Robert.Berry@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) (08/14/90)
Sorry, Walt, I stand by my definition. Where did I get it? "The Winn Rosch Hardware Bible," p. 25: ". . . Original Equipment Manufacturers or OEMs. This meaningless term describes companies fabricating their products from the products of other companies. Some invest as little time and effort as it takes to put a nameplate on a finished product produced by someone else. Others incorporate subassemblies into more powerfule products and submit them to thorough testing." "The Computer Glossary," by Alan Freedman, p. 492: "An OEM is a manufacturer that sells equipment to a reseller. The term is also used to refer to the reseller, as well. OEM customers typically purchase hardware from a manufacturer and resell it under their own brand names. They may combine units from several vendors as well as add software. The terms OEM and VAR are often used synonymously." That's why my ATI VGA Wonder card is called the "OEM version," because it's the version they sell to other companies (OEMs) who put their name on it. Robert Berry / rrberry@unc.bitnet
kleonard@gvlv1.gvl.unisys.com (Ken Leonard) (08/14/90)
In article <802@beguine.UUCP> Robert.Berry@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) writes:
*
* That's why my ATI VGA Wonder card is called the "OEM version," because it's
* the version they sell to other companies (OEMs) who put their name on it.
*
-----
Hummm, now...
--
Does anyone know whether "Cardinal" gets their VGA cards from "Paradise"?
------------
thanx,
Kenscjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) (08/15/90)
In article <802@beguine.UUCP>, Robert.Berry@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) writes: > Sorry, Walt, I stand by my definition. Sorry, but Walt was completely correct. The OEM is the >ORIGINAL< equipment manufacturer -- whoever made the thing in the first place. The guy that buys that product, adds value, and resells it is a VAR. This does not, of course, keep people from mis-using the terms, although OEM is abused far more often than VAR. I suspect that much of the confusion came about from people verb-izing the noun-al acronym as in "We're OEMing that system," which could be interpreted as either "We're selling that system to OEMs" or "We're buying that system from an OEM." When used in the second sense, someone unfamiliar with the correct meaning of the term might well mis- interpret it to mean that the reseller IS an OEM as opposed to being a customer of an OEM. Now, anyone want to discuss the correct meaning of baud? ;-) [ Hint to the unaware -- for most modems the "baud" rate is really the bits per second rate, the real baud rate is quite different. ] ---- Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones SDRC scjones@thor.UUCP 2000 Eastman Dr. BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150-2789 AT&T: (513) 576-2070 That's the problem with nature. Something's always stinging you or oozing mucus on you. -- Calvin
dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) (08/16/90)
In <130@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >In article <802@beguine.UUCP>, Robert.Berry@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) writes: >> Sorry, Walt, I stand by my definition. >Sorry, but Walt was completely correct. The OEM is the >ORIGINAL< >equipment manufacturer -- whoever made the thing in the first place. >The guy that buys that product, adds value, and resells it is a VAR. How a word originates, and what it means, can often be two different things. I've no doubt that Larry's theory about verb-izing OEM is historically correct, although you can get the same effect by making it an adjective: the OEM version, the OEM market, etc. Simple fact is, though, that if OEM retained any of its original meaning, we could at least expect some confusion in, for instance, the industry press. And I'm positive that every time I've heard a company called "an OEM" (at least 15 years worth), the company was in fact a VAR. I suspect that the acronym has crossed the line from "abuse of the term" to "evolution of the language" somewhere along the way. Of course, the term was blatantly debased to begin with, since (cf. "OEM version") it was only ever used to describe products that were sold by someone *besides* the original manufacturer. Dave
dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (08/16/90)
In article <130@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >Sorry, but Walt was completely correct. The OEM is the >ORIGINAL< >equipment manufacturer -- whoever made the thing in the first place. >The guy that buys that product, adds value, and resells it is a VAR. > >This does not, of course, keep people from mis-using the terms, >although OEM is abused far more often than VAR. As a fan of Edwin Newman, and a lamenter of the cheapening of the language, I have to agree with Larry. However..... The abuse/misuse of OEM has become so much more commonplace than the correct use that it IS the "meaning" in our industry. Use it in the strict sense, and you will doubtless confuse your listeners. >Now, anyone want to discuss the correct meaning of baud? ;-) >[ Hint to the unaware -- for most modems the "baud" rate is really >the bits per second rate, the real baud rate is quite different. ] Sure, in the proper newsgroup. [ Hint to the semi-aware. The modem's baud rate can be either higher or lower than the bits-per-second at which you transfer data. Offhand, I can't think of a single modem where it's the same. ] Dave
ergo@netcom.UUCP (Isaac Rabinovitch) (08/16/90)
In <325@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) writes: >In <130@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >>Sorry, but Walt was completely correct. The OEM is the >ORIGINAL< >>equipment manufacturer -- whoever made the thing in the first place. >>The guy that buys that product, adds value, and resells it is a VAR. >How a word originates, and what it means, can often be two different things. >I've no doubt that Larry's theory about verb-izing OEM is historically >correct, although you can get the same effect by making it an adjective: >the OEM version, the OEM market, etc. >Of course, the term was blatantly debased to begin with, since (cf. "OEM >version") it was only ever used to describe products that were sold by >someone *besides* the original manufacturer. I think part of the confusion happens when a word spreads beyond a narrow group of people. Consider mainframe vs. mini vs. micro. As far as I can figure out, mainframe originally meant discrete components (the "mainframe" being the housing you stuck all the components into), a mini meant integrated circuits, and micro meant major elements of the system (such as the CPU) on single ICs. Nowadays, marketeers like to say "mainframe" whenever they're emphasizing their product's raw power (even if all the technology is purely micro level, as most computers are these days), and end users tend to say "mainframe" or at least "mini" in reference to any multi-user system. Remember how Convergent used to used the word "Frame" in all it's multiuser product names? And speaking of CT, when I worked there all the customer and employee indoctrination emphasized CT's image as an "OEM-oriented company". New employees not familiar with the OEM marketplace (including me) were *always* confused by this, since it meant exactly the opposite of what it sounded like. Then again, the word "original" sort of makes sense in this context, since many OEMs were themselves computer manufacturers who needed CT products to fill out their own lines, such as the mainframe manufacturer who sold whole networks, consisting of its own machines talking to CT desktops, as a single product. Sometimes customers were called VARs. I once asked my divisional veep what the difference was, and he immediately replied that it was pretty arbitrary. I did get the impression that big customers tended to be called OEMs rather than VARs, and "vertical market" (specializing in a particular kind of end-user customer) companies tended to be called VARs. Or was it the other way 'round? -- ergo@netcom.uucp Isaac Rabinovitch atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo Silicon Valley, CA uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo Disclaimer: I am what I am, and that's all what I am!
