tom@microsoft.UUCP (Tom MCCONNELL) (05/13/91)
In recent history :-) I have begun to sense that there is something
other than technical features which drives products success.
This whole train of thought was prompted by a visit to the local
Toys-R-Us store, and gazing apon an Atari Lynx and a Nintendo Game Boy.
Both systems came out at essentially the same time. But the Game Boy has
easily twice to 3 times the number of "software" available for it, even
though it is clearly an inferior machine.
This is a familiar pattern. Why did the Apple 2 do so much better than the
C-64, and why did the C-64 do so much better than the Atari 800 system? It
is quite easy to argue that the Apple II did not have a real hardware
feature edge over the other systems. The C64 had sprites and more memory,
better graphics, cheaper etc. and the Atari had even more sophisticated graphics
than the C64.
Now the C64 clearly in the long run became a winner, but _only_ by postioning
itself as a game machine, and that was the market it won. It _never_ achieved
market penetration outside of that realm. (I know that in my experience in
a software developement house that our business software did much better on
the Apple as on the C64, while our games did much better on the C64 than
the Apple.)
The same situation seems to have happened in the case of the Amiga.
It is clear that the Amiga when it was introduced was a _far_ superior machine
than the current IBM and Mac machines available. I and many of you have
spend hours and hours of our lifetime arguing the sophistication of the
Amiga OS, Hardware etc. But the rest of the world has paid little attention.
We are now to the point where the IBM and MAC machines have similar enough
offerings that the Amiga does not offer a lot to convince people to
change over from a system that they are used to.
Now the Next has come along with all of it's great hardware and software
features, but faces yet again many entrenched factions. If people were
to decide to buy a system based wholly on the hardware and software
capibilities that were the most sophisticated, then every one would have
bought Amiga's 5 years ago, and we'd all be buying Next's now.
And also, there is the whole CDTV vs CDI war. What's most important....
technical features or something else. I think that it is the _something
else_ which drives the acceptance of a platform.
This is really disapointing to me, as I have spent what seems a lifetime
looking for _THE BEST_ of whatever it was I was buying. But the world doesn't
seem to follow and accept what's best.
I have come to the conclusion that any company which fails to take into
account what this _something else_ is which determines what makes a
successful product is doomed to remain a sideline player.
---------------------------------------------------------
So now I post the question to the net:
What is this _something else_ which drives product acceptance?
What is really the driving force behind successful systems?
Is it simply all just marketing?
Why did the Game Boy beat the Lynx?
Why did the Amiga fail to win more converts than it did?
Will CDTV really win, or will it be another also ran?
Why is Windows so successful?
Why hasn't Unix taken over the world?
Why is Next failing to take over the world?
Will my flame-retardent suit hold up ? :-) ;-) :-)
What do _YOU_ think?
----------------------------------------------------------------
I am seriously curious, and not trying to provoke anyone, so all
flames > /dev/null
-Tom
--
"Hey COW!" _____________((
/ ** o \ ______ _______________________
/| **** \ _/moo...\ | Tom McConnell |
/ | ** /\__/ \______/ | uunet!microsoft!tom |jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (05/15/91)
In article <72306@microsoft.UUCP> tom@microsoft.UUCP (Tom MCCONNELL) writes: >It is clear that the Amiga when it was introduced was a _far_ superior machine >than the current IBM and Mac machines available. I and many of you have >[...] >Now the Next has come along with all of it's great hardware and software >[...] >And also, there is the whole CDTV vs CDI war. What's most important.... >[...] >This is really disapointing to me, as I have spent what seems a lifetime >looking for _THE BEST_ of whatever it was I was buying. But the world doesn't >[...] I have this theory that explains not only the success of the PC, but the success of crappy GM cars over quality imports and non-gas cars: People are ignorant (not stupid). They are so wowed by the mere concept of a *computer* in their *home* that they aren't able to go on and make value/quality judgements regarding features, etc. This is true for buisness as well -- J. Random Businessgeek is so enthralled by the idea of *automated payroll* that they can't even beging to envision other uses for the machine: desktop publishing, in-house video, multiuser systems. The comment I've heard the most from PC/Mac people on BBS/chat systems when I mention that I'm running on a multitasking machine: "But I can only do one thing at once anyway." They haven't realized that they *can* do more than one thing at once, or use multitasking for other things. I've seen the same thing in academia: "I want to buy a workstation." (I just got a grant, and I have to spend it on computer equipment.) "Which one? What do you want to do with it?" (Great. Another clueless git with money burning a hole in their pocket.) "I dunno, they're all the same, anway, so lets buy from a big company that's been around for ages." (let's buy an IBM RS/6000, their salesdweeb took me to lunch twice last month.) "Don't you care about features? Available software?" (Don't you want a Sun, or maybe an HP/Apollo, or Data General?) "But workstations are all the same, right?" (I can't tell the difference, I'm still amazed by the idea of not having a dumb terminal hooked to a Sytek server going to an 11/780. Plus, you can *trust* IBM.) And then they don't understand why it takes a week to bring up some freeware product instead of the hour it took on the rest of the workstations. Or why I have all this cool software that they can't use because RS/6000s aren't binary compatible with the rest of the dept. sigh. -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2126 Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo...(UNIX is a trademark of Unix Systems Laboratories). [As soon as my Amiga 3000 arrives, it'll be Skate Motorola time!]
