🚀 go-pugleaf

To: coco@pucc.princeton.edu
Reply-To: m.j.knudsen@att.com

>So, what's the scoop on IMS? I sense a great deal of animosity here
>regarding Paul. Did IMS keel over from finanical woes, or did he just give up?

I myself feel no animosity, just disappointment.  IMS (and Paul
personally) did go bankrupt over a damned good honest attempt.
Paul's personal life got pretty well trashed too.
I think what really broke IMS was the first company that made and
stuffed his circuit boards -- they really hosed it up.
Then AMD shipped him some wrong devices thru a distributor,
and then the distributor and AMD each blamed each other and
refused to make good on the parts (this held up the I/O boards for
months).

IMS had the best software hacker and the best Moto hardware hacker
in the country (both named Kevin) designing the stuff, and got
stuck with 10-thumbs Beltway Bandits trying to build it.

Paul also got screwed (literally un-screwed) by his case supplier.
Then there was his insistence on FCC approval, which resulted in
big delays after the FCC lab gorillas broke his sample machine.

The kits got around the FCC problem and helped steer the first
machines into us hackers' hands, which was the right thing to do
anyway -- let us iron out bugs and write some software before
marketing the box to "plain folks."

>I remember back when he was apparently running around trying to get
>software companies to port stuff, etc. I feel sorry for the guy. He

I feel sorry too, having known Paul personally.  He was a real
visionary with a passionate belief in what he was doing, and not
some jerk out to make a buck.  We OS9 freaks are crazy but we
aren't stupid :-)

He did succeed with one company, Microware, who gave him a good
license deal on Professional OSK and saw the MM/1 as a route into
non-industrial computing.

>did at least try to bring a very decent machine to the community, for
>a rather low price. I would have bought one, except for my constant

I'm still glad I bought mine.  Between the one-track mind of MSDOS,
the bulk and inefficiency of UNIX, and the prison paradise of MacIntosh,
I still haven't seen a computer I'd rather have in my basement.

The mix of features (SCSI, DMA stereo sound) was great and ahead
of its time.  The design was amazingly compact, and I've seen
hardly any glitches.

Some have accused Paul of marketing hype.  Hype comes from other
places too.  When Frank Hogg announced he would build his own
68070 box (the TC-70), I predicted this would split the market and
cause both sides to fail.  Others said there was plenty of room
for two or more vendors, lots of market, so be glad for the
diversity of choices, etc.  So who was hyping whom?
(DelMar's boxes were and are a great buy for the money too, but I
consider them different enuf not to be direct competitors in the
sense that the TC-70 was).

Speaking of fizzles, Frank's TC-9 Coco 3.5 didn't do anybody much
good either.  I think it was doomed the day they decided to make
it run DECB programs.