OT -- Looking to upgrade Computer

Page 1 of 5  
alright fellas looking for a little input/experiences with this brand motherboard. I'm thinking in the next month or so upgrading my system and giving the current system to my wife for her personal use.
currently running:
MSI ms-6340 main board nvidia graphics mx4000 Geforce AMD Athlon processor 1100 256 meg ram 20 gig IDE hard disk Kubuntu-Linux Operating system
Proposed system:
MachSpeed MSNV-939 Motherboard CPU Bundle AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Processor 2.20GHz OEM 4 gig ram 500 gig hard disk (either IDE or SATA witch ever i lay hands on) nvidia graphics (card not decided but staying with nvidia because of their linux support) Kubutnu-Linux Operating system
this board appears to have support for 4 gig of SDRAM, PCI, PCI-E 2 ide slots 4 sata slots below is the url to the board. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo )45334&CatId19
the reason im looking for installing 4 gig of ram when i build the new system is the fact that i promised myself the next system would have the ram capacity of the board maxed out "out of the box" because with the last system i didnt and later wound up regretting it because the price of PC133 ram is out of sight (i'd like to have more but not willing to pay the price for it)
anyone with experience with this brand or particular board? will i be disappointed in the reliability of this board after having 0 trouble out of my MSI for 4 or 6 years? (i forget when exactly i built this system)
--
Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Thompson wrote:

http://www.apple.com/macpro /
:-) Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In response to Craig C. 's post. I thought everyone should know:

*CAUGH*
who said anything about OSX??
besides i've got a purdy case i wanna use (cant let the wife have all the cool stuff ya know)
--
Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Thompson wrote:

You can run any OS. Including K/Umbuntu.
Superior performance from a superior product.
:-) Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In response to Craig C. 's post. I thought everyone should know:

did you ever check out (K)ubuntu? how does it run on your MAC if you did?
--
Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Thompson wrote:

Yep. It runs on Mac. I ftp'd the installable files, but have not yet run tried them. I have a G5 with PowerPC chips. The new Macs are Intel which are definitely better for running other OS's.
You can run it other OS's natively (separate bootable partitions) or there is a product by VMWare called "Fusion" that allows you to run multiple OS's at the same time on a Mac with kick butt performance.
Check it out:
http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion /
Look into my eyes ... you will be a Mac bigot ... you will be a Mac bigot.
:-) Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wish you'd say "Apple" or "Macintosh"...
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mac davis wrote:

LOL.
Betcha didn't know you were so well liked did you?
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig C. wrote:

Thats too bad. The Apple did have a great advantage in using Motorola CPU's over Intel. If you've ever programmed in assembly on both CPU's you'd understand just how inefficient Intel CPU's are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

The Motorola chip was hard to get in sufficient numbers, ran hot and sucked up an enormous amount of power.
Moving to Intel was the best option for Apple's future business plans.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I haven't used "Fusion" but I have used several VMWare products for other OS's. They do know how to write virtual machine code!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig C. wrote:

Closed system is not superior. I prefer a non-proprietary open system by far.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually, closed systems are almost always superior to open systems as far as speed and sometimes reliability goes. Where they lack is in flexibility and cost.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Not true. Open platforms allow innovation from a multitude of sources. Lets say when PC's first came out IBM bought exclusive rights to MS-DOS and locked it into a closed system. Nobody could clone the original IBM PC. Where do you think PC hardware would be today with just IBM and their proprietary closed system? No way Tom! An open system is why we have so many companies pushing the limit with new technology in PC's every year.
Want another example? Apple came out with their Firewire serial bus. If any other manufacture wants to put a firewire port on their PC they have to pay Apple. It was far superior to the original USB 1 for it's speed. However, because its a closed system and USB being open, development gained fast for USB and stalled for firewire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe that I already said this although I called it flexability. However, those same "multiple sources" almost always lead to partial incomaptabilities that slow things down. Even in your other posts in this thread, you make the claim that some system boards are better than other and some video cards just suck. These are the reasons that closed system are almost always faster, because the developers of these systems have complete control over everything and can make rapid changes if required, which is not possible with any open system.