hhxxee@mixcom.COM (C. Richard Miller) (05/15/91)
tom@microsoft.UUCP (Tom MCCONNELL) writes:
I'll put in a vote for effective marketing as that "unknown"
factor, Tom.
For example, a kid sees the ads for Nintendo Game Boy, one or
two of his friends have it, and the pressure is on the parents
to buy it. So Dad goes out shopping at his local volume discount
electronic store and he sees the Nintendos, all right, but hey,
these pc clones over here are a heck of a lot more money, but he
uses one at work, and the store is selling lots of games that will
run on it, and it looks like there is also a lot of "produtivity"
software on the shelf there, too, if he wants to do something else
with it, so he buys it, perhaps in addition to the Game Boy. Now
maybe if he could have seen an Amiga running with plenty of
software on the shelves beside it, he would have bought an Amiga,
but golly gee, there isn't even an Amiga dealer in town, so
what's an Amiga? (Also that clone has a nice menu pgm on it
and has some software bundled with it, so what's a user interface?)
Other thoughts: Apple's are in the elementary school classrooms,
tendancy would be to buy what is familar.
IBM is common in the business world, same rule applies.
So, I think that for someone out to purchase their first computer,
they are influenced by what they've used before, price, availability
of a wide variety of software, ease of use, and perhaps what is most
important, plenty of hardware/software in high volume retail
outlets.
All just my opinion, of course.
--
Rick Miller hhxxee@mixcom.com
Milwaukee, Wisconsin or hhxxee%mixcom@uunet.uu.netswarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (05/21/91)
In article <760@mixcom.COM> hhxxee@mixcom.COM (C. Richard Miller) writes: >tom@microsoft.UUCP (Tom MCCONNELL) writes: > >I'll put in a vote for effective marketing as that "unknown" >factor, Tom. > Marketing was a factor, but not the "unknown" factor. The unknown factor was a synergistic combination of marketing and standards, and IBM stumbled into it by dumb luck, screaming and thrashing all the way. IBM marketed their PCs well enough that they were quickly established as the small computer system of choice for businesses. Not that this was exactly a gargantuum task, since no one had ever made an attempt to *really* market a business system before (others had made feeble efforts before, but no one really went all out to *be* the business system of choice before IBM). Here is how IBM "stumbled" onto standards: because they had larger systems that had extremely low performance/price ratios when compared to a state-of-the-art micro, IBM decided that they could not afford to sell a micro that encroached on their other, more costly systems. So they designed their micro systems to be slow and memory limited. They picked a microprocessor that they felt would not threaten their other product lines, and they put together a system that was altogether underwhelming. Then they marketed it as if it were an innovation, and it worked. What happened next is that the free market kicked in. Once a few sharp engineers noticed how incredibly low-tech this box was, and how incredibly high IBM's margin was, they decided to knock-off some copies. When everyone in the world began making and selling these boxes the competition forced prices down to the point that PC-compatibles became commodities. That was when everyday people began to purchase them. The magic happens when intensive marketing is combined with standards. In IBM's case the "standard" was de facto rather than formal. But nevertheless the standard was real. The Apple Macintosh had intensive marketing, but they maintained the proprietary qualities of their system. As a result it was successful, but not an overwhelming success like the PC from IBM. Going back in time, the S-100 bus systems had the standards, but there was no marketing. It takes both to get the kind of success that the IBM-PC enjoys today. The Amiga is a wonder. It has been saddled with the double albotrosses of a proprietary architecture and OS, and a lack-luster marketing attempt. The fact that it is still alive and kicking is a testament to the inherent superiority of these proprietary components over the other systems that existed at the time it was introduced. If the Amiga had been licensed and marketed it would have won. It *has* won in some niche markets. But it could have been a contender. The CDTV has these things going for it: 1) First to market (major importance). 2) Limited licensing (giving lip service to standards). 3) Good margin (my guess. - This is what made the PC attractive for cloners). It has these things going against it: 1) Large consortium committed to opposing standard. 2) Very little marketing (compared to what will be fielded by CDI). No one will want to clone the CDTV if it is not marketed more effectively. Once CDI is publicly launched Commodore will be unable to match the combined war chest of the CDI adherents. So now is the time to grab market-share like there is no tomorrow. As far as opportunities for marketing CDTV, there may *be* no tomorrow. -- _. --Steve ._||__ Warren v\ *| V
