Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: The New Chips
Message-ID: <19753@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 7 Feb 88 18:31:46 GMT
References: <4746@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1430@husc2.UUCP> <4227@utai.UUCP> <462@picuxa.UUCP> <4232@utai.UUCP> <2193@chinet.UUCP>
Reply-To: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Distribution: na
Organization: Boston University Distributed Systems Group
Lines: 45

In article <2193@chinet.UUCP> dag@chinet.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes:
[about the release of the Intel-based PC]
>I believe that IBM was working on what they considered to be a far better
>personal computer [...]

Along the same lines, most PC users don't know that the "IBM PC" was
IBM's second attempt at a "personal" computer.  The first was called
the System/23 or "Datamaster".  I don't recall the IBM product number.
Take a look at the specs:

	2 8" drives
	one-piece unit (keyboard/crt)
	128k memory (or some such)
	printer (sturdy but impossible to use)
	ROM based BASIC
	no slots
	EBCDIC based

The most astonishing thing about it was the keyboard.  If you compare
the keyboard to that of the original PC, they are identical with the
exception of the function keys.  On the Datamaster function keys
performed specific functions (such as cursor movement and error-reset).
Even the misplaced "<" and ">" keys are there.

The built-in BASIC was the only available language short of pure
assembler.  It was quite an advanced BASIC, and therefore horribly
slow.  Since there were no available assemblers, no one programmed in
assembler.  All applications were BASIC.

Errors?  <beep> "1000".  This, BTW, meant that a file could not be
found.  There was a manual that you used to decipher the numeric
errors.

The machine was a huge flop and was dropped shortly, leaving users
with a $10,000 piece of junk and zero support.  Some companies are
still depreciating the equipment.

From my experiences with IBM's first "PC", I'm more than happy that
they used someone else's chips to build the "real" PC.  It was at
least flexible enough to last as long as it has, and encouraged the
3rd party support that's necessary for the survival of a personal
computer.

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu