Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > End of an era for IBM

Reply
Thread Tools

End of an era for IBM

 
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2004
"Roger Johnstone" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In <(E-Mail Removed)> Gordon wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:33:16 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>> Has IBM produced _anything_ that's been adopted by the PC industry
>>> since the PS/2 line introduced VGA, PS/2 mouse ports and 1.4MB
>>> floppy drives in 1987?

>>
>> Does it matter? They started it all, a one start wonder ?

>
> It might matter to a customer looking for a reason to buy, say, a
> computer from IBM instead of from Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Hewlett-Packard,
> NEC, or any of the other IBM PC clone manufacturers. If you don't have
> something to offer that the others don't then you're just selling
> commodity widgets, and the only way to differentiate yourself is with
> pricing or support, or spending lots on advertising.
>


Computers today are just that -- commodity widgets. Yes, the technically
savvy will always invest in custiom rigs. But for the most part, it comes
down to selecting a general category of use: there's a home/office widget, a
gamer widget, a multimedia widget, a server widget, a workstation widget, a
mobile widget, and so on. Same basic gear, just a few parts swapped around.
Does anyone actually hire a consultant nowadays to help them pick one of
these things? Or even a thousand of them? I think that's the question IBM
asked -- and answered.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2004
Roger Johnstone wrote:

> The problem with the PC evolution is that just a few years after it was
> started it was removed from IBM's hands, and now it's very difficult to
> fix all the things that are wrong with it, since it's almost impossible
> to get everyone to agree to do it. Why is it they can upgrade a platform
> from a 16-bit CPU to a 64-bit CPU, go from 8-bit slots to 64-bit,
> increase the CPU clock speed a thousand fold, land a man on the moon,
> but they can't get rid of freakin' IRQ conflicts! (Yes I know most
> people don't experience them now, but they still occur, even with a PCI
> bus and Windows Plug'n Play. A friend was having problems with an extra
> USB controller card in his PC last week) It's 2004, by now you shouldn't
> even know what an IRQ is, let alone have the least desire to find out
> how many you have or what's using them.



ACPI has solved this, but it is let down by frequent crap implimentations in the
drivers, and the insitance of chipset vendors to keep the legacy ports on legacy
IRQs and not even make them plugnplay devices. Dont blame the new acpi specs
when most of the driver authors cant stick to them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2004
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:18:15 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> And if anyone brings up VHS/Betamax, I know that the Beta was technically
> superior, but VHS is/was not that bad either.


The PC and VHS succeeded for the same reasons. They were the open
standards of the times, and turned computers and video tapes into
commodities. Betamax and most other computer platforms were proprietary.

If a technology has the right non technical advantages (eg production,
marketing, or control etc), it only has to be technically 'good enough' to
succeed over technically superior products

Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-04-2004
On 4 Dec 2004 08:26:13 GMT, Roger Johnstone <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>In <(E-Mail Removed)> Enkidu wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2004 03:33:16 GMT, Roger Johnstone <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>*snort* Remember when people predicted IBM would force Apple out of
>>>the personal computer business? The irony is that even though IBM _
>>>invented_ the IBM PC, for a long time now they've just been cloning
>>>the same 1984 PC/AT as all the other clone manufacturers have, with
>>>the occasional extention from Microsoft or Intel.

>>
>> That's because it is a damn good and flexible design. And it's had
>> good marketing I admit.

>
>Hmm. Even in 1981 the IBM PC design was considered ho-hum. I mean it was
>OK compared to the stuff around at the time, and it was one of the first
>PCs with a 16-bit CPU and >64KB address space which made it interesting,
>but it was also a straight-out-of-the-book design. Literally. Basically
>someone took the Intel "How to build a computer" manual, and built a
>computer. Not that there's anything wrong with that approach, I just
>wouldn't call it damn good.
>

The design goes back a lot further than that to the 4-bit CPUs. There
isn't really a lot you can do to improve it, apart from speeding up
the buses and separating out the various buses. Radical designs *have*
been tried - such a distributed CPUs each processing one bit. and
similar, but no totally radical design has survived.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

These twin-CPU hyperthreading computers are really
great! We can wait ten to a hundred times faster
these days.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> in nz.comp on
Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:18:15 +1300, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> On 4 Dec 2004 03:33:16 GMT, Roger Johnstone <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> >
> >*snort* Remember when people predicted IBM would force Apple out of the
> >personal computer business? The irony is that even though IBM _invented_
> >the IBM PC, for a long time now they've just been cloning the same 1984
> >PC/AT as all the other clone manufacturers have, with the occasional
> >extention from Microsoft or Intel.
> >

> That's because it is a damn good and flexible design. And it's had
> good marketing I admit.
>
> And if anyone brings up VHS/Betamax, I know that the Beta was
> technically superior, but VHS is/was not that bad either.