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (08/24/90)
dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: > [ Hint to the semi-aware. The modem's > baud rate can be either higher or lower than the bits-per-second at > which you transfer data. Offhand, I can't think of a single modem > where it's the same. ] I can.... a 300-baud modem. (of course, that's ancient history. nobody really uses 300-baud anymore, do they? ;-) -- Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | Does virtual now available at: | main(){ | reality need cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | float x=1; | swap space? (cyberspace... be here!)| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | -- me
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (08/25/90)
>As a fan of Edwin Newman, and a lamenter of the cheapening of the >language, I have to agree with Larry. However..... >The abuse/misuse of OEM has become so much more commonplace than >the correct use that it IS the "meaning" in our industry. Use it >in the strict sense, and you will doubtless confuse your listeners. It depends on your relative position. If you buy chips to make a hardware board that someone else puts in their system then the chip maker is your OEM and you are the VAR to the systems company. From the viewpoint of the system company, you are their OEM. If the system company in turn sells the complete system to a software consultant who puts a turnkey application on the system then the system company is in its turn an OEM to the consultant and the consultant is a VAR for the system company. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP SPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
dlou@dino.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) (08/25/90)
In article <4973@pegasus.ATT.COM| dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: |In article <130@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: |>Now, anyone want to discuss the correct meaning of baud? ;-) |>[ Hint to the unaware -- for most modems the "baud" rate is really |>the bits per second rate, the real baud rate is quite different. ] | |Sure, in the proper newsgroup. [ Hint to the semi-aware. The modem's |baud rate can be either higher or lower than the bits-per-second at |which you transfer data. Offhand, I can't think of a single modem |where it's the same. ] | |Dave Bell 103. 300 baud and 300 bps. No? -- Dennis Lou Disclaimer: I don't use lame disks. dlou@dino.ucsd.edu "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?" [backbone]!ucsd!dino!dlou "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (08/25/90)
In article <DR2eo2w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: > >> [ Hint to the semi-aware. The modem's >> baud rate can be either higher or lower than the bits-per-second at >> which you transfer data. Offhand, I can't think of a single modem >> where it's the same. ] > >I can.... a 300-baud modem. Sorry, Roy. That's one where the bit rate is lower than the baud rate. (See my posting of this morning.) You can't send 300 bits per second over a 300 baud modem, because there's no clock signal at the modem's RS232 interface. Consequently, you must "waste" some of the binary transitions on non-information carrying synchronization. The usual (but not the only) way of doing this is the insertion of start and stop pulses, one of each per 8 information bits. This cuts the bit rate of a 300 baud modem to 240 bits per second. >(of course, that's ancient history. nobody really uses 300-baud anymore, >do they? ;-) Thanks, I needed that ;-( I was in the data communications business when 110 baud was "the new thing", 150 baud transmission was available but terminals were too slow to use it, and 300 baud wasn't even on the shelf. (That snapshot dates to 1962.) In the 60s and 70s, one of my specialties was the information content and bandwidth requirements of bit-stream (and byte-stream) synchronization, so I'm particularly sensitive to this issue. Dave +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T Bell Labs - Lincroft, NJ | | Logical - ...att!pegasus!dmt == dmt@pegasus.att.com | | Audible - (201) 576 2194 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (08/27/90)
dmt@pegasus.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) writes: > In article <DR2eo2w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) > writes: > >I can.... a 300-baud modem. > > Sorry, Roy. That's one where the bit rate is lower than the baud rate. > (See my posting of this morning.) You can't send 300 bits per second > over a 300 baud modem, because there's no clock signal at the modem's > RS232 interface. Guess it's time for the flat-head response... (where the hand impacts the forehead, doncha know) I'm sure I knew this... thanks for the reminder, Dave. -- Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu |+| #define opinions ALL_MINE; main(){float x=1;x=x/50;printf("It's only $%.2f, but it's my $%.2f!\n",x,x);} "This is cyberspace." -- Peter Da Silva :--: "...and I like it here!" -- me