Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!bucsb.bu.edu!madd From: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.misc Subject: Re: IBM new 'standard' Message-ID: <848@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP> Date: Sat, 21-Mar-87 16:49:51 EST Article-I.D.: bucsb.848 Posted: Sat Mar 21 16:49:51 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Mar-87 18:23:21 EST References: <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> Reply-To: madd@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (Jim "Jack" Frost) Organization: ODO (Organization for the Disorganization of Organization) Lines: 94 Keywords: proprietary not upwardly compat. OS is goof... Xref: utgpu comp.sys.ibm.pc:2452 comp.misc:383 In article <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes: >Does anyone understand why IBM is making the same mistake Apple >made with the Mac? In other words why are they making a machine >the won't run any of the applications that currently run on IBMs, >that is a completely closed box, and that nobody know anything >about vis-a-vis what's goin' on inside? This seems to me to be >undoing the very thing that made them blow Apple away. Apple >has understood but IBM hasn't. Strange isn't it? I guess now >that we're seeing Compac compatible machines IBM is worried >they're loosing touch. > >I'm baffled. Anybody else? Or maybe you've got some insight >as to the why's of IBM product development policy? This is not a new IBM policy. For proof, I ask you to look at IBM System/3x computers, and IBM System/23 computers. These are the lower end computers that IBM has been manufacturing for awhile (except for the /23, which was IBM's first [sad] attempt at a PC). No program is portable in object code format between any of these machines, even though the assembler code is pretty close between the System/3x machines. Often, the compilers on the upper machines will not accept unaltered source from the others. Also, there are no REAL language compilers for these machines that are offered by IBM. IBM likes COBOL, RPG, and assembler. Take it or leave it. If you take it, pay an ungodly amount for it. (This is not completely true, but I'm speaking of their lower-end lines, not their huge machines). IBM larger machines need to have this thing called maintenance. They're closed box alright. Open it and be shot. This of course means more money for IBM, in both upgrades and simple servicing. It's a fact that IBM makes more money on the maintenance than they do on the actual machine in many cases. Provided they give you a reliable machine, they seldom have to show up at all. The maintenance works out to be pure profit. It almost never costs IBM more to service the equipment than it charges the customer, and on the average they make thousands per year on even the smallest systems. IBM likes closed boxes. The only difference between these machines and the current PC's is cost and competition. The PC was always the low end of the IBM line. IBM didn't care about it so much before the PC's became powerful enough to take hunks out of their System/36 line, which is very profitable right now. Now the masses have the 80386, which performs at roughly the same speed as the System/36 lower ends (and better than the /36 PC) with the potential to be much more powerful (HOW many meg can the 386 address?) The gist of all this is that IBM is about to loose their most profitable line to the cheap PC's. Solution: create a new PC that nobody can clone. Problem: it won't run anything. So what. Neither could their System/3x's when they first came out. People trust IBM. They'll suffer. (You think I'm wrong? How many people are saying "we'll wait 'till we see what IBM does"?) Also, while people wait for an IBM move in the PC market, they're not buying clones. Even if the new IBM PC flops, they've hurt the competition. Odds are good that people will go buy some other IBM product if they don't like the new PC. IBM makes out either way, since the next best thing is a System/36. Either the PC replaces the /36, or it hurts the /36's competition. Personally, I hope IBM loses their shirt. If they come out with a new PC, they'll make it a workalike to their other machines. You'll need to by IBM software. Is there anyone out there who is pleased with IBM-made applications? I've used several. I am pleased with none of them. Look at the IBM-made applications for the PC -- their accounting packages are horrid. Their wordprocessor is a workalike to the one on their mainframes, and it is by far the most difficult to use wordprocessor I've come across on a PC (note: not editor -- there are much worse editors out there). The only packages worth anything were produced by other people and IBM bought the rights. If this sounds like I don't like IBM, you got it. I fail to see why anyone would by IBM, whose PC (not AT) failure rate is one of the highest among PC manufacturers; whose keyboards leave much to be desired, even though they created the standard typewriter keyboard; whose software is terrible and often bug-ridden; whose service personnel can takes weeks to respond; whose products are always drastically overpriced; etc. It is contrary to the spirit of competition. Well, we'll see. >Dave Chassin > >PS: You can be sure I'll never buy one of those. What for? So >I can throw $3000 of AutoCAD software, and $nK of random other >stuff? Forget it!!! My sentiments exactly. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jim Frost * The Madd Hacker | UUCP: ..!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!madd H H | ARPA: madd@bucsb.bu.edu H-C-C-OH <- heehee +---------+---------------------------------- H H | "We are strangers in a world we never made"