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May20.173553.11809@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >Here is how IBM "stumbled" onto standards: because they had larger systems >that had extremely low performance/price ratios when compared to a >state-of-the-art micro, IBM decided that they could not afford to sell a micro >that encroached on their other, more costly systems. So they designed their >micro systems to be slow and memory limited. They picked a microprocessor >that they felt would not threaten their other product lines, and they put >together a system that was altogether underwhelming. Then they marketed it as >if it were an innovation, and it worked. I believe the theory that IBM intended to cripple the PC market by getting business to standardise on there crippled architecture. I can remember the IBM PC media blitz where you'd see several PC comercials on TV every night and see an ad in about every magazine. Remember Charlie Chan and "modern times"? Then they let everyone and their dog use the words "IBM Compatible". >The CDTV has these things going for it: > >1) First to market (major importance). > >2) Limited licensing (giving lip service to standards). > >3) Good margin (my guess. - This is what made the PC attractive for cloners). CDTV also has hundreds of programers world wide who know how to program for it. And it 'seems' like Amiga becoming "the" desk top video platform will mean that people in that field will also be able to dabble in CDTV. Disney, for, example already has software for the Amgiga. What if they get behind CDTV? Also, didn't Amiga hit the 3 million mark in less time than did Mac? NCW
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (05/22/91)
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > Marketing was a factor, but not the "unknown" factor. The unknown factor was >a synergistic combination of marketing and standards, and IBM stumbled into it >by dumb luck, screaming and thrashing all the way. Agreed, but as for the rest of your post, well... >Here is how IBM "stumbled" onto standards: because they had larger systems >that had extremely low performance/price ratios when compared to a >state-of-the-art micro, IBM decided that they could not afford to sell a micro >that encroached on their other, more costly systems. So they designed their >micro systems to be slow and memory limited. They picked a microprocessor >that they felt would not threaten their other product lines, and they put >together a system that was altogether underwhelming. Then they marketed it as >if it were an innovation, and it worked. Not at all the case. When the PC was introduced, it was the most powerful micro system offered by anyone with any kind of mass marketing. The best you could do at that time, unless you were willing to deal with a "fringe" outfit like Godbout, was an S100 system, none of which approached the IBM PC for performance. The reason for the 8088 processor was simply because at the time the PC was designed, the biggest expense was in the support chips, NOT the processor. The PC designers made reasonable choices in the technical environment of the time. >What happened next is that the free market kicked in. Once a few sharp >engineers noticed how incredibly low-tech this box was, and how incredibly >high IBM's margin was, they decided to knock-off some copies. Not for a number of years. IBM ruled the roost until Compaq came along (their first *real* competitor - Eagle, Columbia, and such do *NOT* count, as their "compatibility" was a joke, and they weren't really all *that* less expensive). It wasn't until about a year or two after the introduction of the PC-AT that clones started appearing in any volume. >When everyone in the world began making and selling these boxes the >competition forced prices down to the point that PC-compatibles became >commodities. That was when everyday people began to purchase them. But that didn't happen until well into the cycle. 1985 was about the earliest you could get "commodity" prices on *any* system. >The magic happens when intensive marketing is combined with standards. In >IBM's case the "standard" was de facto rather than formal. But nevertheless >the standard was real. No, it was much more formal than most. In most cases, where there *was* a standard to be followed, IBM followed it. Notice, for example, their serial port connectors - the *only* ones, up until then, which adhered to the RS-232 recommendations for DTE vs. DCE connector gender. Likewise, their use of CR *and* LF for carriage return and line feed, respectively, when almost every other system used either one, or the other, but not both. They were also the *only* manufacturer of micros to pay attention to such niceties as worst-case timing analysis, which accounts for some of the extremely conservative nature of the IBM PC design. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May20.201958.10118@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >Also, didn't Amiga hit the 3 million mark in less time than did Mac? Yeah, so they say. That's A Good Thing. But no indication that it's time for a nap yet. Consider that the first 3 million Macs went for more money than the first 3 million Amigas, too. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/24/91)
