| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348610 is a reply to message #348541] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 15:45   |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 10:42:47 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> Somebody at IBM finally paid attention to Seymour Cray's response to the
> "including the janitor" memo. IBM saw that the personal computer market was a
> potential major source of revenue, which could even result in the displacement
> of larger computers as an industry, but the senior management realized that the
> traditional IBM structure was not sufficiently agile to effectively participate.
>
> And thus the IBM Personal Computer was intentionally a skunkworks project,
> handled by a small group isolated from the rest of the company. The people
> involved didn't have the resources to design their own processor or write their
> own operating system.
>
> Yes: IBM knew how to make computers. But the personal computer marketplace was
> very different from the markets for which IBM was used to making computers, and
> so it had to do things differently. And that had leaving the processor design
> and the operating system to others as a corollary.
What I don't understand was where IBM's typewriter division fit into
all this. Unlike a mainframe, or even a mini System/3x, an IBM
typewriter was a commodity for business. Maybe the IBM salesman spent
a few minutes with the customer showing how to change the typehead
or install a ribbon, but nothing like a computer salesman would spend.
Anyway, IBM had the experience selling a (relatively) low-priced
commodity to business. Indeed, I think they expanded their "Office
Products Division", but I don't think PCs were a part of it.
It's a shame IBM got so bloated after System/360. Certainly, some
growth was necessary as sales were so large and machines grew more
complex (look at the growth of the instruction set). But when it
got so bad that "products escaped from IBM", high management should've
thinned it out. The from American Express who took over had to do so.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348611 is a reply to message #348558] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 15:51 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:48:25 AM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> IBM deliberately crippled the Personal Computer so as not to compete with its
> Displaywriter. Besides, I don't think they had any idea how their Personal
> Computer would take off.
What exactly did they do to cripple it?
We had a client who had, IIRC, a word processor called WYDEC, and they
were happy with it. (I remember the screens were vertical and large, to
show an 11" document). But corporate, in an effort to standardize,
ordered that they switch to Displaywriter. They didn't like that as
much, plus had to redo all the forms.
A few years later corporate realized that the electronic mainframe
printer could do lower case and stamp out a letterhead. A new
application contained a form generation process, where routine
letters were printed by the mainframe. They weren't as polished as
a word processor, but adequate to the task, and certainly far more
efficient. Instead of a processing clerk ordering a letter to be
typed and sent, it was just spit out.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348622 is a reply to message #348610] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 17:51 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:45:10 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> What I don't understand was where IBM's typewriter division fit into
> all this. Unlike a mainframe, or even a mini System/3x, an IBM
> typewriter was a commodity for business. Maybe the IBM salesman spent
> a few minutes with the customer showing how to change the typehead
> or install a ribbon, but nothing like a computer salesman would spend.
> Anyway, IBM had the experience selling a (relatively) low-priced
> commodity to business. Indeed, I think they expanded their "Office
> Products Division", but I don't think PCs were a part of it.
Eventually, of course, they spun all that off into Lexmark. And that was computer printers and computer keyboards...
But if they told their Office Products Division to make a computer, they would
basically have been starting from scratch too.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348623 is a reply to message #348532] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 18:03 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:25:06 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> In article <871spgqgph.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>>
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:24:44 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> OS/2 shipped in December 1987. IBM and Microsoft had their falling-out in
>>> 1990, by which time Cutler was already onboard and working on NT, which is
>>> currently in release 10.0 and called "Windows 10".
>>
>> Yes. That's why I find it amazing the IBM employee already bitched about
>> Microsoft and MS-DOS in early 1987. Could be possible something was going
>> on already in 1987 which did not make it to the public.
>
> A lot of IBM people had trouble with the Microsoft partnership from the
> git-go. IBM was perfectly capable of writing their own operating systems
> without Microsoft's help. I was very surprised when the IBM PC shipped
> with a non-IBM operating system and a non-IBM processor. Many people at
> IBM really did not like the idea of MS-DOS being available for non-IBM
> computers or being dependent on some college drop-out for critical system
> software.
What would be the reason for IBM doing this? Did they had to rush the
"IBM PC" to the market, that they first asked Digital Research for their
CP/M, failing that, went to Microsoft?
