Re: History of computers (particularly A2gs)

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Jim.Low@logicbbs.org wrote:
>I recall, about 1984, the large government research area I was working in
>had a very large mainframe computer.  Various sub-departments and users
>brought in the various microcomputers, but most found the Apple II most
>useful and connected easily to the mainframe.  The Apple II had an excellent
>and very functional foothold as a tool working with the mainframe.
>
>Then it happened.  The mainframe was using IBM software.  In came the top
>sales force from IBM.  They walked right past the users and researchers who
>were using the microcomputers -- except for the one who had that silly IBM
>PC.  They invited him into a meeting with management.  Management knew
>nothing about computers.  They spent several hours in a locked room.
>
>The next day, a memo came down from management:  "Official department policy
>is that all PCs must be IBM.  We must stick with IBM."
>
>IBM took over the business world simply because they had the sales force to
>sweet talk management of IBM mainframe shops into using IBM PCs.

Agreed.  IBM took over simply because they were IBM.  Most people
that are not brain washed by propaganda and have actually seen both
the IIe and the PC (or XT) note that the IIe is an elegant design
while the PC/XT is a mishmash of off the shelf components.

The IBM PC back then was so bad that the Apple II could run PC
software better than the real thing.  I use a PC Transporter.  For
a long time, I thought that the slow disk access was due to the PCT
having to go through the Apple's slots and that it couldn't be that
bad on a real PC.  About a month ago, a relative sent me an XT clone
to upgrade.  That was quite an experience.  The XT accessed its floppy
and hard drives _slower_ than the PCT accessed its emulated floppy and
hard disk.

After seeing it in action, I can say that the IIe was a much better
computer, if comparably equipped.  A 1MHz IIe was often faster than
a 4.77MHz PC (due to differences in the clocking schemes of the two
CPU types).  An 8MHz accelerated IIe with 512K and a 20 megabyte hard
drive is MUCH faster than a 10MHz accelerated XT with a 20 megabyte
hard drive.

The documentaties tell it all: the IBM PC was an afterthought.  They
were goaded into the microcomputer market because the Apple II was
finally making a mark, with Commodore and Atari readying computers.
IBM had a long history of making mainframes, but they were slow to
accept change.  They did not really want to.  A PBS docummentary
that aired several months ago showed some of the folks that designed
the IBM PC say that it was a really ugly and rushed design, but
they had to build it fast.  Grabbed a bunch of off the shelf
components, slapped them together, and went to Microsoft to buy a
ripped off OS (MS-DOS).  When the computer's own designers trash
it, you know it was bad.  :)

I'm not saying that modern Pentium PCs are bad and I like using
the '486.  But these have come a long way.  The original IBM PC was
junk.

-Scott G.