OT -- Looking to upgrade Computer

Page 2 of 5  


think
No shit sherlock but what does that have to do with anything? The fact is that while the PC and it's clones were comming with an IDE interface as standard, the MAC was using Apples version of the much faster SCSI.

LOL, How exactly is this an analogy? It is nothing more than a fact and an answer to your question.

And the PC was using the even slower MFM and RLL interfaces in the beginning. That is what's called development.

LOL, not really. While IDE was a much cheaper alternative, it was cheap for a reason. With the increases in speed and capacity of the current ATA drives, SCSI drives have moved completely to the high end and now cost around $500 and up with limited supplies while ATA and SATA drives are around $100 with much greater capacities. Apple moved from SCSI to ATA due to cost and availability of the drives, not to follow the PC.

RISC
Once again, you are wrong.

world
market.
You are correct but it was their success in the business market that created all fo these clones in the first place.

little
Exactly, and why do you think that is??? Perhaps because IBM designed the PC as an open system from the start so that they could build it from off of the shelf parts. I will agree that they were short sighted but that doesn't change the facts.

You need to get with the time lines Miles. In the beginning, the IBM machine was designed for business use and that is where it excelled. Sure, they tried to push it into the home market as well bit it was not set up properly for that. Even the clones didn't exist until IBM took off in the business world.

LOL, Compaq was far from the only clone on the market and they were not the first either.

the
first
list
that
If you think that AT only refers to the physical size, then I have to ask you what you are smoking.

The fact that they were bought shows that they were on their way down the tubes.

While true, if Compaqu was doing as well as you seem to think, it would not have been bought by HP.

but
IBM
Yes they did, as far as business applications went and did because the machine had the IBM name on it.

Apples had mostly game software and didital didn't have the name that IBM did. The home PC market was really nothing at the time. Mostly tecno-geeks and kids wanting to play games. Word processing required a printer that was cost prohibitive for home use at the time.

Are you now saying that the clones were out ahead of the PC itself???? Hardware means nothing without software as you have said yourself. The fact is that the IBM had the software it needed to make them sell in the business world and it and the clones branched out from there with the clones taking the lead in the home world due to improvements that also made them game capable unlike the origional IBM's.

the
was
closed
LOL, wrong again. There is much more to it than the price. There is also the incompatability issues between the PC and the MAC which is the main reason. Now that some of these compatability issues have been delt with, the market share of MAC's is increasing rapidly.

So what????? They are not all that much more expensive than a PC clone when you compare by features and performance. The software development is determined by market share, not by an open or closed system and IBM's rapid takeoff in the business world gave them an instant high dollar market share and thats where the developers went.

How old are you Miles, around 17? You claim to know a lot about business but then say things like this. While it may be easier to get in, nobody is going to unless there is a high potential to make money and that simply doesn't exist in an unproven system that wasn't selling as you seem to think. When they saw how well IBM was doing, they then decided to join the party and since they would have a hard time competing with IBM initially in the corporate world, they dolled them up with color graphics and sound to make them more appealing in the home market world. Unfortunately for IBM, many companies also saw an advantage with color graphics and IBM began to lose ground. By the time they got on the ball, the clones had improved and proved themselves at a lower cost. By the time IBM got on the ball, it was too late for them but if it wasn't for them and their name, we would all be programming on Apples.

business
them
Yawn, and when the IBM PC came out, it was also single sourced but nobody would ever think that a massive comapny that built many different products like IBM was going to go under.

LOL, customers really didn't have a choice.

bad
Where do you come up with this crap? They can give away the product and still maintain full control of it.

show.
Miles, you are just spinning yourself. All of these other companies that developed and implemented USB made money by either selling devices that utilized it or made the components required to implement it. Since Apple doesn't build many chips or peripherals, it would make no sense for Apple to offer it without royalties as then they would be giving it away with no compensation at all.

Stop acting like an idiot. I never said that anyone gave away anything but in actuality, that is exactly what they did because in an open system, that's what you have to do. As I said, IBM designed the PC to be an open platform and initially, they also made a lot of money but due to bad business decisions, they were unable to maintain it.

in
none
Then like I said, it failed due to bad business decisions and it had NOTHING AT ALL with it being a a closed system, thanks Miles.

software
derivative
Again Miles, IBM had a completely different processor and OS available to them but they didn't want another closed system. You really need to do a little research here.

because
LOL, that's the only reason that the PC took the top spot.

totally
Is this a Miles fact?
--
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:

Thats not entirely true at all. SCSI was available on the IBM PC right from the very start. Hell, my first PC XT Clone had a SCSI drive. The point was that Apple often follows rather than leads in quite a few areas. SCSI was already in use in computers long before Apple adopted it. Prior to this Apple used it's own very slow proprietary drive bus.

