End of an era for IBM

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Roger_Nickel, Dec 3, 2004.

  1. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    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...."
    Roger_Nickel, Dec 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 04 Dec 2004
    09:23:20 +1300, Roger_Nickel <> says...
    > 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...."


    IBM got out of domestic desktops here years ago, and have focused on
    corporate market ever since.

    Really this is just an extension of the intense competition that saw the
    demise of large scale local PC assembly in NZ and other western
    countries, and which has forced Compaq, Digital and HP to amalgamate
    their PC operations.
    Patrick Dunford, Dec 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roger_Nickel

    impossible Guest

    "Roger_Nickel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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...."


    And it sounds like HP won't be far behind.
    impossible, Dec 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Roger_Nickel

    impossible Guest

    "Patrick Dunford" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <> in nz.comp on Sat, 04 Dec 2004
    > 09:23:20 +1300, Roger_Nickel <> says...
    >> 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...."

    >
    > IBM got out of domestic desktops here years ago, and have focused on
    > corporate market ever since.


    This is a little different. IBM is selling off its entire pc business now.
    Granted, the actually manufacturing has been out-sourced for quite a whiel
    now. But this is still a big move.
    >
    > Really this is just an extension of the intense competition that saw the
    > demise of large scale local PC assembly in NZ and other western
    > countries, and which has forced Compaq, Digital and HP to amalgamate
    > their PC operations.
    >


    Yes, if you didn't think before that pcs and notebooks had been throughly
    commodified, this should end all doubts. But have a read of the article at
    http://www.nytimes.com, because this looks like more than simply an
    "extension" of IBM's old business plan to me. The company has apparently
    decided that the high-end IT development and service side of things should
    be its exclusive focus, and its willing to bet what amounts to 20% or so of
    its current annual revenue to prove that strategy.
    impossible, Dec 3, 2004
    #4
  5. In <> 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...."


    *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.

    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?

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
    http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
    ________________________________________________________________________
    No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

    Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
    Roger Johnstone, Dec 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Roger_Nickel

    Gordon Guest

    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 ?
    Gordon, Dec 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Roger_Nickel

    Gordon Guest

    On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:03:16 -0500, impossible wrote:

    > Yes, if you didn't think before that pcs and notebooks had been throughly
    > commodified, this should end all doubts. But have a read of the article at
    > http://www.nytimes.com, because this looks like more than simply an
    > "extension" of IBM's old business plan to me. The company has apparently
    > decided that the high-end IT development and service side of things should
    > be its exclusive focus, and its willing to bet what amounts to 20% or so of
    > its current annual revenue to prove that strategy.


    International Business Machines, or IBM
    Gordon, Dec 4, 2004
    #7
  8. In <> 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.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
    http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
    ________________________________________________________________________
    No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

    Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
    Roger Johnstone, Dec 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Roger_Nickel

    Enkidu Guest

    On 4 Dec 2004 03:33:16 GMT, Roger Johnstone <>
    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.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    --

    These twin-CPU hyperthreading computers are really
    great! We can wait ten to a hundred times faster
    these days.
    Enkidu, Dec 4, 2004
    #9
  10. In <> Enkidu wrote:
    > On 4 Dec 2004 03:33:16 GMT, Roger Johnstone <>
    > 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 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.

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


    Well now that you've brought it up... ;o)

    Beta was technically superior...in the 1970s. But the difference was too
    small for most people to care about and since then VHS recorders have
    improved markedly. Better picture, hi-fi stereo, and if you want to pay
    enough S-VHS or D-VHS. (Beta was improved too, but it was no longer
    competing against VHS). Not that it matters much now since both Beta and
    VHS are on their way out.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
    http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
    ________________________________________________________________________
    No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

    Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
    Roger Johnstone, Dec 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Roger_Nickel

    impossible Guest

    "Roger Johnstone" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In <> 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.
    impossible, Dec 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Roger_Nickel

    Richard Guest

    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.
    Richard, Dec 4, 2004
    #12
  13. Roger_Nickel

    AD. Guest

    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
    AD., Dec 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Roger_Nickel

    Enkidu Guest

    On 4 Dec 2004 08:26:13 GMT, Roger Johnstone <>
    wrote:
    >
    >In <> Enkidu wrote:
    >> On 4 Dec 2004 03:33:16 GMT, Roger Johnstone <>
    >> 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.
    Enkidu, Dec 4, 2004
    #14
  15. In article <> in nz.comp on
    Sat, 04 Dec 2004 19:18:15 +1300, Enkidu <> says...
    > On 4 Dec 2004 03:33:16 GMT, Roger Johnstone <>
    > 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
    Patrick Dunford, Dec 5, 2004
    #15
  16. Roger_Nickel

    Guest

    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."
    , Dec 5, 2004
    #16
  17. Roger_Nickel

    thing Guest

    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
    thing, Dec 5, 2004
    #17
  18. On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:43:19 +1300, 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
    Richard Hector, Dec 5, 2004
    #18
  19. 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.
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 5, 2004
    #19
  20. 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
    Richard Hector, Dec 6, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. badr

    Film print in the digital era

    badr, Jun 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    339
    Sander Vesik
    Jun 18, 2004
  2. Zimmy

    Another end of an era

    Zimmy, Jun 25, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    731
    Tarkus
    Jun 26, 2003
  3. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    515
    Allan
    Jan 5, 2006
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    747
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Andrew Koenig

    End of an era

    Andrew Koenig, Jan 20, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    583
    Twibil
    Jan 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page