What are you talking about?

Pretty much exactly where it is today. The IBM PC version is where it is because of the huge amount of software written for it and that happened because in the beginning, IBM had the reputation of making business machines and the money to mass produce them at an affordable cost and got the jump on Apple. As you like to say, business exists for the sole purpose of making money and where do you think that they are going to put their resources, at a superior system with 10,000 units and available sales or at a slower system with 500,000 units on the market.

And even with that, the closed system MAC remained far superior to it in speed and performance. Two competing closed systems would have created the same innovation if sales were dependant on speed.

Funny, many of the newer system boards offer fire wire support. Perhaps you should take a look. But then again, this example is invalid because now you are talking about a component, not a complete system. Anywhere you look in time, the closed system kicked the shit out of open systems of the same period in speed and performance and they did it for a reason.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Sorry Tom but closed system manufactures do not move as rapid in development as open system manufactures. There is little benefit to the consumer.

Hmm...you don't know much about how PC's started in the mainstream consumer market do you? IBM created the first PC with which our current PC's are based. Microsoft offered IBM exclusive rights to MS-DOS. IBM turned them down thinking people would not buy anything other than a true IBM PC nor did they buy exclusive rights to the microcode the Intel chips used in their PC's. The result was an open platform. Anyone could produce an IBM PC Clone. It was the clones that beat out the IBM. They offered features and speed that rivaled the IBM. Some clones sold for a higher price than the true blue IBM. No way would we see computer hardware improve in speed and functionality had IBM been the only ones to produce the PC with exclusive rights to the OS and CPU's.

BULL! IBM decided they were "IBM" and didn't need to worry about small companies cloning their PC. They were wrong and 3rd party hardware development took off fast. It never would have had IBM paid for exclusive rights.

Apple led the market when the IBM PC came out. IBM itself didn't sell worth a damn and they were forced out of the market. It was the clones that took off in sales because of advancements in hardware that rivaled IBM. They could not have done that had IBM produced a closed system.

Superior in what regards? Benchmark speed tests? Most people don't have a use for the fastest PC at a particular application. There are far more other features that drive the consumer market than speed. The Apple being closed can't offer what the massive number of independent developers of hardware can for an open system.

Some do but look at the numbers Tom. No comparison. USB is on EVERY PC built since USB 1 was released. Firewire is on a select few. Now look at hardware. How many manufactures produce firewire compatible products vs. USB? No comparison and for one reason...Apples closed system.

Its the same difference. Propreitary hardware whether a component or system can not keep up with the development of open platform hardware.

True to an extent. They came out faster and better but couldn't keep up. Commorore is a classic example with their far superior Amiga. It came out around the same time as the IBM PC. Then there was Atari and a host of other superior PC's. They died out. But the open platformed PC's took off and it had nothing to do with IBM's big name...they died too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is simply not true. Mot as long as there is competition. The Mac has beaten the PC in performance since the day it was introduced and still does. The only reason it has not taken over is due to the price and lack of software but it is now gaining market share.

I was im the field when they started.

Nope. Care to try again?

Wrong again. IBM wanted exclusive rights and Bill said no way.

Wrong again. IBM decided on an open platform to allow other manufacturers to build peripheral components and compatible software to cut costs.

After a while but the IBM was a superior machine both in speed and construction.

LOL, that depends on the model. IBM had this nasty habit of limiting the abilities of the lower models so that they would not take sales away from the higher priced ones and that came to bite them in the ass but their top of the line models were just as fast as anyone elses and much better built. Sure, they had some problems such as the origional AT systems, but they still kicked the crap out of everyone else.

Really??? Lets have some names and dates.