By follow I was referring to Apple adopting others technology rather than lead the technology development. Apple has created some decent hardware technology but their closed platform insistence that requires royalties kills it from being widely adopted in the industry.

No, they didn't want to spend the money for exclusive rights with the belief that nobody could compete with a product that had the letters IBM on it. This worked in the business market quite well for IBM. The same logic does not work as well in the consumer market. You also are ignoring IBM's attempt to stop cloning by using their ill-fated proprietary MCA bus.

Tom, you need to check out the time line yourself. The IBM PC was released in 1981. Columbia, Eagle and Compaq started working on their clone design immediatly and all had clones out the following year.

Compaq was one of 3 that were all released in 1982, 1 year after IBM. Yes, they were one of the first.

No Tom I don't but your statement that the IBM-AT was some sort of technology leader is well...mis-leading. The Clones were consistently ahead of IBM in features and capabilities. As I said, IBM lagged in sound and graphics BEHIND the clones.

Even so Compaq sold more PC's over the years than IBM.

Oh? How do you know? You think companies only sell if they are doing poorly? In reality it was HP that was struggling in their PC market. Compaq was doing rather well.

It was single sourced for only ONE year. When the IBM PC was released, Compaq, Columbia and Eagle all had already announced their upcoming release of their clones. Several hardware manufactures had already announced their component lineup.

Not so. IBM attempted to prevent clones with their MCA bus. They also tried to sue several clone manufactures in 1982..the year after IBM's release. Ya Tom, IBM really supported the clone manufactures!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

is
Really??? Care to back that up? While there probably were some cards available at a huge price, none of them had built in HDD support of any type and most went with MFM and then later RLL.

Sure it did.

It makes no sense to re-invent the wheel when all you are doing is increasing costs for no valid purpose and you should already know this if you were even half of the businessman that you claim to be. I really have my doubts about you.

SCSI was in use long before Apple adopted it because Apple had to develope and build it's own SCSI interface since nobody else was doing it (closed system) and then stayed with it because even the Apple limited adaptation of SCSI was far and away superior to what was coming on the typical clone.

It's all about the money Miles and you have no idea what they may or may not have been working on.

Which makes complete sense in so many ways and if you were actually a business owner, you would know this. Unless Apple were a peripheral or a chip manufacturer where they could make money from giving away their designes in the implementation phase, what would be the point of giving them to the competition? All that would do is cost them money and give away their competitive edge, not exactly a bright idea.

the
of
doesn't
I must say Miles, you really are too funny. Do you really believe this complete crap? IBM has been in business for a long time and was a major computer manufacturer long before the PC. Do you really think that they would be so stupid? Funny, they seem to have patents on everything else that they build. You really need to do a little more research and stop making yourself look like a complete idiot. I agree, they didn't think that their sytem boards would be stolen so fast and that others would be building complete machines so quickly with more features for less money but that is a risk that you take with an open system. They could have come out with a closed system but they tries that before and it was to expensive and failed to catch on.

I am well aware of their MCA bus. The problem is that the clone manufacturers stole (reverse engineered) IBM's bios and then changed it enough to make it not a copy and used it to steal IBM's system board much faster than IBM expected. Knowing that they did it and proving it are two very different things and IBM tried to cut it back by closing part of the system. The problem is that they waited to long to do it and didn't offer the features the clones did for the price. Like I said before, IBM had a bad habit of crippling their lower priced units to prevent a loss of sales of their higher end units and like you said, while that may work in the business word, it doesn't work so well in the retail consumer market and people went with the feature rich lower cost clones. Also, by then there were enough clone manufacturers that were compatible which significantly reduce the risk of going with the clones to businesses because if one died, there were plenty more to take their place.

LOL, one year is a huge amount of time in the PC world, even back then.

the
Being one of the first and being the first are not the same thing.

ask
Now it is you that has become misleading. Graphics adapters and sound cards were only jewelry on the pig at the time and IBM created the tech for the pig. All you seem to see is the jewelry and that really doesn't surprise me at all.

the
But that's about all they had and IBM still looks as strong as ever. IBM could have dropped its price to match or even surpass that of Compaq but what would be the point? They are in business to make money, not kill competition at a loss. IF it were me running IBM, I would have copied the clones on the features and sold them for 2/3rds of the price as the clones in the beginning to put most of them under, just like M$ does but the stuffed shirts at IBM simply didn't do it.

not
I know because Compaq was thinking of filing when HP made them the offer and they took it so they were nowhere near as healthy as you seem to think. HP was not completely flushed with cash either at the time and would not have been able to complete a hostile takover of a company as large as Compaq if Compaq was healthy and didn't want to sell.

nobody
products
And yet, they did amazingly well in that first year which is what caused the massive amount of clones to appear. Businesses are not going to committe massive amounts of money for nothing.

