Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:07:12 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: tlambert2@mindspring.com, j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How did the MSFT monopoly start? Message-ID: <20010809130711.I73579@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <15217.45815.8133.991656@guru.mired.org>; from mwm@mired.org on Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:45:27PM -0500 References: <20010806142544.A64348@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <15214.52633.581653.632317@guru.mired.org> <3B6F98D0.A3C22CC9@mindspring.com> <20010808160551.Q78395@wantadilla.lemis.com> <3B7103A4.558B9B3B@mindspring.com> <20010808160551.Q78395@wantadilla.lemis.com> <15217.45815.8133.991656@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 8 August 2001 at 16:45:27 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: > Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> types: >> On Tuesday, 7 August 2001 at 0:29:20 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: >>> Mike Meyer wrote: >>> FWIW: In the original version, the IBM PC was powered by a >>> Motorolla 68k. >> Not in any released version. It's possible, even probable, that they >> played with it during the design phase. > > I vaguely recall a 68K powered IBM desktop box from that era. It > wasn't sold as a personal computer, but as a lab system. It was > *incredibly* ugly, and we referred to it as the "attack of the > electric tomatoes" machine. > >>> They switched to the Intel 8088 (*not* 8086, yet) because Motorolla >>> could not commit volume, and IBM wanted a license to fabricate. >> This seems unlikely. Where do you get this from? At the time, the PC >> project was just another pie-in-the sky project, an attempt to do >> better than the failed 5100. > > I don't recall the model numbers on the IBM machines at all. Could the > 5100 have been the lab machine mentioned above? I don't think so. It was billed as a personal computer. I saw one once in the late 70's: we were an IBM shop at the time, and they tried to sell one to us, in vain. IIRC it was an integrated box, keyboard, monitor and CPU, not expandable. > FWIW, the story about dropping Motorola due to Motorola not being > able to provide the volume that IBM wanted matches the hearsay I > recall from the era. I also heard that Intel made the commitment > knowing they couldn't honor. Hmm. Recall that IBM had no idea this thing would be anywhere near as successful. > There's an aweful lot of hearsay floating around about the early > days. I've tried to restrict my reminiscing to things I personally > dealt with or things from sources I thought reputable, avoiding > hearsay. I'd never heard the story about volume from a reputable > source. Exactly. I'm trying to do the same. But as you say, the hearsay was there at the time as well. >>> The 86 was later. >> The 86 was earlier. 1976. The 8088 was just a low-cost 8086, with an >> 8 bit bus, enabling machines to be made with a lower chip count. The >> processor core was almost identical; I think the only difference was >> the pipeline length. I suspect that the part count was what really >> caused IBM to go with the 8088 and not the 68000; the former needed >> only 8 memory chips (1 bit wide), the latter would have needed 32. > > Are you sure the 68K would have needed 32 memory chips? I recall the > 68K as having a 16 bit external bus, meaning it would only have needed > 16. Hmm. You could have been right there. It was definitely 32 bits internally, like the 8088 was 16 bits internally. Motorola weren't as generous with their data books, so I can't check. > Motorola eventually introduced the 68008 with an 8 bit bus, but I > never saw a machine that used one of the things. That rings a bell. >>>> FWIW, Gates sold IBM a product he didn't have. He then went out and >>>> bought QDOS - the Quick and Dirty OS - from SCC, which had written >>>> it for their 8086 S-100 boxes because Digital Research kept >>>> delaying CP/M-86. >> >> Ah, I missed this before. Yes, this is almost exactly correct. The >> company was Seattle Computer Products, SCP. The rest is exactly >> correct. > > I thought it was "Seattle Computer Company", but those memories are > over 15 years old at this point, so some failing is expected. Nope, Seattle Computer Products. I've just had one of their 8086 S-100 boards in my hand. > I never bought the thing - I went to a CP/M-68K system to transition > to 16 bits - but recall hearing people complaining that 8086-based > S-100 systems were pretty much useless due to lack of > applications. Which matches my experience with CP/M-68K. Yes. This is the real reason for the success of the IBM PC: it gave developers something to target. That's also the real reason for the success of Microsoft. > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> types: >>>> The machines came with an OS called PC-DOS. You could also get >>>> CP/M-86, the 8086 version of the previous dominant OS, but it cost >>>> extra without providing any extra functionality. PC-DOS came from >>>> CP/M-88 and MP/M-88. >>> >>> There never ware operating systems with these names. It came with >>> optional CP/M 86. I don't know about MP/M 86, but it's quite >>> possible. >> >> It was 80, not 88 or 86. > > CP/M-80 was the "previous dominant OS" I mentioned. Both Greg and I > agree that you could get CP/M-86 as an option for the IBM-PC. Others > have mentioned running CP/M-80 under an emulator on MS-DOS. I've done that too. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010809130711.I73579>