In article <24947@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: > Not at all the case. When the PC was introduced, it was the most powerful > micro system offered by anyone with any kind of mass marketing. How about Onyx? Or Cromemco? > Not for a number of years. IBM ruled the roost until Compaq came along > (their first *real* competitor - Eagle, Columbia, and such do *NOT* count, > as their "compatibility" was a joke, and they weren't really all *that* > less expensive). Their "compatibility" was a joke because they tried to *fix* some of IBM's more insane design flaws. They were less expensive, but they were also quite a bit better technically. Again, technically the IBM PC was nowhere. > No, it was much more formal than most. In most cases, where there *was* > a standard to be followed, IBM followed it. Like their keyboard? > Likewise, their > use of CR *and* LF for carriage return and line feed, respectively, when > almost every other system used either one, or the other, but not both. (a) That wasn't a matter of following standards, it was a matter of copying CP/M, Which copied DEC. (b) The ASCII code allows and (some might say) recommend LF as the sole line terminator. I think you're being a little too kind to the machine. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
Jeff_Antonio@resbbs.UUCP (Jeff Antonio) (05/24/91)
,,,,,,99999jhfdlkjhsalkjflkajdshflkjhlsadjhflukijrdeswlohflkjdshflkjh,,,...,,, ,This is very interesting food for thought and it's no wonder that we still hug this primitive technology today. Buy any chance do you have any information concerning the man who created the "Macintosh" interface? I know that the interface was developed in the Xerox labs....I forgot the guy's name though.
jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com (Jim Burnes - 235-7444) (05/24/91)
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: > The reason for the 8088 processor was simply because at the time the PC was > designed, the biggest expense was in the support chips, NOT the processor. > The PC designers made reasonable choices in the technical environment of the > time. Hmmm...not really. Originally IBM wanted to use the 68000, but Motorola had another month or something until it rolled out quantity of it and IBM wanted it yesterday. If IBM had waited a month or two the entire computer market would have changed. We would have had machines with huge quantities of memory and multitasking long ago. > No, it was much more formal than most. In most cases, where there *was* > a standard to be followed, IBM followed it. Notice, for example, their > serial port connectors - the *only* ones, up until then, which adhered to > the RS-232 recommendations for DTE vs. DCE connector gender. Likewise .. > use of CR *and* LF for carriage return and line feed, respectively, when > almost every other system used either one, or the other, but not both. Oh get real...my IMSAI followed all DTE/DCE recommendations and the use of CR AND LF for a simple carriage return is not only redundant but a pain in the ass to process in text files. The reason why nobody else used it is because its just plain stupid. I will say that I liked the keyboard (except for the layout) and I thought that the monochrome display looked pretty slick for the period. Jim ------------------------------------------+----------------------------- Jim Burnes - System Engineer ! When the world is SouthWestern Bell Advanced Technology Labs! running down... Internet: jburnes@swbatl.swbell.com ! Make the best of what's Ma Bell: (314) 235-7444 (W) ! still around. (314) 832-0464 (H) ! -Sting ------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (05/25/91)
In article <21819@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991May20.201958.10118@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >>Also, didn't Amiga hit the 3 million mark in less time than did Mac? > >Yeah, so they say. That's A Good Thing. But no indication that it's time for >a nap yet. Consider that the first 3 million Macs went for more money than >the first 3 million Amigas, too. > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M. In a conversation with Bill Moyers, Joseph Cambell, the world famous mythologist ...a man who knows the world's religions and myths like a computer scientist knows boolean algebra :), a man who is well known and wildly read by psychologists, philosophers, anthropologists, writers, and religious leaders the world over sez.... "The influence of a vital person vitalizes, there's no doubt about it. The world without spirit is a wasteland. People have the notion of saving the world by shifting things around, changing the rules, and who's on top, and so forth. No, no! Any world is a valid world if it is alive. The thing to do is to bring life to it, and the only way to do that is to find in your own case where the life is and become alive yourself." Hell, I wouldn't care if Amiga never became number one as long as people get a kick out of it. The thing is that people getting a kick out of it is spelling success. NCW
