Int 13h buffer 64k boundaries

[Jim Brain]

On 4/19/2018 6:16 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> So, at the time, looking at the 5150, it was an overpriced primitive
> implementation using a 1970s CPU.   Many people at the time thought it
> would be less popular than the 5100.
While I won't argue the technical merits of your position, I feel like 
we apply revisionism at times to these things.

I would argue that some engineer in IBM ranks was passionately trying to 
convince IBM brass that IBM needed to have a stake in the personal 
computer space, lest other companies swallow up the market.  IBM, 
lumbering giant that it was, probably was reluctant to mess around with 
toy computers (their opinion no doubt) at all. But, someone (or 
someones) won the battle, and someone else had the inspirational idea to 
use off the shelf components, as opposed to having an IBM-branded and 
designed CPU, etc.

Sure, they used old stuff, but it was working stuff, and I think the 
goal was to get something to market as quickly as possible.  Being 
overpriced was IBM Marketing's touch (you call it overpriced, as I 
manufacturer, I call it capitalism at work).

Why do I even post this?

Someday, the products and software designed and built by the folks in 
this list will be judged by those who follow us.  Possibly the rest of 
you have worked in industries where you were allowed to use new 
solutions, you had ample time to design and develop, and your marketing 
departments priced your solutions at a reasonable price point, but I've 
not had those luxuries.  Thus, I want to be fair to those before me who 
created things like the IBM PC architecture, not because it is a great 
architecture, but because they shipped a real product that added value 
for many folks and did so while working inside a company not known for 
agility.  The folks who did that deserve my respect, and when I am gone 
and folks look at my design choices, I hope they will respect me for 
doing what I could given the constraints I faced.

Jim