That is complete crap. Improvements lead to repeat sales which equates to more money. You say that you know a lot about business but are proving very different.

What does this have to do with the above comment about software??? Oh, that's right, not a damn thing and even here, you are wrong.

They designed it with an open architecture in mind. As for the OS, they never had the opportunity to get exclusive rights. They did have exclusive rights with OS2 but by then it was to late and they didn't invest the money to make it #1.

LOL, Apple led the market with home PC's but didn't do shit for business.

Hahahaha, you really do make me laugh. They didn't do well in the home market but took off in the business world. That is what lead to the PC becomming the leader because that is wjere the money is.

More complete crap. I think that you just like to argue even when you more than prove that you don't know what you are talking about. IBM's success in the business world created a market for the clone manufacturers and the software developers. Had Apple took the risk and pushed the Mac into the business world when they had the oppertunity as they had and still have the better machine, we would all be working on Apples now.

Benchmark speed tests, graphics capabilities, buss transfer speeds, just about every way.

Where are you comming up with this complete load of crap from. Basically, from the XP clone clear thru the early Pentium PC's, the only thing really going on to sell PC's were speed increases. If you just wanted better graphics or more drive space, you could just buy those components.

Really???? Name them and then say how Apple was not able to keep up and even exceed the PC compatables.

More complete crap. The only things really holding back Apple were the price and the lack of software and the lack of software is primarily due to their much lower market share and the fact that you cannot just recompile existing PC based software to run on the Motorola based Macs.

But when you really look, you will see that Fire Wire does exist on most of the high end MB's. Why do you think that is Miles?

LOL, wrong again. It has nothing to do with being a closed system and everything to do with market share. Firewire costs money while USB doesn't and for that reason is not normally available on lower to mid priced MB's or systems while as you say USB is on just about everything. Since the number of machines with fire wire is so much smaller than those with USB, USB wins and it has nothing to do with Apple being closed.

Hahahahaha, Fire Wire is still superior to even USB II and development doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. It is $$$$$$$ and nothing more.

Wrong again as the Mac has not only kept up, it remains in the lead on just about every benchmark and is now gaining market share.

The Amiga was killed due to piracy which lead to no software development. A mega system without software is useless which makes it worthless and didn't have a damn thing with it being a closed system.

But the IBM was quickly accepted in the business world which lead to rapid development of business tools which made it a valuable machine that further increased market share which lead to more software development which lead to increased market share which lead to increased market share which ...........

Every one of these systems that dies out did so because nobody was writing software for them on not enough software to compete with the PC compatables.

The open platform PS took off because of IBM's name and Apple hesitating on getting into the business world at the time when the PC was starting out. The tools created for the PC made it what it is, not the open platform of the hardware. Open platform hardware development will always lag behind proprietary hardware in speed and if you were half the engineer that you claim to be you would know this. In a closed system, if I were to come up with a revolutionary design that would quadruple the frame resolution of my video and kick the competition ass but would require a redesign of the video interface, I can simply just do it. And during the redesign, if I see potential problems, I can make adjustments to both sides until I get it perfect and don't have to answer to anyone but the customer which equates to minimal risk. If you in an open system were to come up with the same revolutionary design but was not compatible with the existing interface, you would be SOL. You could attempt to design and document the new interface along with the reason for it and submit it to the powers that be for acceptance and then hope that it will be accepted and that most of not all of the system board designers can and will implement it and then worry that a competitor will come out with an even better and cheaper component than what you came up with and if the customer will accept it or prefer the older method due to possible software issues, IOW, a much higher risk.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Not true. Many of Apples latest hardware improvements are a direct result from development on PC's. Take SATA drives for instance. Apple have them first? Don't think so! Hell, even older IDE Ultra 100, then 133 were first on PC's. Apple follows rather than leads.

And you still unaware of IBM's decision to not make DOS exclusive to them and the ramifications of their decision?