Reading < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:IBM_operating_systems>
they had nothing in the pipe at that time which could had been adapted
for the PC. Suppose IBM would has had the man power to develop their own
OS for the PC parallel to its hardware development. Why didn't they?
Giving the software out of hand, IBM seems to not have been much confident
that the PC would be successful.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
your house doesn't have curtains, but your truck does.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348637 is a reply to message #348623] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 22:46 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <87wp76oh4m.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:25:06 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> In article <871spgqgph.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:24:44 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OS/2 shipped in December 1987. IBM and Microsoft had their falling-out in
>>>> 1990, by which time Cutler was already onboard and working on NT, which is
>>>> currently in release 10.0 and called "Windows 10".
>>>
>>> Yes. That's why I find it amazing the IBM employee already bitched about
>>> Microsoft and MS-DOS in early 1987. Could be possible something was going
>>> on already in 1987 which did not make it to the public.
>>
>> A lot of IBM people had trouble with the Microsoft partnership from the
>> git-go. IBM was perfectly capable of writing their own operating systems
>> without Microsoft's help. I was very surprised when the IBM PC shipped
>> with a non-IBM operating system and a non-IBM processor. Many people at
>> IBM really did not like the idea of MS-DOS being available for non-IBM
>> computers or being dependent on some college drop-out for critical system
>> software.
>
> What would be the reason for IBM doing this? Did they had to rush the
> "IBM PC" to the market, that they first asked Digital Research for their
> CP/M, failing that, went to Microsoft?
>
> Reading < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:IBM_operating_systems>
> they had nothing in the pipe at that time which could had been adapted
> for the PC. Suppose IBM would has had the man power to develop their own
> OS for the PC parallel to its hardware development. Why didn't they?
>
> Giving the software out of hand, IBM seems to not have been much confident
> that the PC would be successful.
They thought that micros were always going to be toys for hobbyists and
wanted to cash in on that market. They didn't really expect what came
next.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348639 is a reply to message #348637] |
Mon, 17 July 2017 22:57 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 8:46:28 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> They thought that micros were always going to be toys for hobbyists and
> wanted to cash in on that market. They didn't really expect what came
> next.
I'll agree with the second part of that - they didn't expect how microprocessors
would develop.
But not the first part. If micros were always going to be toys for hobbyists,
then IBM would have had no interest in the market.
The original IBM PC _was_ marketed to home users, although its high price
limited its success there. But it was also sold to businesses, right from the
start, as a machine that could do word processing and spreadsheet calculations.
And, for that matter, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and payroll.
And while they did not see the exact dimensions of the future, that micros would
become more powerful as time went on, and perhaps someday eclipse IBM's existing
mainframe business... so that a foothold in the micro world was needed... I
think they realized *that* *too*. Not how fast it would happen, and not many
other things, but a vague general realization of the central fact of the matter
was there.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348641 is a reply to message #348622] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 00:16 |
bbreynolds
Messages: 18
Registered: July 2013
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 5:51:30 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 1:45:10 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> What I don't understand was where IBM's typewriter division fit into
>> all this. Unlike a mainframe, or even a mini System/3x, an IBM
>> typewriter was a commodity for business. Maybe the IBM salesman spent
>> a few minutes with the customer showing how to change the typehead
>> or install a ribbon, but nothing like a computer salesman would spend.
>
>> Anyway, IBM had the experience selling a (relatively) low-priced
>> commodity to business. Indeed, I think they expanded their "Office
>> Products Division", but I don't think PCs were a part of it.
>
> Eventually, of course, they spun all that off into Lexmark. And that was computer printers and computer keyboards...
>
> But if they told their Office Products Division to make a computer, they would
> basically have been starting from scratch too.
>
> John Savard
The Office Products Division created some technologies (e.g. ink jet printing) and built it own unique systems (Office System/6 series); the Displaywriter and the 5520 were made up from the IBM parts bin, with the latter being essentially a S/34 with modified 5250 Twin-Ax terminals.
Bruce B. Reynolds, Horsham PA
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348671 is a reply to message #348623] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 13:49 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:25:06 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> In article <871spgqgph.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:24:44 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OS/2 shipped in December 1987. IBM and Microsoft had their falling-out in
>>>> 1990, by which time Cutler was already onboard and working on NT, which is
>>>> currently in release 10.0 and called "Windows 10".
