your confidence in motherboard manufacturers is nice. nice, but very stupid. your own quote, as above, pretty much says it all.
abit "has so far" been the only motherboard manufacturer "to admit".....
you have shown yourself to be quite a fool in your short time on this ng sheryl. you have actually gone to incredible lengths to show yourself as a fool, but then everyone has to be good at something. never the less, you are really reaching beyond your normal bounds of stupidity with this post.
once again, you have shown how talented you are at making yourself appear as an ass clown.
In response to NapalmHeart 's post. I thought everyone should know:
Sad thing with kill files are if the person gets responses you still wind up seeing it. the only person i have ever successfully kill filed was the MI5victum crap. nobody ever responds to that so its like it never shows up =)
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.
You miss the point. PC-Chips sell the identical boards under several different brand names. Many boards you may purchase do not say ABIT or PC-Chips on them...but they are they exact same board, no difference. Just different box, labels and marketing.
Maybe, Abit has changed. But your statement "They have always been cheap low end boards" is a crock. So... which abit boards are now sold under another name?
AnandTech reviewers were recently irate when an abit AB9 QuadGT cooked some expensive memory. A second look, after they'd calmed down and the QuadGT's BIOS was fixed, had a different tone.
i think they just feel "liberated", so to speak. sometimes you become more than stupid. you become.........well, just very weird. sort of pathological like weird. like embarrassing weird.......although that doesn't even describe it well. sometimes you are like a bacterial thing.......i just want to wash my hands over and over to get rid of you. sort of like hannibal lector. anyway sheryl, you get the idea.
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.
Once again, you are wrong.
You are correct but it was their success in the business market that created all fo these clones in the first place.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where do you come up with this crap? They can give away the product and still maintain full control of it.
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.
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.
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.
LOL, that's the only reason that the PC took the top spot.
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!
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.
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.
Being one of the first and being the first are not the same thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.