Sorry Tom, but you are wrong. There were numerous CP/M computers out and IBM almost went with CP/M but DEC couldn't meet IBM's deadlines in time.

MS offered exclusive rights. Got proof of your claim?

That is complete bull! Big blue's mentality at the time was similar to their marketing of Selectric Typewriters. Nobody could touch anything with the letters IBM on it. Brand recognition killed all competition in most anything IBM did. The PC market was totally new and IBM incorrectly assumed the PC market would follow the same patterns it had enjoyed elsewhere. IBM sued several early clone makers such as Compaq and lost. They did not promote 3rd party development at all!

Compared to what? IBM never beat out even the early clones. Compaq came out the following year and easily trumped IBM's performance in both their portable (which IBM didn't produce) as well as their desktop. Compaq was the first to use Hercules Graphics Adapters. IBM didn't until a full year later. Until then IBM's were text only.

Kicked the crap in what way? They used the same CPU's. Clones were the first to go to 1.44 meg floppies over IBM's 720K. Clones were the first to offer graphics. Clone were the first to offer sound cards. The list goes on and on.

Compaq's sold for a higher price than IBM's right from the very start.

Single source suppliers do not improve their product as rapidly as when multiple companies are all trying to trump the other. You're not a business owner or manager!! Monopolies are bad for driving innovation.

We were discussing open vs. closed hardware platforms. Theres always been a multitude of software developers for almost every computer ever made, not just a single source.

IBM didn't do well at all in the business market with their PC's. They sold well only for the first 2 years then plummeted. They could not compete with the clone market.

UM, ya, riiiight!! Apple, Commodore and many others all tried their hand at marketing to the business world and failed miserably. MAC's did gain some success in DTP applications but it was software developers that created that market with which Apple benefited.

Not so at all. People do not buy a computer and then go shopping for the software they need that will run on it. Instead people shop for the software that will do what they want and then buy the computer that can run it. The software selection has never been there for the Apple and never will as long as its a closed hardware platform.

Hmm...you really think the only issue people shop for in a computer is speed? Good grief!

Lower market share for a reason!! Had Apple been open platform prior to IBM's introduction of their PC then most would be running Apples or Apple clones.

The more you spend the more bells and whistles you get. Those boards also have USB. Say what you want but the numbers of USB ports and USB devices simply dwarfs Firewires. Why Tom? Please tell us why USB outsells Firewire on a huge level?

Thats exactly my point!! Firewire costs because it ISN'T open platform and it kills its market share. More money is dumped into improving USB than Firewire. More money is dumped into USB compatible devices than Firewire. For the very simple reason you just pointed out! Cost...Cost from being a close platform.

Superior? Depends on the application. USB can achieve 480mbps compared to Firewires 400. I do realize that Firewire can achieve higher sustained speeds. But thats at the cost of higher CPU usage. It all depends on the application being used. Yes, I agree it costs more and for the very reason being discussed. Had Firewire been open we'd see it everywhere instead of USB.

Kept up so much that they had to change to Intel CPU's huh? So they took a step down in performance??? Too funny.

That is complete BULL! Commodore killed the Amiga buy attempting to market it almost entirely for business. It wasnt until that failed they formed a new campaign to market it to the consumer. By then there were already too many others in the running to compete with.

A big reason the Mac only has a 10% market share. Great machine, no software.

Because it was cloned early on. Software developers didn't just develop for IBM.

All closed VS. the open PC platform. Which one won the battle huh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hahahaha, perhaps that is because the Mac used SCSI drives and if you think that IDE drives can outperform SCSI ......

Actually, you got it wrong again. They had the choice of a different RISC type processor and a different OS all together that they could have exclusive rights on and both were superior to what they chose but they chose not to. If you actually did a little reading you would see that they wanted to be a builder of this new machine, not the designer and set up to build this new machine with "off of the shelf" parts.

I think that you need to do a little more reading.