>>>
>>> Yes. That's why I find it amazing the IBM employee already bitched about
>>> Microsoft and MS-DOS in early 1987. Could be possible something was going
>>> on already in 1987 which did not make it to the public.
>>
>> A lot of IBM people had trouble with the Microsoft partnership from the
>> git-go. IBM was perfectly capable of writing their own operating systems
>> without Microsoft's help. I was very surprised when the IBM PC shipped
>> with a non-IBM operating system and a non-IBM processor. Many people at
>> IBM really did not like the idea of MS-DOS being available for non-IBM
>> computers or being dependent on some college drop-out for critical system
>> software.
>
> What would be the reason for IBM doing this? Did they had to rush the
> "IBM PC" to the market, that they first asked Digital Research for their
> CP/M, failing that, went to Microsoft?
>
I forget why, but IBM in essence set up a "garage" to create the new
computer. So they set up a new division off in Florida, and seemed to
give it a lot of independence. So I assume some of what happened was that
for some reason, they decided to emulate the "small computer" world, and
that lead to further decisions.
Legend has it they went to MIcrosoft first, for some reason thinking they
owned CP/M. Microsoft of course did make the Softcard for the Apple II to
run CP/M there, so perhaps that's where the confusion came from.
Microsoft sent IBM to Digital Research, where things didn't work out.
They surely had done research, in a number of ways the "IBM PC" is very
much like an Apple II, except 16 bit. The "open hardware", the expansion
bus, etc seem influenced by Apple. But in that research, they surely
would have heard of CP/M and getting going fast, which seemed to be part
of the operation, would be using off the shelf solutions. But Gary
Kildall was either off flying a plane that day, or didn't want to sign a
non-disclosure agreement, or some combination of the two, so IBM went back
to Microsoft. Since they didn't have an OS, they had to buy an existing
one and build on it.
If they had no CPU that could be cheap, then off the shelf makes sense.
If they had no OS, then off the shelf makes sense. Except Microsoft did
"create" an OS, and kept some rights, so it was the same situation as if
IBM had gone with CP/M.
IBM already had the "Datamaster", not intended for the home market, but it
used an 8085, so that probably helped make the decision to stick with
Intel, albeit a 16bit CPU. I seem to recall reading that the 68000 had
been under consideration, but it didn't ship early enough (it existed as
a prototype for a while before going to production quantities) or
something like lack of peripherals or maybe that the version with the 8bit
bus wasn't available yet. One of those, the specific I've forgotten over
time. If they went to a CPU with a 16bit bus, then RAM had to be added 16
ICs at a time, which could be daunting price wise. I paid about $80 for
64K of RAM in the summer of 1984, and it was more expensive just a few
years before.
They did move beyond the Apple II. No built in video, you needed a card,
but there were options from the start.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348673 is a reply to message #348565] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 14:24 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-17, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> - it conformed to industry standards, at least to a degree: it resembled
>> a CP/M computer, despite being better.
>
> The last three words are questionable - a 6MHz Z80B with 256K of
> bank switched memory and MP/M was a faster and more flexible computer than
> an IBM PC with its 4.77MHz 8086 and PC-DOS.
Amen, brother. I did some work on a TurboDOS box running a pair of
6-MHz Z80Bs and a hard drive. It made an XT look pretty sad.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348675 is a reply to message #347133] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 15:49 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 4:44:00 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
> With suitable add-ons, we did use the D'wr as a terminal to
> communicate with a box that masqueraded as a telex machine, and with
> CP/M-86 to do Supercalc spreadsheets larger than the Osborne could do,
> but the 1MHz CPU made it awfully slow. The PC was general purpose,
> jack of all trades and master of none. The Displaywrite software for
> the PC that they eventually sold tried to imitate the D'wr software
> (Textpack 4) but it was kind of annoying, For the PC, WordPerfect was
> better even if it did require some retraining.
IMHO, the basic (8088) IBM PC and clones was too slow to support
word processing (and much else), even when using a stripped down
package.
IBM had a good product, Writing Assistant, that was basically an
automated typewriter, but it worked well and was very easy to use.
It was great on a 286.