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (05/26/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <24947@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >> Not at all the case. When the PC was introduced, it was the most powerful >> micro system offered by anyone with any kind of mass marketing. >How about Onyx? Or Cromemco? I said, with any kind of mass marketing. Onyx didn't, at all, and Cromemco was pretty much computer-rag advertising only. >> Not for a number of years. IBM ruled the roost until Compaq came along >> (their first *real* competitor - Eagle, Columbia, and such do *NOT* count, >> as their "compatibility" was a joke, and they weren't really all *that* >> less expensive). >Their "compatibility" was a joke because they tried to *fix* some of IBM's >more insane design flaws. They were less expensive, but they were also quite >a bit better technically. Again, technically the IBM PC was nowhere. Hmm? You have never seen the inside of an Eagle or Columbia, I take it. As for Compaq, I can't count introducing even more single-source weird interfaces as a design fix. >> No, it was much more formal than most. In most cases, where there *was* >> a standard to be followed, IBM followed it. >Like their keyboard? Yep, like their keyboard. A departure from the ASCII-mapped designs that were popular then. Much closer to a standard typewriter (although, admittedly, not the formal Selectric layout), full upper and lower case (a rarity), and about the best feel of any terminal keyboard before or since (IMHO). >> Likewise, their >> use of CR *and* LF for carriage return and line feed, respectively, when >> almost every other system used either one, or the other, but not both. >(a) That wasn't a matter of following standards, it was a matter of copying >CP/M, Which copied DEC. Untrue. DEC used only 0x0d (line feed) to indicate end-of-line. >(b) The ASCII code allows and (some might say) recommend LF as the sole line >terminator. Some might say. I don't. Both characters have a use, and should be used as such. A carriage return is not a line feed, nor vice versa. >I think you're being a little too kind to the machine. Perhaps. I'm certainly not claiming that it was the end-all and be-all of personal computers; but it is the case that is was a significantly more flexible and powerful machine than anything else commonly available at the time. State of the art counts for little if you can't go into a shop and buy it. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/27/91)
In article <25042@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: > I said, with any kind of mass marketing. Onyx didn't, at all, and Cromemco > was pretty much computer-rag advertising only. OK, if you have to limit things to Apple, Radio Shack, and IBM then maybe you have a point... though Pro-DOS on the Apple III was a much better piece of software than MS-DOS. > Hmm? You have never seen the inside of an Eagle or Columbia, I take it. Not in person, but I *have* seen the inside of a couple of other incompatible MS-DOS machines of the era and none of them were as badly made as the old IBM-PC. Some of them, such as the HP and Victor, were far better. > Yep, like their keyboard. A departure from the ASCII-mapped designs that > were popular then. Again, if you consider the competition Apple and Radio Shack that's true. None of the CP/M machines, including such gross machines as the Superbrain, had that particular design flaw. > Much closer to a standard typewriter (although, admittedly, > not the formal Selectric layout), full upper and lower case (a rarity), Again, you're confusing Apple and Radio Shack with the real world. > and > about the best feel of any terminal keyboard before or since (IMHO). Ick. Give me a VT100 any day. > Untrue. DEC used only 0x0d (line feed) to indicate end-of-line. ^^^^ ^^^^ Carriage Return. DEC used variable record files internally, and separate CR and LF externally. > >(b) The ASCII code allows and (some might say) recommend LF as the sole line > >terminator. > Some might say. I don't. Both characters have a use, and should be used > as such. A carriage return is not a line feed, nor vice versa. And neither is a *line terminator*. That's why ASCII recommends LF as the sole line terminator. Look it up. > Perhaps. I'm certainly not claiming that it was the end-all and be-all of > personal computers; but it is the case that is was a significantly more > flexible and powerful machine than anything else commonly available at the > time. State of the art counts for little if you can't go into a shop and > buy it. You'll have to explain away all the people going into stores and buying multiuser CP/M boxes, from Cromemco and other vendors, if you want to make this claim. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (05/27/91)