Do you?

Which is exactly what happened when they started off in the business world with their new PC.

LOL, why do you think that they lost Miles? You really need to do a little reading in the history of the PC.

Get real Miles. The early clones were disasters.

IBM built it as a business machine, not a home toy. And yes, they did make some mistakes and were short sighted but it was their name and the acceptance of their machine that made this what it is today.

I think that you need to look up the IBM PC-AT. You know, the standard that most machines followed until the ATX versions.

Did they outsell the IBM? What shape is Compaq in now?

You really have your head up out of your ass. I actually am a business owner and there is and was no monopoly in the PC world. Along with IBM, there was Apple, Comodore, Atari, and as you say, they all wanted a piece of the PC world and were all competing with each other to be bigger, better, and faster. Why do you think that M$ bailed out Apple when they were in trouble? Think about it.

That is not completely true. It is not just the number of developers, but the amount of resource being used for each platform that matters and the IBM PC had the most.

How do you manage with your eye's closed so tightly? If IBM didn't do so well, there would be no clones. Why clone a product that doesn't sell? That would be a complete waste of money. The fact is that the PC was accepted in the business world and there was both existing and rapid development of tools for it. That is the reason why making clones could be profitable and why the PC took off and Apple didn't. By the time Apple had enough software to offer competition, the PC was far to established and the two machines file systems were incompatable so people stayed with what they had.

You really need to do some reading.

Or upgrade to a computer that can run it faster. But you do make a good point here. It is not the closed system that has held Apple back, it is the lack of software for it. Hey, wait a minute... That's exactly what I was saying all along. I guess that you do know after all that being a closed system has nothing to do with it.

What does a closed platform have to do with it? Apple does not restrict software development on their systems. Programmers and software developers concentrate their resources where they can make the most money as any other business would do and that happens to be the PC with its huge market share and that happened thanks to IBM and the early acceptance it had in the business world.

As I thought, you got nuthin.

That would be ... WRONG!!!!! It had a lower market share in the business world because business owner were afraid of it going under and sticking them with a bunch of useless hardware and there simply wasn't software for it either and before it started to appear, the IBM machine came out and since they were a huge company that build those mainframes, they are the ones for the business to own.

Because it is in more machines Miles. We already went over this.

LOL, cost and closed platform have nothing to do with each other. Having a closed platform gives the ability to charge not a requirement to do so. Apple chose to charge for it and from the start was far superior to USB but at the time, most of the devices on the market really didn't need fire wires speed and even with NO further development it still can outperform USB II. If Apple gave it away, there would be no USB so the result was due to a bad business decision, not due to a closed system.

No, had firewire been free, it would be everywhere instead of USB.

Actually, you are correct. They did take a step down in performance and if you knew even 1/10th of what you claim to, you would know that. And they did it for what reason??? How about to increase the amount of software that can run on it. As you said, people choose the software first and then shop for the best machine that can run it. Now the Mac is one of those machines and it is gaining market share because it can run both PC and Mac software and Mac software has an edge in graphics over anything the PC world has.

Now this is complete BULL! The Amiga was years ahead of the competition in its graphics capabilities but there was still no software for it and none coming and no guarantee that Commodore would even be in business the following year.

Exactly, and it has NOTHING to do with it being a closed system.

Actually, when the IBM hit the market, there already WAS business software ready for it. That is another reason why IBM went with the CP/M derivative OS and machine, because existing business software could easily be adapted to it and as you said yourself, it's the software that sells the machine. Apple, Atari, Commodore, and the other didn't have it or the reputation that IBM did in the business computer world. You keep talking about cloning but fail to see why it was done in the first place.