A good 24 pin printer was a must for word processing, but many
companies got only a 9 pin printer to save money.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348679 is a reply to message #348671] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 15:55 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:25:06 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> A lot of IBM people had trouble with the Microsoft partnership from the
>>> git-go. IBM was perfectly capable of writing their own operating systems
>>> without Microsoft's help. I was very surprised when the IBM PC shipped
>>> with a non-IBM operating system and a non-IBM processor. Many people at
>>> IBM really did not like the idea of MS-DOS being available for non-IBM
>>> computers or being dependent on some college drop-out for critical system
>>> software.
>>
>> What would be the reason for IBM doing this? Did they had to rush the
>> "IBM PC" to the market, that they first asked Digital Research for their
>> CP/M, failing that, went to Microsoft?
>>
> I forget why, but IBM in essence set up a "garage" to create the new
> computer. So they set up a new division off in Florida, and seemed to
> give it a lot of independence. So I assume some of what happened was
> that for some reason, they decided to emulate the "small computer"
> world, and that lead to further decisions.
Reason to "kick" the developers to a another place was IBM couldn't do it
the usual way, the perfect way (inventing every screw, not using off the
shelf products).
> Legend has it they went to MIcrosoft first, for some reason thinking
> they owned CP/M. Microsoft of course did make the Softcard for the
> Apple II to run CP/M there, so perhaps that's where the confusion came
> from. Microsoft sent IBM to Digital Research, where things didn't work
> out.
>
> They surely had done research, in a number of ways the "IBM PC" is
> very much like an Apple II, except 16 bit. The "open hardware", the
> expansion bus, etc seem influenced by Apple. But in that research,
> they surely would have heard of CP/M and getting going fast, which
> seemed to be part of the operation, would be using off the shelf
> solutions. But Gary Kildall was either off flying a plane that day,
> or didn't want to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or some combination
> of the two, so IBM went back to Microsoft. Since they didn't have an
> OS, they had to buy an existing one and build on it.
Any idea why MS first sent the IBM suits to DR, and when they came back
(and why did they come back anyway?) take the job only then? May be Gates
was surprised and stunned when they showed up first. Then had time to
think about what to do (buying Quick And Dirty DOS) until they came back?
[...]
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you have spent more on your pickup truck than on your education.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348680 is a reply to message #348671] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 15:59 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 11:48:38 AM UTC-6, Michael Black wrote:
> maybe that the version with the 8bit
> bus wasn't available yet.
Yes, the 68008 came out much later, and was eventually used in the Sinclair QL.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348681 is a reply to message #348679] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 16:02 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 1:55:04 PM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> Any idea why MS first sent the IBM suits to DR
Well, when they asked MS if they could buy the rights to CP/M from it, it's not as
if they could have gotten away for very long with *lying* to the suits from IBM.
I mean, taking advantage of every opportunity to make money makes sense, but one
does have to be careful.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348704 is a reply to message #348675] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 21:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <fe7878b6-86fd-4f7b-b1a1-28f572671f5d@googlegroups.com>,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says...
>
> On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 4:44:00 PM UTC-4, Dave Garland wrote:
>
>> With suitable add-ons, we did use the D'wr as a terminal to
>> communicate with a box that masqueraded as a telex machine, and with
>> CP/M-86 to do Supercalc spreadsheets larger than the Osborne could do,
>> but the 1MHz CPU made it awfully slow. The PC was general purpose,
>> jack of all trades and master of none. The Displaywrite software for
>> the PC that they eventually sold tried to imitate the D'wr software
>> (Textpack 4) but it was kind of annoying, For the PC, WordPerfect was
>> better even if it did require some retraining.
>
> IMHO, the basic (8088) IBM PC and clones was too slow to support
> word processing (and much else), even when using a stripped down
> package.
They ran Multimate, Word Perfect, and Word just fine. Wordstar not so
much, but that wasn't a PC issue, it was a Wordstar issue.
> IBM had a good product, Writing Assistant, that was basically an
> automated typewriter, but it worked well and was very easy to use.
> It was great on a 286.
>
> A good 24 pin printer was a must for word processing, but many
> companies got only a 9 pin printer to save money.
