Xref: utzoo comp.os.minix:7771 comp.sys.ibm.pc:37352 comp.unix.xenix:8338 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!chasm From: chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: IBM and Apple Operating Systems (Re: dosread.c again) Summary: IBM DID CREATE THE PC INDUSTRY AS WE KNOW IT TODAY! Message-ID: <9971@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 31 Oct 89 20:08:01 GMT References: <6661@ficc.uu.net> <10609@cbnews.ATT.COM> <143@asihub.UUCP> <6724@ficc.uu.net> Followup-To: comp.unix.xenix Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 60 In article <6724@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <6723@ficc.uu.net> korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) writes: > > 8. The point to all this: companies take massive gambles with new > > products. If it had not been for the original IBM-PC and MS-DOS, > > we would not even have what we have today. > > No, we'd have something based on Concurrent CP/M, OS/9, SOS, or some other > decent DOS of that period. We'd have something better. We have exactly that, Peter, and a lot more. What we would have had we have now: 6809s with OS/9, Amigas with Tripos->AmigaDOS, embedded systems hither and yon based on efficient message passing kernels or call based kernels (as the environment required), and Unix on larger systems. All these systems were available then, they are still available, and they have one major deficit, as I have mentioned before: NONE WERE CHEAP ENOUGH (forget the argument that things are all cheaper now, that's true, and so is MSDOS hardware) and NONE WERE COMMON ENOUGH TO BUILD A MARKET FOR GOOD SOFTWARE. IBM may not have created a crippled DOS on purpose, but the one the did create has been exactly what almost everyone wants (or thinks he wants). So whine if you want, but until there are as many systems running your pet OS please quit talking about your peers (or betters) as if they were misinformed or incompetent when they decided to use EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED (or want, or can afford, or ...). > IBM didn't create the PC indusry. It doesn't do that any more. It looked and > it saw a thriving industry, and said "I want that". So it took it. Yes, Peter, a thriving industry of perhaps 1 million "personal" computers, with sales to support Apple, 20% of Radio Shack, Atari's computer division and perhaps 100 garage shop operations selling a few systems a month. The gross receipts of the entire personal computer industry in 1982 was probably comparable to the price of the mainframes IBM sold to a single large university. IBM took the industry because those who "owned" it in 1982 failed to realize that price was important (IBM was much cheaper than any but the very cheapest when they entered the market), and they also failed to recognize a major technical advance that we now consider obvious: IBM supported hard disks, tape backups, and all those other neat things you get from having an open slot architecture (and having enough resources in the design that you can take advantage of them). Contrary to your assertion, Apple did it almost right, and IBM really did do it right. So I say that IBM did create the industry (even if it no longer has enough of it under its control to "own" it, if it ever really did, that does not alter the fact that we would still be playing in a totally different world without IBM). > -- > `-_-' Peter da Silva . > 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. > "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of mistakes > left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl) Charles =============================================================================== "Those who would sacrifice ** Charles Marslett liberty for security, ** STB Systems, Inc. <-- apply all std. disclaimers deserve neither." ** Wordmark Systems <-- that's just me -- Benjamin Franklin ** chasm\@attctc.dallas.tx.us -------------------------------------------------------------------------------