In article <24947@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > >> Marketing was a factor, but not the "unknown" factor. The unknown factor was >>a synergistic combination of marketing and standards, and IBM stumbled into it >>by dumb luck, screaming and thrashing all the way. > >Agreed, but as for the rest of your post, well... > >>Here is how IBM "stumbled" onto standards: because they had larger systems >>that had extremely low performance/price ratios when compared to a >>state-of-the-art micro, IBM decided that they could not afford to sell a micro >>that encroached on their other, more costly systems. So they designed their >>micro systems to be slow and memory limited. They picked a microprocessor >>that they felt would not threaten their other product lines, and they put >>together a system that was altogether underwhelming. Then they marketed it as >>if it were an innovation, and it worked. > >Not at all the case. When the PC was introduced, it was the most powerful >micro system offered by anyone with any kind of mass marketing. The best >you could do at that time, unless you were willing to deal with a "fringe" >outfit like Godbout, was an S100 system, none of which approached the IBM >PC for performance. > >The reason for the 8088 processor was simply because at the time the PC was >designed, the biggest expense was in the support chips, NOT the processor. >The PC designers made reasonable choices in the technical environment of the >time. > Agreed. However, as I see it, the Apple II was gaining acceptance as a business machine (and it was more than competitive with S100) thanks to VisiCalc. IBM saw the future in micros for business and took the opportunity to gain entry with the PC. The 8088 itself was very easy for hardware designers to work with since it was similar enough to the Z80, but IBM did consider the 68000. The original PC was a 16K computer and used a cassette drive. It was definately designed to compete directly with the Apple II, which also came with 16K and cassette drive and had similar graphics standards. >>What happened next is that the free market kicked in. Once a few sharp >>engineers noticed how incredibly low-tech this box was, and how incredibly >>high IBM's margin was, they decided to knock-off some copies. > >Not for a number of years. IBM ruled the roost until Compaq came along >(their first *real* competitor - Eagle, Columbia, and such do *NOT* count, >as their "compatibility" was a joke, and they weren't really all *that* >less expensive). It wasn't until about a year or two after the introduction >of the PC-AT that clones started appearing in any volume. > IBM had only one thing that prevented clone manufacturers from thriving early on. It was their ROM BIOS. A company called Phoenix cloned the BIOS and won a lawsuit with IBM. This BIOS is what makes all the PC Clones "clones". Eagle, Columbia, and the rest didn't have the Pheonix BIOS. When the AT came out, there were a few choices in computers that already had the Pheonix BIOS, including the AT&T 6300. >>When everyone in the world began making and selling these boxes the >>competition forced prices down to the point that PC-compatibles became >>commodities. That was when everyday people began to purchase them. > >But that didn't happen until well into the cycle. 1985 was about the >earliest you could get "commodity" prices on *any* system. The AT originally ran at 6MHz, but you could put an 8MHz crystal in it and it would go 25% faster. IBM actually changed their BIOS ROMS to detect the clock rate and not work at 8MHz. They were trying to develop a market for higher priced faster ATs using this trick. People caught on real quick and offered faster/cheaper alternatives. > >>The magic happens when intensive marketing is combined with standards. In >>IBM's case the "standard" was de facto rather than formal. But nevertheless >>the standard was real. > >No, it was much more formal than most. In most cases, where there *was* >a standard to be followed, IBM followed it. Notice, for example, their >serial port connectors - the *only* ones, up until then, which adhered to >the RS-232 recommendations for DTE vs. DCE connector gender. Likewise, their >use of CR *and* LF for carriage return and line feed, respectively, when >almost every other system used either one, or the other, but not both. >They were also the *only* manufacturer of micros to pay attention to such >niceties as worst-case timing analysis, which accounts for some of the >extremely conservative nature of the IBM PC design. > By the time the AT came out, it was clear that 640K was going to be a problem, and IBM/MicroSoft could have done something about it then. Again, they took the safe way out, even if it did paint their future into an awkward corner. >-- >Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
force@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (Jason Henry Den Dulk) (05/27/91)
In answer to what REALLY sells a computer, i have a few answers.
1. Reputation
The ONLY reson why people originally bought IBM PCs was because
it was sold by IBM ("Nobody ever gets fired for bying IBM"). IBM
itself admitted that it was only a mediocre computer, but
everybody bought it anyway, because of IBM. Also Commodore's
bad reputation has done it's share to dampen the sales of the
Amiga.
2. Advertising
Just look at the Mac. Apple has a heavy duty Ad campain that is
spearheaded with the word "business". That's the reason for tha
Mac's success.
Also bad adverts (like those for the Amiga) have the reverse
effect, giving people a bad idea of what a product is.
I see lot's of Ads for GameBoy, but I've never even heard of the
Atari Lynx. It's no wonder that it sells better.
3. Popularity
If a product already has lot's of users, it will continue to
attract more users than the not so popular ones. This is the
main reason why people buy IBM clones. They are constantly
swamped with info about IBM (because there are more of them
around), but hardly ever hear about other systems, therefore
they are more likely to buy an IBM clone.
4. Ignorance
The above three reasons largeley depend on a person being ignorant
of what's what. A person that doesn't know anything about computers
is only going to find out by the above 3 channels. I have found that
dumb suits most likely go IBM's and Macs, while those who are 'in the
know' tend to go for computers with a more even distribution, with a
lean towards the Amiga (only an observation, no flames please).
5. Price
obvoius. Although the other factors can overshadow this (you're not
going to buy a cheaper computer if you don't know that it exists).
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU
force@cs.su.ozbarrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (05/27/91)
In article <2472@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> force@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (Jason Henry Den Dulk) writes: >In answer to what REALLY sells a computer, i have a few answers. >2. Advertising > Just look at the Mac. Apple has a heavy duty Ad campain that is > spearheaded with the word "business". That's the reason for tha > Mac's success. There's another factor that contributed to the Mac's success in business. The Mac had the ability to do something very well that the IBM PC could not: trivial-to-use word processing/paint software with near-WYSIWYG display. I worked for a "Fortune 250" company in 1984-5, when the Mac was popular in homes but considered a "toy" in business. We were a straight IBM company (with some Compaq, of course :-)) from PC to mainframe. Somebody (the company? Apple?) managed to bring one Mac into our PC room for the purpose of writing documentation for our programs. Within a short amount of time, that one Mac was booked solid all day, every day. People took it home on weekends too. It was only a matter of time before the department purchased more Macs, once they saw that it could do what their PC's couldn't (at the time). So... wouldn't it be grand if we could get just *one* Amiga into each of the places that we work? Like the Mac in 1984-5, the Amiga can be considered a "niche" machine. Let it show off what it can do, and perhaps your department will buy more.... Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (05/28/91)
jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com (Jim Burnes - 235-7444) writes: >farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >> The reason for the 8088 processor was simply because at the time the PC was >> designed, the biggest expense was in the support chips, NOT the processor. >Hmmm...not really. Originally IBM wanted to use the 68000, but Motorola >had another month or something until it rolled out quantity of it and >IBM wanted it yesterday. Take it to alt.folklore.computers. It wasn't "another month or something", it was much closer to another year or something. >If IBM had waited a month or two the entire computer market would have >changed. We would have had machines with huge quantities of memory >and multitasking long ago. Oh, really? And you're going to try and reconcile this with the "only another month" theory? Or the Mac, which was the first really popular 68000 machine, with neither huge quantites of memory (who, by the way, was going to *pay* for that memory, when 64K RAM chips were running $50 each?) nor multitasking. >Oh get real...my IMSAI followed all DTE/DCE recommendations and the use >of CR AND LF for a simple carriage return is not only redundant but >a pain in the ass to process in text files. 