Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!quad1!jpm From: jpm@quad1.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro,net.followup Subject: Re: Time for a change (Really why Intel stays in business) Message-ID: <425@quad1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Jun-86 17:27:47 EDT Article-I.D.: quad1.425 Posted: Mon Jun 2 17:27:47 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jun-86 07:22:50 EDT References: <27600001@okstate.UUCP> Followup-To: net.micro Organization: Quadratron Systems Inc, Sherman Oaks Ca. Lines: 78 Xref: watmath net.micro:14779 net.followup:6542 > The PC manufactures choice to persist with the INTEL chips, was obviously > made due to the software base. I for one however don't see why the software > vendors continued to write for such a ridiculous architecture. Now, I am > not completely dumb, I know the mythical power of the big BLUE force, and > how everybodies tagging along for the ride has made it as big as it is > today. However, IBM is only now starting to discover that they are at the > fringe of a huge black hole, and need something to pull them away before they > disappear. IBM evidently believes that their new RT PC is just that. They > have now taken a hold of the end of the rope, and are trying to catch the > next generation of PC's. Note how the RT still runs the MS-DOOF software. I don't think IBM sees the RT as the next generation PC. They have aimed the RT directly at the workstation market. I also don't think the current PC design is on the edge of a black hole. A normal PC/XT is enough computer power for a whole lot of people. Not everybody needs virtual memory, 300 MB disks, etc. I'd say most people are happy with a PC/XT and Lotus 1-2-3. > In my opinion, the PC-XT-AT steps came too quick to be anything but a > 'Grab the business world by their check books' marketing ploy. At the time > of the release of the PC, the 80286 was available, and could have been used. > But, no there was too much money to be made if IBM used the XT as the first > step up, and then the AT. The 80286 was not available in working production quantities when the PC was first designed. I don't even think the 80186 was available in more than sample quantities at that time. Given that IBM wanted to go with Intel, the only options were the 8088 and 8086 (and yes, they blew it big when they went with the 8 bit bus). > For those of you who like to spend money, and can afford to own a PC, > an XT, and an AT, you can continue to act blindly. For those companies > out for blood, and counting on the ignorant public to buy anything with your > name on it, GOOD LUCK. Your insistance on not providing the very best > technology will force you to compromise constantly, to maintain your > current customer base. If you are in business to make money you don't argue about how lousey the market is, you just design and deliver the products that the market wants to buy. People buying your product is what its all about, not that the particular CPU is a crock. > A word to the wise. That fact that so much software exists for the > IBM PC and compatibles by no means justifies the insistance on using the > current hardware. If the software vendors did not write the software > using a compiler, so that it can be ported to another hardware configuration, > then they are mostly to blame. You are really showing ignorance about the PC marketplace. A lot of software is written in assembly language. For space and speed reasons it has to be. A lot of software that is written in a high level language contains low-level code that goes out and touches the PC hardware (the screen and keyboard most often). It is NON-TRIVIAL to move some of the best PC software to other systems, otherwise it would have been done a long time ago. It comes back to this: You don't argue with the buyers, you just give them what they want. People wanted fast software on their PC's, so programs were written in assembly language and talked directly to the hardware. That is a fact, and no amount of complaining about what a bad decision it was will change it. > If you haven't guessed, I am sick and tired of the micro industry > being held back because of the over inflated popularity of the PC clones. > These machines are nothing but upward compatible compromises. Take a look > at the continual patching and pasting that continues to make all of the > cludgy software work together. I'm tired of it too. I think the world would be a better place if we all had 68000 or 32000 series CPU's, but the hard reality is that Intel CPU's are here to stay and no amount of bitching about it will change that. > Gregg Wonderly > Department of Computing and Information Sciences > Oklahoma State University -- John P. McNamee Quadratron Systems Inc. UUCP: {sdcrdcf|ttdica|scgvaxd|mc0|bellcore|logico|ihnp4}!psivax!quad1!jpm ARPA: jpm@BNL.ARPA