Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!pacbell!well!farren
From: farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Thread: What _REALLY_ makes a product successful?
Message-ID: <25042@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 26 May 91 10:00:55 GMT
References: <760@mixcom.COM> <1991May20.173553.11809@convex.com> <24947@well.sf.ca.us> <1991May24.015243.4846@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 59

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