Beta died because like the PS/2 Sony fell down on licensing it to other
manufacturers
 
Reply With Quote
 
NOSPAM@NOSPAM.invalid.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2004
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 12:55:42 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> The design goes back a lot further than that to the 4-bit CPUs.


I find it interesting that Anything written for an OS designed to run
on the Intel 8086 CPU, and upwards, can still be run on the very latest
Intel/AMD CPUs.

When I was at school in 1981 I had access to a 4 bit pocket sized
computer with complete mini qwerty keyboard. It would have been hideously
expensive to buy, and was owned by the teacher responsible for looking
after the AV center.

It was capable of running a BASIC programme that could play noughts and
crosses.

Not bad for a light-weight pocket sized computer little bigger than an
FX82 calculator.


Divine

--
Micro$oft Knowledge Base: "This problem was first corrected in Windows 2000
Service Pack 2."

 
Reply With Quote
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2004
Roger_Nickel wrote:
> According to the NY Times, IBM has its PC business on the market.
> "..The sale, likely to be in the $1 billion to $2 billion range, is
> expected to include the entire range of desktop, laptop and notebook
> computers made by I.B.M...."


I do not think IBM has made money selling corporate desktops for years,
HP neither. About the only one making reams of money at it is Dell and
their prices undercut IBM/HP and have better specs and faster uppdates.
So IBM has seen reality, Dell suck at enterprise services and servicing
and the is where the % is and where IBM is.

Dell has shot itself in the foot over pricing in a way, it has not left
itself any bargining % when bundling/joining with 3rd party services, so
the 3rd party guys rarely spec Dell...

Pretty easy really for IBM, just tell your client buy 400 Dells and
we'll do the rest....

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Hector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2004
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:43:19 +1300, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> I find it interesting that Anything written for an OS designed to run
> on the Intel 8086 CPU, and upwards, can still be run on the very latest
> Intel/AMD CPUs.


Windows 3.11 won't install on my Celeron 366.

Well, ok, it will install in bochs, but I don't think you were
including emulators, and it's pretty much unusable ...

Richard

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2004
Richard Hector wrote:
>>I find it interesting that Anything written for an OS designed to run
>>on the Intel 8086 CPU, and upwards, can still be run on the very latest
>>Intel/AMD CPUs.


> Windows 3.11 won't install on my Celeron 366.


really?
what does it say?

It installs fine on my Athlon 1800+(1533Mhz)
not that it is much use... but still.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Hector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2004
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:38:48 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Richard Hector wrote:
>>>I find it interesting that Anything written for an OS designed to run
>>>on the Intel 8086 CPU, and upwards, can still be run on the very latest
>>>Intel/AMD CPUs.

>
>> Windows 3.11 won't install on my Celeron 366.

>
> really?
> what does it say?


Its a year or 3 since I tried it, but it locked up at some point, and I've
heard similar reports from others. I gather the PII was the cut off.

> It installs fine on my Athlon 1800+(1533Mhz) not that it is much use...
> but still.


Perhaps AMD kept something that Intel didn't.

Richard

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
End of an era Andrew Koenig Digital Photography 16 01-27-2009 07:31 AM
c / c++ : is it end of era ? shaanxxx C Programming 167 01-08-2007 12:36 AM
Samsung Heralds New Era of Entertainment; Shows World's First Mass-Market Blu-ray Disc Player at CES. Allan DVD Video 0 01-05-2006 01:18 PM
Film print in the digital era badr Digital Photography 2 06-18-2004 08:15 PM
Another end of an era Zimmy DVD Video 3 06-26-2003 05:23 AM



Advertisments