Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: IBM new 'standard'
Message-ID: <7867@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Apr-87 02:21:37 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7867
Posted: Sat Apr  4 02:21:37 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 02:21:37 EST
References: <1010@rpics.RPI.EDU> <15307@sun.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 22

> You're making an unstated assumption that a closed system is a mistake.
> A mistake for whom?

Actually, closed systems done right can be pretty good.  Apple's mistake
was not in making the original Mac a closed box, but in not making the
box big enough.  Give the original Mac a lot more memory, an internal hard
disk, and maybe a SCSI port on the back, and the Mac would rival the IBM
PC by now.  (As it is, it's a significant force on a less exalted level.)
The trick would have been doing that while keeping the price under control
and meeting the same delivery date.

Sun sells a whole lot of Sun-3/50's, which are very closed boxes.  They
really do not have quite enough memory to run Sun's elephantine Berklix-
derivative system, but otherwise they are fine machines.

I doubt that IBM's new boxes are going to be a tremendous success (the
nameplate alone is enough to make them a modest success), but that's
because from what I hear, they just aren't very impressive machines.
In that sense, IBM *is* repeating Apple's mistake.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry