if IBM used the XT as the first > step up, and then the AT. The 80286 was not available in working production quantities when the PC was first designed. I don't even think the 80186 was available in more than sample quantities at that time. Given that IBM wanted to go with Intel, the only options were the 8088 and 8086 (and yes, they blew it big when they went with the 8 bit bus). > For those of you who like to spend money, and can afford to own a PC, > an XT, and an AT, you can continue to act blindly. For those companies > out for blood, and counting on the ignorant public to buy anything with your > name on it, GOOD LUCK. Your insistance on not providing the very best > technology will force you to compromise constantly, to maintain your > current customer base. If you are in business to make money you don't argue about how lousey the market is, you just design and deliver the products that the market wants to buy. People buying your product is what its all about, not that the particular CPU is a crock. > A word to the wise. That fact that so much software exists for the > IBM PC and compatibles by no means justifies the insistance on using the > current hardware. If the software vendors did not write the software > using a compiler, so that it can be ported to another hardware configuration, > then they are mostly to blame. You are really showing ignorance about the PC marketplace. A lot of software is written in assembly language. For space and speed reasons it has to be. A lot of software that is written in a high level language contains low-level code that goes out and touches the PC hardware (the screen and keyboard most often). It is NON-TRIVIAL to move some of the best PC software to other systems, otherwise it would have been done a long time ago. It comes back to this: You don't argue with the buyers, you just give them what they want. People wanted fast software on their PC's, so programs were written in assembly language and talked directly to the hardware. That is a fact, and no amount of complaining about what a bad decision it was will change it. > If you haven't guessed, I am sick and tired of the micro industry > being held back because of the over inflated popularity of the PC clones. > These machines are nothing but upward compatible compromises. Take a look > at the continual patching and pasting that continues to make all of the > cludgy software work together. I'm tired of it too. I think the world would be a better place if we all had 68000 or 32000 series CPU's, but the hard reality is that Intel CPU's are here to stay and no amount of bitching about it will change that. > Gregg Wonderly > Department of Computing and Information Sciences > Oklahoma State University -- John P. McNamee Quadratron Systems Inc. UUCP: {sdcrdcf|ttdica|scgvaxd|mc0|bellcore|logico|ihnp4}!psivax!quad1!jpm ARPA: jpm@BNL.ARPA
drew@orsvax1.UUCP (Drew Lucy) (06/06/86)
> In my opinion, the PC-XT-AT steps came too quick to be anything but a > 'Grab the business world by their check books' marketing ploy. At the time > of the release of the PC, the 80286 was available, and could have been used. > But, no there was too much money to be made if IBM used the XT as the first > step up, and then the AT. I was Product Manager at Intel at the time of the IBM PC's introduction. Believe me, the i80286 was not even close to being available at that time, let alone back when the PC was being designed. I don't know why IBM selected the 8086 family of CPUs but, I'd guess they did it for the same reasons that the vast majority of companies chose Intel over Motorola. Back in 1981 and 1982, when these choices were being made, Motorola did not have their CPU support chip act together. Intel got most of their design wins by getting the customer's hardware engineers on their side. The hardware guys then dragged the programmers along kicking and screaming. Intel also made a superior marketing effort. Anybody out there ever here of Operation CRUSH? Anyway, by the time Motorola got their support chips on the market, it was too late. Too large a commitment to 8086 had already been made. Drew Lucy
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael) (06/08/86)
In article <279@orsvax1.UUCP> drew@orsvax1.UUCP (Drew Lucy) writes: >> In my opinion, the PC-XT-AT steps came too quick to be anything but a >> 'Grab the business world by their check books' marketing ploy. Those bastards!! You mean they consider making money more important than making a technical statement? The CEO of IBM could have explained to the stockholders that, sure, money is important, but, damn it all, IBM is NOT going to make the hackers of the world mad just for a few billion dollars. Some of the offices I have been around have both MacIntoshes and IBM-PCs. Without exception the Macs lie around unused day after day until someone needs to put together some fancy announcement of a company picnic, while the IBM's are used daily by accountants (Lotus), the engineers (Auto-CAD), and nearly everyone else. >>At the time >> of the release of the PC, the 80286 was available, and could have been used. >> But, no there was too much money to be made if IBM used the XT as the first >> step up, and then the AT. Once again, you are faulting IBM for doing exactly what they are supposed to. >I was Product Manager at Intel at the time of the IBM PC's introduction. >Believe me, the i80286 was not even close to being available at that time, let >alone back when the PC was being designed. I don't know why IBM selected the >8086 family of CPUs but, I'd guess they did it for the same reasons that the >vast majority of companies chose Intel over Motorola. Back in 1981 and 1982, >when these choices were being made, Motorola did not have their CPU support >chip act together. Intel got most of their design wins by getting the >customer's hardware engineers on their side. The hardware guys then dragged >the programmers along kicking and screaming. Intel also made a superior >marketing effort. Anybody out there ever here of Operation CRUSH? Anyway, by >the time Motorola got their support chips on the market, it was too late. Too >large a commitment to 8086 had already been made. Well, the guys using assembler probably would opt for the 68000, but anyone that wanted to use a HLL was also forced to go Intel. Unless they wanted to use Mot Pascal (SLOW!) or Mot FORTRAN. No thanks. Even all of the completely unacceptable screwing around with Intel compilation models was better than trying to use Motorola's development tools. Now, however, there are alot of third parties out there supplying development tools. Clearly, if one were starting from scratch today, and if MS-DOS compatibility were not a concern, then the 68000 family would be the way to go. Few people have such a luxury, though. I don't, so I am putting together an IBM clone system. I'll have to struggle with an embarrassment of riches when it comes to software packages and hardware options, while some people maintain their ideological purity and yearn for future days when 68000-based hardware dominates the scene. Of course, when that happens, I'll trade up.
johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) (06/24/86)
In article <279@orsvax1.UUCP> drew@orsvax1.UUCP (Drew Lucy) writes: >I was Product Manager at Intel at the time of the IBM PC's introduction. >Believe me, the i80286 was not even close to being available at that time, let >alone back when the PC was being designed. I don't know why IBM selected the >8086 family of CPUs but, I'd guess they did it for the same reasons that the >vast majority of companies chose Intel over Motorola. My understanding is that the PC was originally designed around a Z80, since they were very concerned about having a low-end machine that could compete with the Apple II. The 8088 went into the design quite late, and could only be fit in because they could use pretty much the same design that they had made for the Z80. At the time, there were no other 16 bit chips with 8 bit buses (the 68008 was quite late) so the 8088 had it. (This does not mean that I enjoy programming 8088's -- the sooner the 386 gets out on the market, the better. And the RT's ROMP processor is not a bad chip, either.) -- John R. Levine, Javelin Software Corp., Cambridge MA +1 617 494 1400 { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.EDU The opinions expressed herein are solely those of a 12-year-old hacker who has broken into my account and not those of any person or organization.