There is no such thing as a "good" dot matrix impact printer, just varying
degrees of bad.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348705 is a reply to message #348679] |
Tue, 18 July 2017 21:34 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <87fudt7c6h.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:49:40 -0400, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 16:25:06 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A lot of IBM people had trouble with the Microsoft partnership from the
>>>> git-go. IBM was perfectly capable of writing their own operating systems
>>>> without Microsoft's help. I was very surprised when the IBM PC shipped
>>>> with a non-IBM operating system and a non-IBM processor. Many people at
>>>> IBM really did not like the idea of MS-DOS being available for non-IBM
>>>> computers or being dependent on some college drop-out for critical system
>>>> software.
>>>
>>> What would be the reason for IBM doing this? Did they had to rush the
>>> "IBM PC" to the market, that they first asked Digital Research for their
>>> CP/M, failing that, went to Microsoft?
>>>
>> I forget why, but IBM in essence set up a "garage" to create the new
>> computer. So they set up a new division off in Florida, and seemed to
>> give it a lot of independence. So I assume some of what happened was
>> that for some reason, they decided to emulate the "small computer"
>> world, and that lead to further decisions.
>
> Reason to "kick" the developers to a another place was IBM couldn't do it
> the usual way, the perfect way (inventing every screw, not using off the
> shelf products).
>
>> Legend has it they went to MIcrosoft first, for some reason thinking
>> they owned CP/M. Microsoft of course did make the Softcard for the
>> Apple II to run CP/M there, so perhaps that's where the confusion came
>> from. Microsoft sent IBM to Digital Research, where things didn't work
>> out.
>>
>> They surely had done research, in a number of ways the "IBM PC" is
>> very much like an Apple II, except 16 bit. The "open hardware", the
>> expansion bus, etc seem influenced by Apple. But in that research,
>> they surely would have heard of CP/M and getting going fast, which
>> seemed to be part of the operation, would be using off the shelf
>> solutions. But Gary Kildall was either off flying a plane that day,
>> or didn't want to sign a non-disclosure agreement, or some combination
>> of the two, so IBM went back to Microsoft. Since they didn't have an
>> OS, they had to buy an existing one and build on it.
>
> Any idea why MS first sent the IBM suits to DR, and when they came back
> (and why did they come back anyway?) take the job only then? May be Gates
> was surprised and stunned when they showed up first. Then had time to
> think about what to do (buying Quick And Dirty DOS) until they came back?
Microsoft and Digital Research were not competitors at that time.
Microsoft's big product was Microsoft BASIC, which was almost universal in
the 8-bit microcomputer world--it was on CP/M, Apple, Commodore, and
others. That was what IBM wanted from Microsoft. The plan had been to
make CP/M the operating system, but somehow Gary Kildall managed to sour
the deal (there are many versions of this story, but the bottom line is
that Digital Research managed to make IBM actively unhappy with them) and
IBM looked for an alternative source. The obvious first place to go was
Microsoft since they already had a working arrangement and Bill Gates
wasn't _about_ to turn that deal down.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348736 is a reply to message #348675] |
Wed, 19 July 2017 02:38 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2017-07-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> IMHO, the basic (8088) IBM PC and clones was too slow to support
> word processing (and much else), even when using a stripped down
> package.
Part of that was due to the slow speed of CGA. Running a word
processor on our first XT clones, you could type up to a word
ahead of your keystrokes echoing on the screen. Once everyone
got over their infatuation with colour graphics and exchanged
the CGA boards for Hercules, things were _much_ better. (And
the screens were much sharper too.)
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348744 is a reply to message #348736] |
Wed, 19 July 2017 06:25 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <okmup20t1l@news6.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid says...
>
> On 2017-07-18, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, the basic (8088) IBM PC and clones was too slow to support
>> word processing (and much else), even when using a stripped down
>> package.
>
> Part of that was due to the slow speed of CGA. Running a word
> processor on our first XT clones, you could type up to a word
> ahead of your keystrokes echoing on the screen. Once everyone
> got over their infatuation with colour graphics and exchanged
> the CGA boards for Hercules, things were _much_ better. (And
> the screens were much sharper too.)
The IBM monochrome display adapter, which was text-only, did fine for word
processing. However Wordstar was still a dog on it.
