28 Apr
2002
28 Apr
'02
12:50 a.m.
For those interested
http://www.nop.org/misc/pics/ibmpc
Im one of those that still has many of his old mags
going back to the altair days.
In the collection is the Jan 82 issue of Byte
this article is about the IBM PC, and perhaps
some may get a kick out of reading from
scans of these yellowed pages
Raymond
28 Apr
28 Apr
9:13 a.m.
Raymond Moyers wrote:
For those interested
http://www.nop.org/misc/pics/ibmpc
Im one of those that still has many of his old mags
going back to the altair days.
In the collection is the Jan 82 issue of Byte
this article is about the IBM PC, and perhaps
some may get a kick out of reading from
scans of these yellowed pages
Raymond
Why? I didn't get a kick out of it then.
The IBM PC is a reminder that history is not always a pleasant thing. It
is a slap in the face to all those who pioneered the low cost, personal
computer years before it came along. Not just garage-tinkering techs and
entrepreneurs, but big corps., mass-producing. It succeeded not because
it was better, but because it was acceptable to the kind of person who
nowadays looks down their nose if you don't have a fax number, but still
refuses to correspond by email, and because everyone grasped that
immediately in 1981. Including many who should have known better.
Including some who already had better machines in the same class on the
market that cost about the same to build, but were priced as much as 3-4
times higher.
To be more specific, it succeeded by the cachet of 3 letters that IBM
was either willing or unable to prevent others from coattail riding
upon, especially by copying the hardware. Perhaps the open spec helped,
but that would have been reverse-engineered as was the BIOS. If IBM had
contracted with Commodore to put a VIC 20 with expansion slots in a grey
steel box it would have done as well, and we would all be awaiting the
imminent release of the 64-bit 6502 now, instead of IA-64.
I won't knock the machine itself. It was okay, though some of the cost
compromises were highly questionable, even for the time. It was however
a poor choice for "the" industry standard. Particularly the system bus.
Especially when more than one already existed, with hard won formal
specs and all, that didn't lock everyone into a single CPU family.
jbdigriz
5:19 p.m.
On Sunday 28 April 2002 09:13, you wrote:
Raymond Moyers wrote:
Why? I
didn't get a kick out of it then.
Well, part of the discussion here was about cost
and the article has a price table comparing with
machines like the model 4
I made no inference about merit.
Indeed, the x86 chip started as a controler for
a cad terminal, and ss100 had plenty life in
it, esp with the opening it gave for others to
make cards, like the then common practice
of stuffing several single board computers into
a single ss100 chassis to get multiuser into one
box.
the x86 line had everyting to bitch about, it was
register starved and GP regs that wasnt really GP
Linux is making computing CPU agnostic however
and with a system that runs on anything, all that
matters for the hardware is price/performace.
In this new climate, perhaps the dark/ice age of
winblows dumbing down mankind will abate.
Raymond
29 Apr
29 Apr
9:48 a.m.
Raymond Moyers wrote:
On Sunday 28 April 2002 09:13, you wrote:
Nor did I, particularly.
Raymond Moyers wrote:
Why? I didn't get a kick out of it then.
Well, part of the discussion here was about cost
and the article has a price table comparing with
machines like the model 4
I made no inference about merit.
Indeed, the x86 chip started as a controler for
a cad terminal, and ss100 had plenty life in
it, esp with the opening it gave for others to
make cards, like the then common practice
of stuffing several single board computers into
a single ss100 chassis to get multiuser into one
box.
the x86 line had everyting to bitch about, it was
register starved and GP regs that wasnt really GP
Linux is making computing CPU agnostic however
and with a system that runs on anything, all that
matters for the hardware is price/performace.
In this new climate, perhaps the dark/ice age of
winblows dumbing down mankind will abate.
Windows doesn't dumb anybody down, really, it just confuses and
frustrates in an attempt to patronize. Even if it does have some useful
features, they come at a cost, beyond the purchase price.
It would be nice if there was an out-of-the-box power-user GUI option
(eg. a decent regedit tool with a kb backend capable of running off
remote repositories) with more informative and relevant error-messaging
and handling options, instead of the brain-dead dialog boxes. Trying to
accomplish any system configuration using them is like running in a
squirrel cage. It would also be nice if you didn't have to reboot to
have config or driver changes take effect.
But I no longer care. It's been years since my command-line knowledge
was up to the task of maintaining Windows in any way that didn't test my
patience and temper.
This is topical, even. Got my first 386 in Feb. '92, and noticed this
right away. That's when I first installed Slackware off the Night Owl 10
CD. (This was alleged to be difficult, btw. Right.)
I finally gave up on Windows a few years later when it was clear that
everything was going to change again with each new release, and 90% of
what you'd learned before was going to be irrelevant or wrong. Not the
mention the need to fork out again for new apps. This isn't just
inefficient and wasteful, it constitutes gross abuse.
MS as whole has consistently perpetrated this kind of insult to
developers, programmers, and users. No telling what the overall economic
cost has been. But, again, you can't really pin the blame on them,
ultimately. They're just doing what's expected of them. "What the market
wants" (Actually, just all the market is allowed to want.) They'd be up
on charges if they didn't, not just being sued. That's the way the
system works. Planned obsolescence, and all it entails, is an extremely
bad idea when it comes to software, though. Especially system software.
I will avoid channelling Rand and discussing the arbitrary, ad-hoc, and
capricious balancing of screw-over rights and court-ordered robbing
Peter to pay Paul known as antitrust if you will leave Mr. Hannity on
the radio.
jbdigriz
28 Apr
28 Apr
9:58 a.m.
The ironic thing about the article is that the author, Gregg Williams, left
BYTE a few years later to work for Apple.
--Mike
Michael Nadeau
Editor/Publisher
Classic Tech, the Vintage Computing Resource
www.classictechpub.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Moyers" <rmoyers(a)nop.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 1:50 AM
Subject: Jan 82 article abt the IBM PC
For those interested
http://www.nop.org/misc/pics/ibmpc
Im one of those that still has many of his old mags
going back to the altair days.
In the collection is the Jan 82 issue of Byte
this article is about the IBM PC, and perhaps
some may get a kick out of reading from
scans of these yellowed pages
Raymond
8279
days inactive
8280
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
jbdigriz＠dragonsweb.org -
menadeau＠attbi.com -
rmoyers＠nop.org