On 1/8/2019 1:25 PM, silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote: > > I fully agree with the above. The only thing I doubt is whether in this particular case it "won" because IBM sold so many units that it allowed to fuel further development or someone noticed how many units all the clone makers were selling and woke up to this market. IOW - was it a success of the compromised design that hit the market in the perfect time or was it the result of the management decision to release the "worthless" design to the world. I feel it was neither. I know firsthand that many people in business settings paid no attention to the personal computer space until IBM entered the market. Just as today, consumers are a fickle lot and it takes lots of marketing effort to build critical mass, but large businesses are much easier nuts to crack. With the company that was synonymous with "computing" in the market, it made sense to consider the device. Once businesses decided the buy, they bought at rates that could change fortunes quickly, and businesses tend to pay less attention to the actual cost of a new item, as they simply calculate an ROI. If positive, the business case is done and the purchase is made. For a few years, clones were not a concern. If you recall, Compaq was the first "clone", and Compaq added good value to the design. They were first to market with the luggable, and their designs were performance centric, given the constraints of the original PC design. I think they improved video as well, and I know they did so with the luggable (which can either show on both screens at the same time, or show monochrome on the luggable and CGA on the external... I can't remember for sure, but I know it did something the PC luggable could not). Companies saw this as a good thing, like IBM and Amdahl. THis, in turn, gave additional credence to the platform. And, when IBM tried to wrestle control back with the PS/2 line, companies saw it as IBM not wanting to compete on a level playing field. Note that this comes from a kid who grew up in the 1980's and hated IBM's with a passion as they took over and killed off more elegant platforms like the Amiga, and used a CPU that I absolutely abhorred (if I never have to calculate an address again from an offset and a segment, it will be too short a time). I am sure we all grew up loving the MC68K line and the flat address model, etc. Still, I've made peace with the IBM and I've made a good living off it, barnacles of compatibility and all. And, at least Intel got endianness correct. little endian is the only way! Jim -- Jim Brain brain@jbrain.com www.jbrain.comReceived on 2019-01-09 03:00:13
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.