1: Perhaps IMSAI did - most S-100 I/O boards did not. Female connectors, by and large. 2: CR AND LF are not a simple carriage return. Didn't say it was. It is, however, a succinct description of what you actually want. The carriage returns, and then you move to the next line. Two different actions. Admittedly, not a lot of use on a glass TTY (although I've seen some applications that *did* make use of it), but still - there's no reason you can't deal differently internally to any application you're running. >The reason why nobody else used it is because its just plain stupid. Many others used it. Not in the "let's reinvent the wheel, unless it was DEC who invented it first" world of micros, though. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/28/91)
In article <25072@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: > 2: CR AND LF are not a simple carriage return. Didn't say it was. It > is, however, a succinct description of what you actually want. No it isn't. What I want is "newline". The number of times I've wanted separate CR can be counted on my fingers. The number of times I've wanted a separate LF can be counted on my nose. That's right: precisely once, for a program called "fast" that catted a file using optimised cursor addressing. And it's even funnier when you consider that IBM's own code, EBCDIC, separates the newline function from the ASCII carriage control codes. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
cma5_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chin) (05/31/91)
In article <2472@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> force@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (Jason Henry Den Dulk) writes: > of what's what. A person that doesn't know anything about computers > is only going to find out by the above 3 channels. I have found that > dumb suits most likely go IBM's and Macs, while those who are 'in the > know' tend to go for computers with a more even distribution, with a > lean towards the Amiga (only an observation, no flames please). Yeah right. A person know nothing about computer would go for an IBM; A person knows alot about computers and want to use it for spreadsheets would still go for an IBM; A person know nothing about computers but impressed by good graphics and sounds would go for an Amiga; A person knows alot about computers and wants to do creative graphics & music work would take an Amiga;..... What do you think? chin -- cma5_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
bunny@cbnewsm.att.com (Laura A. Eppright) (06/04/91)
In article <2472@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> force@minnie.cs.su.OZ.AU (Jason Henry Den Dulk) writes: >In answer to what REALLY sells a computer, i have a few answers. > >1. Reputation > The ONLY reson why people originally bought IBM PCs was because > it was sold by IBM ("Nobody ever gets fired for bying IBM"). IBM > itself admitted that it was only a mediocre computer, but > everybody bought it anyway, because of IBM. Also Commodore's > bad reputation has done it's share to dampen the sales of the > Amiga. I once read a quote which I thought was quite true. It said something like, "IBM is like Elvis Presley; it doesn't matter what either one comes out with, because it will still sell." Of course, this isn't taking into account the PC jr and most of the movie music. :-) Laura -- Laura A. Eppright | AT&T, 30 Knightsbridge Rd | I'm never sarcastic. Piscataway, NJ att!attmail!leppright |
Jon_Wolf@amicol.UUCP (Jon Wolf) (06/05/91)
>The reason for the 8088 processor was simply because at the time the PC was >designed, the biggest expense was in the support chips, NOT the processor. >The PC designers made reasonable choices in the technical environment of the >time. Not so. The reason the 8088 was used in the IBM PC was that IBM had seat a deadline on getting the PeeCee out to market. Intel & Motorola were comming out with the 8088 & 68000. IBM was backing the 68000. But due to IBM's deadline on the PeeCee, they could not wait for the 68000 to be out in full production. The 68000 was only out in small sample quantities. If IBM had waited 30 days, they would have used the 68000. -- Via DLG Pro v0.97b ___ _ __ _ ( ) ' ) / // /) __/________ / / / __|/ // / / (_) /) )_ (_(_/ (_) \_//_ (_/ /> </