Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ima.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!cca!ima!johnl
From: johnl@ima.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Re: What if IBM used a 68000
Message-ID: <97800009@ima.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 12:56:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ima.97800009
Posted: Tue Nov 26 12:56:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 08:50:44 EST
References: <212@fas.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Nf-ID: #R:fas:-21200:ima:97800009:000:1061
Nf-From: ima!johnl    Nov 26 12:56:00 1985


The IBM Instruments CS9000 was a failure, but that has little to do with the
merits of the 68000 chip.  I know people who tried to do software work on the
box, and they all tell me that it's a lousy, amateruish design.  The
peripherals don't work very well, particularly the hard disk.  The standard
operating system they give you is incompatible with anything else.  And it's
expensive.

As I understand it, IBM Instruments was a little lab instrument company in
Danbury CT which IBM bought to dabble in the instrumentation biz.  The CS9000
was originally designed to control gas chromatographs, which it presumably
does OK.  That's why the keyboard was optional but the panel of buttons was
standard.  Then somebody thought it was a general purpose computer, but it's
not -- it's a hack put together by people who build instruments.

My friends express constant amazement that the CS9000 was ever released as a
product, but I guess IBM believes in letting 100 flowers bloom, even though
some of them turn out to be Stinking Lousewort.

John Levine, ima!johnl