What Hercules brought to the party was a graphics extension to the
monochrome display adapter.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348789 is a reply to message #348705] |
Wed, 19 July 2017 17:40 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:34:41 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> In article <87fudt7c6h.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>>
>> Any idea why MS first sent the IBM suits to DR, and when they came back
>> (and why did they come back anyway?) take the job only then? May be Gates
>> was surprised and stunned when they showed up first. Then had time to
>> think about what to do (buying Quick And Dirty DOS) until they came back?
>
> Microsoft and Digital Research were not competitors at that time.
> Microsoft's big product was Microsoft BASIC, which was almost universal in
> the 8-bit microcomputer world--it was on CP/M, Apple, Commodore, and
> others. That was what IBM wanted from Microsoft. The plan had been to
> make CP/M the operating system, but somehow Gary Kildall managed to sour
> the deal (there are many versions of this story, but the bottom line is
> that Digital Research managed to make IBM actively unhappy with them) and
> IBM looked for an alternative source. The obvious first place to go was
> Microsoft since they already had a working arrangement and Bill Gates
> wasn't _about_ to turn that deal down.
Thanks, seems to make sense now.
Apropos MS BASIC. Could one also say it was an operating system? On the
Altair 8800 it kind of did everything, including disk i/o if I understand
it correctly. There was no underlying OS then.
--
Andreas
You know you are a redneck if
you ever done your christmas shopping at a truck stop.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348791 is a reply to message #348789] |
Wed, 19 July 2017 18:39 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:34:41 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> In article <87fudt7c6h.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>, ank@spamfence.net says...
>>>
>>> Any idea why MS first sent the IBM suits to DR, and when they came back
>>> (and why did they come back anyway?) take the job only then? May be Gates
>>> was surprised and stunned when they showed up first. Then had time to
>>> think about what to do (buying Quick And Dirty DOS) until they came back?
>>
>> Microsoft and Digital Research were not competitors at that time.
>> Microsoft's big product was Microsoft BASIC, which was almost universal in
>> the 8-bit microcomputer world--it was on CP/M, Apple, Commodore, and
>> others. That was what IBM wanted from Microsoft. The plan had been to
>> make CP/M the operating system, but somehow Gary Kildall managed to sour
>> the deal (there are many versions of this story, but the bottom line is
>> that Digital Research managed to make IBM actively unhappy with them) and
>> IBM looked for an alternative source. The obvious first place to go was
>> Microsoft since they already had a working arrangement and Bill Gates
>> wasn't _about_ to turn that deal down.
>
> Thanks, seems to make sense now.
>
> Apropos MS BASIC. Could one also say it was an operating system? On the
> Altair 8800 it kind of did everything, including disk i/o if I understand
> it correctly. There was no underlying OS then.
That's a good question. Microsoft BASIC was in most of the all in one
relatively low end computers, in ROM. So turn on the computer, and you
were in BASIC. If you needed a machine language program, the BASIC would
load it from tape. And there was usually something that allowed
extensions if a disk drive was added. So the Radio Shack Color Computer,
the floppy disk controller had a ROM that extended the BASIC to include
floppy disk functions.
But does that count as an "OS"? You could do some I/O functions, but not
everything, and you never got down to a command line, you were always
within BASIC. You could load a binary program, but there were no tools
for creating such programs or debugging them.
Ironically, when I got an assembler for the Radio Shack Color Computer, it
included I/O separate from what was in ROM, I'm not sure why. That was
maybe a bit more like an OS, but it was also limited. Theoreticaly it
could be used as an OS, it was separate from the actual assembler, but no
other programs came along.
If you take earlier comuters, like the Apple II or even the OSI
Superboard, they had monitors in ROM, separate from the BASIC in ROM. So
those provided I/O, and were oriented towards machine language programs.
The Apple II one was great, including even a mini-assembler, while I know
the OSI one was very rudimentary, but still allowed one to put bytes into
memory to make a program.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mannix "computer in a briefcase" [message #348956 is a reply to message #348136] |
Fri, 21 July 2017 22:06 |
Joy Beeson
Messages: 159
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2017 22:09:26 -0300, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> I'd really
> hate to part with it as it's a fancy one made by an artist blacksmith
> [1] from 12 ga. steel, a mouse-head handle, hand-forged support and
> vines & leaves concealing welds.
Nova Scotia doesn't have wing plows?
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
