Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 9 May 2009 22:51:37 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote: "Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message .. . I beg to differ. Microsoft bashing seems to be the national sport in computers. Yet, they're the most successful computah company in history. In addition, they did it without any ties to proprietary hardware. They must be doing something right. Microsoft got so big the same way Walmart did. They put out a cheeper product. They weren't always the biggest and baddest company in town. The software departments of the major big iron makers were much larger than MS in both manpower and revenue for most of the 1980's. Any one of them could have produced a consumer grade operating system and usable apps at the time and wiped MS off the map. They didn't because they didn't believe that there was money to be made in essentially consumer retail (i.e. off the shelf) operating systems and apps. They also didn't know how to do it. I still recall the DEC Rainbow, where customers were expected to buy pre-formatted floppies from DEC at outrageous prices. MS may also be very economical for OEM PC operating systems and desktop apps. However, I note that a superior and totally free operating system, while quite popular, has not produced much of a dent in Microsoft's OS dominance. MS is also not currently the cheapest OS. Apple OS/X Leopard retails for $130 while Vista Ultimate is $219. Digital Research had a much beter product when IBM produced the PC. I think they wanted about $ 150 for it and MS wanted $ 50 for their product. They basically put DRI out of business and also some other companies that had their ideas incorporated in to the MS product line. Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there. CP/M-86 sold for $150. PC-DOS 1.0 sold for $60. Most of the early IBM PC 5150 adopters bought both. I vaguely recall paying about $4,000 for mine. $100 difference wasn't going to make a huge difference. CP/M-86 did more, but was more difficult to use. PC-DOS (er... QDOS) was crude and simple. At the time everyone was waiting for DRI to clean up the OS or at least make it more user friendly, while PC-DOS was treated as a temporary expedient so IBM could sell PC's that were suppose to run mostly apps in BASIC. Also note that PC-DOS included MSBASIC, while CP/M-86 would sorta run the older CP/M-80 apps. CBASIC came later. The IBM PC 5150 came with cassette BASIC in ROM. However BASIC in ROM was not easily accessible from CP/M-86. Within months of introduction, there were literally hundreds of new and ported apps for PC-DOS arriving at Computerland. Meanwhile CP/M-86 was still struggling with porting CP/M-80 apps. I had customers running some bookkeeping application on CP/M-86 well into the late 1980's. It was a struggle under CP/M-86. When they finally purged the machines and switched to PCDOS, things went more smoothly. For example, relinking the CP/M-86 operating system to install a new device driver was not my idea of fun. With PC-DOS, it was just adding a line in config.sys. All this has something to do with ham radio antennas, but the connection escapes me for the moment. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there. I was there also. Some of the future CP/M-80 guys worked for Intel while I was there. They tried to get Intel to develop their ISIS-80 software development system program into an open architecture. Intel decided most of the money to be made was in the hardware chips and that there was not much money to be made in microcomputer operating systems and computer boxes. Those high-caliber software guys moved from Silicon Valley to Digital Research over on the Pacific coast and the rest is history. Intel could have been the behemoth supplying the microcomputer chips, operating system, AND the computer box. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 10 May 2009 19:25:13 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: Yep. In 1981, CP/M-86 was better than PC-DOS 1.0. I was there. I was there also. Some of the future CP/M-80 guys worked for Intel while I was there. They tried to get Intel to develop their ISIS-80 software development system program into an open architecture. Intel decided most of the money to be made was in the hardware chips and that there was not much money to be made in microcomputer operating systems and computer boxes. Not exactly. Gary Kildall and others wrote some simple games for the 4004 that ran on what later became a development system. They tried to get Robert Noyce to sell it. Nope. Noyce thought there was more money in digital watches which Intel never produced. At the time (1971) nobody had the slightest idea of what to do with a general purpose microprocessor. Even the dynamic RAM business was almost an accident when Intel discovered they couldn't sell micros without the necessary glue chips and memory. In it first few year, Intel didn't have the slightest idea what they were going to manufacture. Somewhat later, he tried to hang some storage onto an MCS-4 chipset demo board with limited success in adapting his PL/M operating system. That morphed into CP/M in order to distinguish it from the Intel effort. There's probably something on the topic in the book "Fire in the Valley". Worth reading methinks: http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Valley-Making-Personal-Computer/dp/0071358927 Ouch. It seems to have become a collectors item. I think I paid $10 for my paperback edition. (Someone stole my hardback edition). At least the used copies are affordable. Those high-caliber software guys moved from Silicon Valley to Digital Research over on the Pacific coast and the rest is history. Intel could have been the behemoth supplying the microcomputer chips, operating system, AND the computer box. Yep. I'm not sure they could have handled the rapid growth in too many areas. At the time, Intel's gross was growing about 40% per year, which is about at the limit of which they could fund growth with revenue and loans. To diversify into adjacent areas would have certainly been opportunistic, but would have drawn resources better spent on cranking out chips. Diversification through acquisition is safer. Craig Barrett tried unsuccessfully to diversify the company, while Paul Otellini sold off divisions and diversions. Intel does well with its core business, but not much elsewhere. Remember the Santa Clara bubble memory division (with the giant plastic bubble in place of a picture window in conference room)? That's where the term "economic bubble" may have originated. It's interesting to note that the general purpose operating systems that were *NOT* tied to a hardware platform have survived far longer than those attached to a manufacturers hardware. Apple OS/X is an exception in that it's 75% portable (Mach) Unix, and about 25% proprietary Apple. It would not have survived in it's original MacOS form. Well, OS/X is a somewhat portable operating system: http://gizmodo.com/5156903/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-9-into-the-ultimate-os-x-netbook All this has something to do with antennas, although the connection currently escapes me. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
everyone better be careful while building those shortwave radios | Shortwave | |||
Be careful replying to off topic messages here! (La Site Communique) | Boatanchors | |||
Be Careful What you Say on The Air Girls | General | |||
Be Careful What you Say on The Air Girls | Scanner | |||
Be Careful What you Say on The Air Girls | Shortwave |