> On 2019-01-09, at 02:17, Jim Brain <brain@jbrain.com> wrote: > > > I feel it was neither. I know firsthand that many people in business settings paid no attention to the personal computer space until IBM entered the market. Just as today, consumers are a fickle lot and it takes lots of marketing effort to build critical mass, but large businesses are much easier nuts to crack. With the company that was synonymous with "computing" in the market, it made sense to consider the device. Once businesses decided the buy, they bought at rates that could change fortunes quickly, and businesses tend to pay less attention to the actual cost of a new item, as they simply calculate an ROI. If positive, the business case is done and the purchase is made. Well said, Jim. It could be something like that too. The place I lived in at the time might have somewhat skewed my perspective. Nobody (virtually no businesses either) was buying the original IBM machines there. Except father of one friend of mine, that is :-) The friend wanted a C64 after seeing mine but his father being one of those who made too much money to be able to count it said something like "if you want a computer you can get a real, professional computer, and not a toy for kids!". I could write a short book about how the story developed... :-) But the point was that there were practically 99% of clones, and not even the "good" ones like the Compaq you mention below. > For a few years, clones were not a concern. If you recall, Compaq was the first "clone", I am not sure if Compaq was the first in general, but.. > and Compaq added good value to the design. .. probably the first to add good value to the design. > They were first to market with the luggable, and their designs were performance centric, given the constraints of the original PC design. I think they improved video as well, and I know they did so with the luggable (which can either show on both screens at the same time, or show monochrome on the luggable and CGA on the external... I can't remember for sure, but I know it did something the PC luggable could not). Companies saw this as a good thing, like IBM and Amdahl. THis, in turn, gave additional credence to the platform. And, when IBM tried to wrestle control back with the PS/2 line, companies saw it as IBM not wanting to compete on a level playing field. With PS/2 it seems like they made another mistake trying to learn from the previous one, going too far the opposite direction of what didn't work for them first. Or like the PS/2 was a victim of how the previous line developed. > Note that this comes from a kid who grew up in the 1980's and hated IBM's with a passion as they took over and killed off more elegant platforms like the Amiga, and used a CPU that I absolutely abhorred (if I never have to calculate an address again from an offset and a segment, it will be too short a time) :-)) Tell me about it! > . I am sure we all grew up loving the MC68K line and the flat address model, etc. Still, I've made peace with the IBM and I've made a good living off it, barnacles of compatibility and all. I made my living off CBM machines back then but there were times that I took whatever was to be done, including PC (again - not IBM) stuff. As for IBM I even kinda felt sorry for them when they later tried to do things "right" and flopped so badly. > And, at least Intel got endianness correct. little endian is the only way! Totally right! :-D And on the software side, no matter what I think of PC/MS-DOS, they got one other thing right: the CRLF sequence is actually more logical than either CR or LF alone ;-) -- SD! - http://e4aws.silverdr.com/Received on 2019-01-09 11:00:55
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.