You really are not as bright as you think that you are. The PC won because by the time it rolled out the door, it had IBM's name on it and had software that could do some of the jobs that businesses needed where the other were all no-names at the time and thought of a high tec toys without any serious software. It had nothing to do with either an open or closed system.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

SCSI wasn't created by Apple!! Bad analogy! Prior to Apples use of SCSI they used their own sluggish parallel bus. PC's have used SCSI as well. IDE was a much cheaper alternative and Apple made use of it as well. They follow the industry rather than lead.

BULL. IBM's 2nd choice was a version of CP/M. Digital did not get it ready soon enough for IBM's release. Shortly after the PC's release they did give the option of DOS or Digitals extended CP/M.

Ok Tom. You stated that IBM wasn't the first to create the DOS PC that our current PC's are based from. So who created the first DOS based commercially available PC that our current PC's are based on? Just which 808x system are you referring to that predated the IBM PC?
If you are referring to IBM being based on earlier 8086/8088 or even Z80 computers I suppose you could be correct. However, they mostly ran 64K CP/M with totally different architecture.

BULL! IBM's brand name died quickly when IBM tried to enter the consumer market. IBM had no clue how to market to consumers. They tried to do so in the same manner that worked well for the business market.

They lost because the held no exclusive rights to anything. Compaq didn't infringe on IBM's patents for instance. IBM had no consumer marketing skills and didn't realize that the consumer would opt for a clone above a PC with the letters IBM on it.

Compaq was a disaster back then? Good grief.

What are you smoking Tom? Clones had graphics and sound long before IBM's PC-AT/286 which originally lacked sound but did adopt the herculese graphics standard created on clones. By the term IBM PC-AT ou are you referring to the AT motherboard physical size? If so then again, IBM never kept up with the clones in technology and features.

HP bought Compaq for $25 BILLION. Thats no pocket change for a company that you seem to think didn't do so well. HP's own line of clones didn't do very well. They wanted Compaq's development team as well as larger PC market share.

No they didn't. Apple had a fairly large base as did Digitals CP/M long before IBM even existed. When IBM released their PC's there were clones out as well as hardware and software developers that jumped on and left Apple and Digital in the dust.

If it were possible to clone an Apple the market for Apple compatible hardware and software would grow fairly rapidly. Why? Because the controlled inflated prices of Apple PC's and clones would plummet and make it far more attractive to consumers. People like Apples. They do feel they are the better PC. They do not like the high prices.

Apple controls the price of their hardware. Find me an advertisement from an Apple approved vendor thats any cheaper than any other Apple vendor. They control hardware and the advertised price for it.

It happened because of the easy market entry of numerous manufactures to clone and support it.

EXACTLY!! Because Apple was/is single sourced. What happens to people who run an IBM or IBM clone if IBM folds up? Nothing! What happens if Apple fold up?

You are avoiding the issue Tom. It's in more machines for a reason. You think consumers just preferred it? Hell no. Manufactures could provide USB to the consumer at a lower cost than Firewire and it wasn't the component costs that made that so. It was licensing.

If they gave it away then it wouldn't be closed which is exactly what happened with USB. Firewire and USB were both developed by a consortium of companies. USB took a different route to market than Apple and won because of their decision. There are no royalties paid to implement USB yet the USB consortium companies make plenty of $'s from it. Do you understand how? Apple took their usual closed stance and the results show.

And Apple and the other Firewire consortium companies would have made far more $'s than they did with their closed platform approach. Maybe you don't realize who created USB and how they made a huge profit while making it an open platform. You think someone just simply gave away USB technology and didn't make any money off their invention?

There was no BUSINESS software for it and Commodore kept trying to market it to business and ignored the consumer market.

Digital Research was developing an extended version of CP/M to run on IBM's soon to be released PC. It would run the current 64K based CP/M applications as well and allow access to the full 640K. Digital failed to meet the deadline and IBM opted for MS's DOS which could not run CP/M applications out of the box.

The consumer couldn't give a rats ass about IBM's name on it. That is precisely why IBM failed at their own market and lost out to totally unknown names producing PC's that could run the same software as IBM's.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.