Which means what? Oh yea, nothing. Once again, you fail to show any business sense. Promises mean NOTHING when you don't have anything to show for it and they (the clone manufacturers) didn't. They could have come out with clones that simply didn't work (and some did just that) or were not 100% compatable. Would you base your business on unproven promises? I don't think so. The fact is that even if IBM dropped the PC due to poor sales, they would still be around to support what they had built which made going with the PC a much safer bet than going with the others whether the clones came out or not. Apple, Comodore, Atari, and the others couldn't make that promise at the time which is why the PC took off in the business world, even before the clones and that's what gave them their market share, not the open system. And starting off as a business machine meant a higher price could be asked for the software it ran which drew the lions share of the developers to the PC and away from the others.

They didn't support clone manufacturers and I never said that they did. They did create it as an open system so that they could build it from "off the shelf" parts which cuts their expenses way down and profits way up. They didn't expect others to jump in, steal their tech, and build complete systems so fast and tried to stop that but this is a risk that you take in an open environment and they made some bad decisions that cost them but they still created it as an open system. Perhaps what happened to IBM is why Apple remained a closed system and it was a smart choice to make.
--
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:

Yep, all 20mb's of it.

Totally different markets. IBM went into a market they had no experience in and did so with the same mentality that worked for their other markets...and failed.

Huh? You already stated earlier that IBM intended their PC to be open platform. Now you're saying someone stole it faster than IBM wanted them too? Thats an odd marketing plan...plan for others to steal it but only after a set amount of time.

Not for a totally new product it sure isn't.

LOL...geez, the first 3 clones out were within a couple months of each other. Whatever Tom! Columbia was first but they were a puny company with low sales, so was 2nd out Eagle. Compaq was the 3rd and sold nationwide rather well.

IBM created their graphics card and clone makers created their own shortly after...with far more capabilities. IBM then stopped their own production of graphics cards and bought Herculese technology.

Oh really now? IBM's PC sales stalled and they sold their line completely years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

LOL, get real Miles. They were in business a long time before this and know how to protect themselves.

I agree with you here but that had nothing to do with the clones or the fact that IBM designed it as an open system. Actually, the fact that they designed it as an open system and their lack of experience dealing with the retail consumer market is the primary reason for the success of the clones.

much
That is correct.

No, I said that others stole their tech and did it much faster than IBM expected. IBM expected companies to design their own system boards and that they would have to compete with them and just about any company in an open system has to expect that some of their tech will be borrowed (stolen) and used in some way by the competition but not to the level that the early clone manufacturers did.

Once again Miles, you really act like you don't know WTF you are talking about with your complete lack of real world business experience. They knew that they would have to compete with other system board manufacturers and other system builders with some of their tech being borrowed to do it as that is the way that it is in an open system but they didn't expect it to happen so fast and with basically outright theft of their BIOS and system board design.

Once again Miles, you show that you don't know WTF you are talking about. PC's were around for YEARS before the IBM PC XT hit the market. People (businesses) were just looking for the right product and the PC XT was it. Do you really need me to supply you with links for this?

And as I said, some of the early clones were junk. Even when Compaq came out, it didn't sweep past IBM in sales and if you think different, prove it.

cards
the
Which is exactly what IBM wanted and why they designed it as an open system, so they could build it with "off of the shelf" parts such as drive controllers, video, modems, and the like. Once again Miles, you prove all of my points for me, thanks again.

I was talking about the company Miles and I think that you knew that. Face it Miles, you are wrong here and I really just don't have the time to keep playing with you and making you dance.
--
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
i got it now.............you guys are practicing for "point-counter point" for the next edition of saturday night live, right?
just for fun, which one is dan and which of you is jane?
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@whatever.net wrote:

I think Tom is practicing to resurrect Rosannadanna's editorial commentary on SNL.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And sadly, even Rosannadanna's editorials have more business sense than you are showing.
--
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:

She made sense to you!
So tell me all about this business of yours anyways.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

When IBM created the PC in 1981 they entered a totally new market. Not only a very different computer market in business but also the consumer market for which IBM had almost no experience in dealing with.

No open platform PC. Not a one.

Where the heck do you get this stuff? IBM never ever built any of their early PC's with off the shelf parts. All of their boards were IBM. They did license some others technologies in their designs but there wasn't a single off the shelf board in an IBM PC. You just keep spinning and making shit up!

