[Coco] The CoCo Crew Podcast -- Episode 35 is available!

[Deny Wilson]

IBM's failed architecture was called Micro Channel Architecture or MCA.

Back to Mark for a second: Windows 10 tried to reverse most of the damage
that 8 did (I still encounter that stupid paradigm on some of our servers).
Unfortunately, now that Windows is a service, I get a ton of ads in my
Start Menu, which is incredibly frustrating since I paid for Pro. Yeesh.
Anyway, I'm getting horribly off topic.

I still think, with the power of the 6809 compared to chips like the Z80
and the 6502, that had Tandy added hardware sprites, a decent sound chip,
and more colors, that they could have been more dominant than the other
8-bit systems of the time. I realize that all those things add to cost of
the machine, but honestly, had they done it, my favorite 8-bit system
possibly could have been more of a threat to the C64. Don't get me wrong, I
love my CoCo, but man.... what might have been. But maybe that's part of
the reason I love the CoCo, because it's an underdog system.



On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:52 AM, Rob Rosenbrock <bester at adamswells.com>
wrote:

> I don’t think IBM had an open system; at least not in the way we’d use
> that term today.
>
> IBM saw that people were using Apples and TRS-80’s on their desktops,
> alongside their terminals, and realized there was a market that they were
> missing out on. But there was also the idea that if people were using the
> desktops, they weren’t using the mainframe. Eventually, they realized,
> people would shift away from the mainframe environment where IBM made its
> money.
>
> From what I’ve read, they contracted the design of the PC to an
> independent hobbyist - I can’t recall his name, though. He used
> off-the-shelf components that were available, but details of the BIOS were
> not released. It was only through reverse engineering that Compaq was able
> to design the IBM compatible computer. Foolishly, IBM allowed Microsoft to
> retain the rights to MS-DOS, believing that it could only be used on a IBM
> PC.
>
> After the PC compatible market expanded, IBM tried to recover that market
> by releasing the PS/2 with the Microbus (?) architecture, which was really
> an attempt to move that market to a proprietary system that they would be
> able to control. Needless to say, that didn’t succeed.
>
> I’ve always thought that Apple’s early success with the Apple II was that
> it was open, with full schematics available. I recall seeing many add-in
> cards that were available to expand the Apple’s architecture.
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Francis Swygert <farna at att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Salvador hit the nail on the head -- the intro of the IBM PC (XT) was
> the nail in the coffin for all the other, smaller computer manufacturers.
> IBM had an "open system" -- they used more or less off-the-shelf components
> that were readily available, then published full specs so anyone could make
> hardware and software for it without special licensing or development kits.
> The exact opposite of Apple! That eventually led to headaches for IBM, as
> they quickly lost control of the market. That's why they tried to introduce
> a proprietary buss some years later... can't remember what it was now...
> that quickly flopped because no one wanted to go back to proprietary
> hardware. It (proprietary systems) worked for Apple all these years, but
> they never have had the market penetration of the PC Clones. Probably as
> much as IBM itself, but when they came out with that open system it didn't
> take long for other manufacturers to jump in and play! IBM legitimized the
> computer as a business machine, which is probably their largest
> contribution to the PC revolution.  Frank Swygert
> > Fix-It-Frank Handyman Service
> > 803-604-6548
> >
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>