We're not talking about IBM as an entire company. We've been discussing IBM PC's and that market sector. Now you're talking about unrelated divisions of IBM? IBM failed miserably in the PC market and finally unloaded their brand name to someone else. All IBM PC's sold today are in name only. Nothing about them is actually made by IBM.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

know
Sorry Miles, but you are still spinning your wheels. They knew about the business computer market and the PC was not their first attempt or even first machine that they sold in the micro-computer area and nobody copied them but even still, what in the hell does that have to do with protecting themselves??? If IBM was a closed system as you think, they would have one every lawsuit because there could be no way that anyone else could create a compatible unit to it. Nobody was making legal duplicates of Atari 800's, Apple II's, TRS 80"s , Commodore C64's or Amiga's. Do you really think that all of these new companies knew more about building computers and protecting themselves than IBM. You are really sounding like an idiot.

Which means what?? Oh yea, nothing as usual.

system,
all
I look it up.. Do you want some links? Here is one of many for you. http://www.thepcmuseum.net/timeline.php?PHPSESSID 7e57187a3794c2f7bc42ff321564db Look at October 1981

That's because they didn't exist yet. Are you really this stupid? As I said, I really don't think that you are who you claim to be.

Yawn, Sorry Miles, but that would be you.

IBM was a huge success and the reason why so many of us own PC's instead of Mac's or some other closed system. The fact that IBM still exists even after the failure of their PC division is the reason for their success because companies buying them knew that they would not be SOL if the attempt didn't work out well. Like I said before, the majority of business were waiting for a specific set of conditions to invest in micro-computers and the IBM PC met them and was hugely successful and that and the open architecture that they set it up for lead to the massive number of clones. Face it Miles, you are wrong. Be a man for a change and just suck it up.
--
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:

Huh? I'm the one who stated that the IBM PC was an open platform. Hmm...get out of the spin cycle!!

What part of NEVER did you not comprehend? IBM NEVER used any off the shelf parts. That was YOUR claim that they did so. RE-READ your own post before spinning. You will argue either direction to suit your needs!

Tom, you stated IBM used off the shelf parts. Show me one such example. Oh wait, you can't because just above you reversed yourself 'because they didn't exist'. Good grief.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First, you say that IBM is an open platform and then you say that IBM did't intend for it to be one, talk about spin. What I said was that IBM designed the PC to be an open platform and the link that I provided and you deleted (imagine that) clearly stated exactly that. You OTOH, claimed that IBM built the PC as a closed platform but were too stupid to protect themselves and didn't paten anything which turned it into an open system. Now where is your proof or is this just another all to typically incorrect Miles fact?

Really??? Was it not YOU who said that they started using Hercules graphics cards. Even if they used their version, they didn't design it.

Once again, you resort to spin and lies. I said that they designed the PC with an open architecture so that they could build their PC's from off of the shelf parts. Just because it didn't happen the way IBM intended doesn't change the fact.

No, I didn't now either stop lying or back it up.

Read above and then show me one example where I said that they did.

It really is sad to see you twist and spin like this. It was a new system so how could any parts exist for it before it existed, LOL!!! But even thinking this way, where is your proof that every card and part in the early PC's were both designed and built by IBM? Like I said Miles, you really need to grow a spine and suck it up when you are wrong. You act far more like a pissed off 17 year old than the business owner that you claim to be and as I said, I have my doubts. This discussion has become pointless and now that you have deleted just about everything (lost on just about every point), I see no need to waste any more time here. Have a good weekend Miles.
--
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
Nobody was making legal duplicates of Atari 800's,

Having used all the above is it any surprise that nobody tried to clone any of the above. I remember in elementary school using trash 80's with the tape drive. and I had the Atari 800XL which was pretty much a game console with a keyboard grafted to it. The Commodore and the Amiga were little better as I remember And as much as I hate to admit of the bunch only the Apple was useful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jeffrey David Miller wrote:

Most of them were indeed cloned, especially the Apple II most notably by Franklin. The Amiga was years ahead of its time. Far more capable than anything else on the market at the time. It's trouble was the marketing dept. at Commodore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

The hardware is not a "closed system", which is what we were discussing. Keep up.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig C. wrote:

Apples hardware most certainly is closed. How many Apple clones are sold legally?
Even for a manufacture to include Apples Firewire port they have to pay Apple royalties. Not so with the USB which is open.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Hogwash. If the hardware was closed and proprietary as you claim, linux and Windows would not be able to run on the system natively. Apple's USE to be a closed system. Not anymore.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig C. wrote:

Google for "Mac BIOS" and you'll find that they don't use the standard PC BIOS. A Mac mainboard just isn't a PC motherboard, even if they can use the same intel processors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beryl wrote:

It's not the same Intel CPU's from what I've read. The microcode is unique to Apple.
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.